What really happened on January 6th

[Buy1Sell2]

Here's what really happened on Jan 6--

A plan was hatched to distract from the objections that would be raised by Republicans during the Electoral College vote count. This involved sending Kammy to the DNC which they did do. She was not at The Capitol during the vote count. Then, as Republicans would get their objections granted and the massive evidence of a stole election would start to be revealed, a distraction would be created by discovering pipe bombs at The DNC and this divergence blamed on MAGA would create chaos and let Dems push for just certifying the vote to end the mess. However, they didn't count on the riot that occurred at The Capitol, made up mostly by non-MAGA folks. Thus, the distraction/divergence plan never needed to be implemented.

 

[Tuxan]

Here's what really happened on Jan 6--

A plan was hatched to distract from the objections that would be raised by Republicans during the Electoral College vote count. This involved sending Kammy to the DNC which they did do. She was not at The Capitol during the vote count. Then, as Republicans would get their objections granted and the massive evidence of a stole election would start to be revealed, a distraction would be created by discovering pipe bombs at The DNC and this divergence blamed on MAGA would create chaos and let Dems push for just certifying the vote to end the mess. However, they didn't count on the riot that occurred at The Capitol, made up mostly by non-MAGA folks. Thus, the distraction/divergence plan never needed to be implemented.

You just broke a large language model AI trying to process that.

 

[Tuxan]

After multiple retry attempts it finally coughed up a furball. Probably had to wait for additional power reserves to process it.

"When engaging with someone who holds such deeply held views, especially when they're rooted in conspiracy theories or misinformation, it's important to be patient and empathetic. Here are a few strategies you can use to respond constructively:

1. Acknowledge their feelings: Start by acknowledging their passion, which shows that you're listening and not dismissing them outright.

"I can see you're really passionate about this, and it's clear you care deeply about what happened."



2. Encourage critical thinking: Ask gentle questions that help them reflect on the information they've received, without confronting them directly.

"I’m curious, where did you hear this version of events? Have you checked out other sources to see how they compare?"



3. Shift focus to facts: You could introduce verifiable facts without being confrontational. Mention that multiple courts, including those with Trump-appointed judges, found no widespread election fraud, and that January 6 was widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats.

"I’ve read that even Trump's legal team wasn’t able to provide any evidence of a stolen election in court. It seems like there’s a lot of conflicting information out there."



4. Focus on the importance of democracy: Reinforce the value of the democratic process, including the right to contest elections legally.

"One thing I think we can all agree on is that it's important for the system to work fairly, and if there are disagreements, they should be handled through the courts and legal channels."



5. Encourage conversation, not debate: If the person feels like you’re attacking their beliefs, they may shut down. Instead, keep the conversation open by saying you’re trying to understand more, and invite them to look at a broader range of sources.

"I’m trying to get a full picture of what happened that day. What sources are you relying on? I’ve read some different things, and I’d be happy to share them if you’re interested."




The goal isn’t to convince them outright in one conversation but to plant seeds of doubt in a way that respects their autonomy and dignity. Such a strong break with objective reality should be treated with compassion."

 

[Tuxan]

Well I asked Chat GPTo the most advanced model instead to make same argument more reasonable but it couldn't. And apologized.

"
Yeah, there's only so much you can do to make something like that sound reasonable, given the nature of the theory itself. The best you can do is to clean up the language for coherence, but it’s tough to remove the "crazy" without altering the core. Sometimes, it’s not about how it's said, but what's being said!
"

 

[Atlantic]

After multiple retry attempts it finally coughed up a furball. Probably had to wait for additional power reserves to process it.

"When engaging with someone who holds such deeply held views, especially when they're rooted in conspiracy theories or misinformation, it's important to be patient and empathetic. Here are a few strategies you can use to respond constructively:

1. Acknowledge their feelings: Start by acknowledging their passion, which shows that you're listening and not dismissing them outright.

"I can see you're really passionate about this, and it's clear you care deeply about what happened."



2. Encourage critical thinking: Ask gentle questions that help them reflect on the information they've received, without confronting them directly.

"I’m curious, where did you hear this version of events? Have you checked out other sources to see how they compare?"



3. Shift focus to facts: You could introduce verifiable facts without being confrontational. Mention that multiple courts, including those with Trump-appointed judges, found no widespread election fraud, and that January 6 was widely condemned by both Republicans and Democrats.

"I’ve read that even Trump's legal team wasn’t able to provide any evidence of a stolen election in court. It seems like there’s a lot of conflicting information out there."



4. Focus on the importance of democracy: Reinforce the value of the democratic process, including the right to contest elections legally.

"One thing I think we can all agree on is that it's important for the system to work fairly, and if there are disagreements, they should be handled through the courts and legal channels."



5. Encourage conversation, not debate: If the person feels like you’re attacking their beliefs, they may shut down. Instead, keep the conversation open by saying you’re trying to understand more, and invite them to look at a broader range of sources.

"I’m trying to get a full picture of what happened that day. What sources are you relying on? I’ve read some different things, and I’d be happy to share them if you’re interested."




The goal isn’t to convince them outright in one conversation but to plant seeds of doubt in a way that respects their autonomy and dignity. Such a strong break with objective reality should be treated with compassion."

or simply kick 'em in the nuts.

 

[Tuxan]

or simply kick 'em in the nuts.

Yeah, these AIs are Councillor Deanna Troy on steroids. Simple fact is that people like B1 are the reason Japan had to be nuked. Twice.

Talking nice, not always a solution.

 

[El OchoCinco]

Haaa we knew B1 was acoustic...now we know he is.completely unoriginal and uses AI to.come up with his diarrhea

 

[wildchild]

Here's what really happened on Jan 6--

A plan was hatched to distract from the objections that would be raised by Republicans during the Electoral College vote count. This involved sending Kammy to the DNC which they did do. She was not at The Capitol during the vote count. Then, as Republicans would get their objections granted and the massive evidence of a stole election would start to be revealed, a distraction would be created by discovering pipe bombs at The DNC and this divergence blamed on MAGA would create chaos and let Dems push for just certifying the vote to end the mess. However, they didn't count on the riot that occurred at The Capitol, made up mostly by non-MAGA folks. Thus, the distraction/divergence plan never needed to be implemented.

It doesnt matter, the sheep will always believe the establishments bullshit. They say that they want proof, but proof is already publicly available and well known. They just refuse to acknowledge it. These are the same people that think Kamala Harris won the democrat nomination through a democratic process. You cannot reason with people who think that and no amount of evidence is going to change their mind.

 

[trading_jean]

You just broke a large language model AI trying to process that.

View attachment 349576

One of the rare posts here that actually made me lol. Thanks for that.

People like B1S2, WC, FT etc fascinate me, I hate to admit it but I often find myself trying to imagine how they and their lives look like when reading their posts. Only thing I can be reasonably sure of is they never had higher education or have a career in corporate but for the rest anything is possible I guess.

 

[Tuxan]

It doesnt matter, the sheep will always believe the establishments bullshit. They say that they want proof, but proof is already publicly available and well known. They just refuse to acknowledge it. These are the same people that think Kamala Harris won the democrat nomination through a democratic process. You cannot reason with people who think that and no amount of evidence is going to change their mind.

The mistake is thinking that the fifteen million vote primary was ever pure democracy. It was an internal party mechanism, and the available candidates were strongly influenced by senior party leaders.

There wasn’t a 'coup' against democracy, but rather the party working within it's own framework.

The Democratic and Republican parties, while central to U.S. politics, are private organisations. They set their own rules for selecting candidates and are not fully bound by the same democratic principles that govern public elections. In that sense, they're more like private parliamentary parties in the UK, where leadership decisions often happen internally, though they still involve public participation.

Kamala Harris, as vice president, had a strong position within the party when Biden stepped down. She benefitted from the existing campaign infrastructure, campaign funds legally tied to her as VP, fundraising networks, and support from key party figures including Biden.Even before Biden was officially nominated in 2020, Harris raised significant funds quickly, which gave her a major advantage and dissuaded potential challengers.

As always, party leaders play a key role in shaping the outcome. They chose to streamline the process by rallying around her, rather than holding a prolonged primary.

Once you understand that Republican and Democratic party elites have the power to influence who becomes the nominee, you'll see that primaries aren’t purely democratic, they're tools within the party’s system.

If you win the inside game and secure key endorsements and resources, you greatly improve your chances of winning the nomination. As Joe did becoming the presumpltive nominee for 2024, he put down possible challengers same as Trump did, not too democratic but lawful.

Had Biden already been formally confirmed, the process would’ve been more difficult. But they can cut their pie most any way they wish, and while it may seem unconventional, it’s still legal. As Trump taught everybody, don't mistake norms for laws.