1722
Context
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2024
1722 points (93.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5778 readers
765 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-use-unmarked-vehicles-to-grab-protesters-in-portland https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/michael-reinoehl-killing-investigation.html
Evidence is light, inconclusive, but there. Which isn't unsurprising, given the "blue wall of silence." I'm going to lean on trusting protestors and reputable news orgs and journalists over the government and criminal justice system. Just like I don't think politicians in Russia just have bad luck with windows or coming into contact with poisonous substances.
This is as I suspected.
there is no longer such as thing as "reputable news org". For most online media, their sole revenue source are ads. Sensationalized articles generate more traffic. At best, you could say one org is better than the next, but that's not saying much.
this article provides no photo, video, or audio recordings to corroborate anything they've stated. Not even the interviews have an audio recording.
there is nothing in that article about Trump instructing anyone to abduct protestors in unmarked vans.
there is nothing in this article about Trump ordering US Marshals to assissinate anyone.
It frightens me how much of your own bias colors your judgement. You have drawn wild "conclusions" (for a lack of a better term) based on something that is barely consider evidence (evidence maybe, certainly not proof).
Meh. Absolute proof only exists in mathematics. You have to make inferences at some point. To me, my "conclusions" seem obvious. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If the evidence of Trump's character was only just one data point, I would just give them the benefit of the doubt. But, his campaign is promoting Nazi propaganda. He says he'll be a dictator on day one. The heritage foundation says a second U.S. revolution is coming, which will be bloodless, if the "left" doesn't fight back. There's just so much evidence of Trump's character, and the far-right's stated plans, the "conclusion" os inescapable. Anyone who says otherwise is just putting on blinders or being willfully ignorant, IMO.
Your hatred for Trump is blinding you to other, more likely conclusions. These individuals could have just as easily acted on their own. Or, since the man who was killed murdered a man not long before his own death, it could have all gone down as the police stated (though the lack of video from any vehicle or body came is odd).
If you would simply admit to this, it would be unfortunate, but the fact that you've convinced yourself you have come to the right conclusion, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is ignorant, is frightening. I would encourage you to perform some level of self reflection, using this situation as an example.
The actual facts are this: there is zero evidence Trump ordered anyone kidnapped into unmarked vans, and there is zero evidence he ordered anyone to be killed. Now, that doesn't mean other people didn't give these orders, but there is no evidence of that either.
Please stop spreading false information and propaganda. All your doing is adding to the culture war. Trump has done plenty of heinous shit in his life. No need to make stuff up.