Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It doesn't matter....regular people have both these things too. This isn't why we are programmed to believe "regular people". We believe "regular people" because we naturally gravitate to those who have a similar world view and reject those that don't. This is all an exercise in confirmation bias.
We dont actually know this to be true since it was anonymous. Law enforcement official could have been the janitor. They arent always honest with the titles they give to sources.
The times said he had a gash on his forehead ffs. I think the family would have seen that.
Your faith in the media is truly astounding when they've proven over and over that they are not only perfectly capable of lying, most do it as their jobs.
Better to just assume they lied about law enforcement officials and claim it was someone outside the station or a janitor. That way you can bash the media source all you want.
The issue, IMO, is that people are not just questioning the NYT; they're calling the police liars. And they're hiding behind the tired "bash the mainstream media" trope to do it.
When it's shown that a source lied, then they no longer need to be anonymous. "Law enforcement officials" also don't need to be anonymous when reporting a public incident. Who's identity are we hiding here?
There are many legitimate reasons for "law enforcement officials" to justifiably remain anonymous when sourcing information. The very fact that keyboard warriors think it's no big deal to dox sources is one of them.
Who are we doxing? A public official that put out false information that caused more unrest in the public. From what I understand, that's an impeachable offense according to you.
Well, you're kind of proving my point here. You want to go after cops because you feel that "unrest" was caused? That's really dangerous rhetoric. Who gets to decide what "unrest" is, anyway? If one guy claims he feels unrest, but another guy claims he doesn't, do they cancel each other out? What if we dox a cop and that leads to even more unrest?
There is no attack on the police from me. This is holding the media accountable for shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Either they lied or their sources did.
You proclaimed that Sicknick's death wasn't caused by the riot. It's a direct contradiction of law enforcement statements. Cloaking the attack in media criticism doesn't change that.
Law enforcement statements said he was struck by a fire extinguisher, had a gash on his head and later died from his injuries. Turns out he wasn't struck by a fire extinguisher, didn't have a gash on his head but still died a day later. That's a pretty big discrepancy to make.
Sorry to jump in but why are people so hung up on this one part of the events that day?
I'm not talking about the NY Times source. I'm talking about the official police statement (here).
It's standard playbook for conspiracies. If you can dispute one fact, then you can imply that the rest of the facts must be wrong as well. And once you do that, then you can shift blame away from the Trump supporters.
Yea we're done discussing things if that's your angle. Questioning the authenticity of a media created story is not undermining law enforcement. You know this but carry on.
Because the officers "murder" was pushed as the flag for impeachment and the lynch pin of this being an organized insurgency. To find out that it didnt even happen and that he died of a stroke a day later completely changes the narrative.
Do you even realize that you're not just questioning the media-created story, but questioning the official police statement as well?
Just because something didn't happen exactly the way that some media outlets reported it, that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
So you don't think Trump gets impeached a 2nd time if the police officer doesn't die? That's nuts!
Really?
I'm not saying they wouldn't have still done it but he was given a memorial in the Capitol and presented as if he was a fallen soldier defending freedom. The lie about him being beaten to death by rioters was used numerous times in the arguments made during the impeachment trial.
This has been covered a ton and frankly I skipped over a lot of it. But want the story corrected very early on.
Do you honestly believe that if impeachment managers had said "He died as a result of being attacked by rioters", that it would have changed a single thing about the outcome of the impeachment? Do you think that the officer wouldn't have been given a memorial??
You are saying only if this wasn’t reported incorrectly that Trump shouldn’t have or wouldn’t have been impeached.
How do we know any law enforcement said anything. Are they using original sourcing or maybe it was second hand. The New York Times tends to be looser with their facts when the facts support their narrative.
He probably woukd not have. Reporting it as an armed insurgence when the only 'arms' used was a flag pole. Reporting it as a deadly assault, when it is not known if the protestors/rioters directly cause a single death. Calling it a well organized attack, when that is really only a few kooks making some internet posting which 99.9 percent of the protestors never saw. Characterizing the mob breeching barracades when there were really no barracades put up. The failure of the day lays nearly 100 percent in the laps of those in charge of security for failing to prepare for a situation which was broadcasted a month in advance.You are saying only if this wasn’t reported incorrectly that Trump shouldn’t have or wouldn’t have been impeached.
Come on
They broke into the Capitol at the urging of Trump. That in and of itself is beyond the pale, and those who broke in should face significant jail time.
Trump told them to peacefully excercize their first amendment rights and be heard. He never told anyone to break into the capitol.
He peddled the lie that the election was stolen, told his supporters to March on the Capitol to “stop the steal,” in this case meaning interfere with the processing of an election that he clearly lost.
People rioting to stop the process at the Capitol because the president makes up a bunch of crap about the election stolen from him is impeachable.
That statement also says they are investigating.
The list of Republicans who agree with this is long. The list of Republicans who agree and have a spine is much smaller.
oh look another nyt story with unnamed sourcing.
well i am convinced!
SeaDuck batting average zero.
Wat? The police statement didn't say that they knew his exact cause of death. There's no need to twist words here.
