Jump to content

Presidential Historian Notices Key Phrase in Trump’s Jan. 6 Speech That He Says Undermines Dems’ Case


Woody
 Share

Recommended Posts

LOL @ Unselect Committee.  :niterider:

 

jjkl.jpg

 

Presidential historian Constantinos Scaros argues the Democrats’ position that former President Donald Trump incited a riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is faulty.

Scaros, a history and political science professor at Grand Canyon and Colorado Technical Universities, shared his analysis while profiling his new book, “Trumped-Up Charges.” 

 

In the book, Scaros attacks ten false narratives about Trump often advanced by mainstream media.    

In an interview with the Western Journal, Scaros said: “I wanted to show people and set the record straight that 100 years from now, history will assess Donald Trump fairly as to what he really did and what he really didn’t. And that’s why I wrote the book.”

The book addresses the false claims that Trump is a “racist” and that Trump referred to white supremacists as ‘very fine people”—an accusation first heralded by candidate Joe Biden in the aftermath of a riot in Charlottesville in Aug. 2017

 

Scaros notes that context is key when considering someone’s statement to assess their character. Trump did say there were “very fine people” on both sides, but added, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Scaros added: 

“And if you do look at the context, [racism is] definitely not the case [here]. He was talking about very fine people who abhor racism and white supremacism just as much as anyone else, but they believe in the historical significance and the legacy of Confederate statues and so forth.”

“So he was talking about very fine people who want to preserve the history of the soldiers who fought in their state in those parts where those statues are up,” Scaros concluded.

The author contends that Biden knew the truth, but propagated the lie anyway.

“He counted on the American people being bamboozled by media malpractitioners who just put up clickbait headlines hoping the audiences are too lazy to really click and read the full story,” Scaros said.

The book also addresses the so-called “Muslim Ban,” the claim that Trump called Mexicans rapists and criminals, and the claim that Trump suggested members of “the squad” should go back to their own countries.

Scaros admitted it is not possible to know Trump’s heart, but asserts one can look at his record and what he said in proper context and disprove what many media outlets have reported.

 

Regarding charges that Trump is a racist, Scaros said:

“I worked in that same Manhattan he did,” Scaros said. “And the way I look at it is if I hated the sun, and I hated the sand, and I hated the water and I had millions and millions of dollars to do whatever I wanted to, I wouldn’t go to the beach.”

“So if this guy is a billionaire and he hates persons of color, etc., etc., he wouldn’t be in New York because he’s surrounded by people different from himself. That’s just my speculation about whether he’s a racist or not.”

And regarding the claim that Trump incited a riot or insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021—Scaros states that the claim can not stand up to scrutiny. Sacaros offered several reasons why:

At the Jan. 6 Save America Rally, Trump said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” 

Scaros notes that while Democrats focus on the words “fight like hell,” which Trump did use in that speech, the proper context of those words proves that Trump did not want violence. Scaros explained:

“When he said ‘fight like hell,’ never mind that just about every football coach in the world uses that term in the locker room. He immediately then said, and not many people talk about this, he said, ‘And you know who fights like hell? Rudy Giuliani.'”

“Now, did he really mean that this frail guy who was pushing 80 is going to scale walls and break through windows? Of course not. He was talking about Giuliani’s tenacity to achieve a goal. He was certainly not talking about physical violence and criminal trespass.”

During his remarks, Trump said Giuliani’s “got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights, he fights.”

Scaros also notes that Trump has too much political acumen to have wanted violence, saying, “Certainly he knows that’s going to hurt him. Trump did not want to commit treason or have any reason to believe a violent “insurrection” would have ever succeeded.”

Scaros concluded:

 “I think it’s important for Trump supporters to tell their friends and relatives, ‘Look, if you want to hate Donald Trump, hate him for things he actually did… Just don’t hate him for the things he really didn’t do.'”

LINK

 

 

 

  • Like 2
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol.. nice try

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Woody said:

No fact check?  Don't get lazy, Hip.  :niterider:

 

Van Zandt to the rescue!

  • Laugh 1

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, HipKat said:

There's nothing to fact check. It's just one person's opinion

Exactly like Media Bias Fact Check.

  • Like 2

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

Exactly like Media Bias Fact Check.

Umm, no.... That sand must be hard to get out of your hair

giphy.gif

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HipKat said:

Umm, no.... That sand must be hard to get out of your hair

giphy.gif

I think this settles your gay "fact check" site once and for all. All of these sites reference and circle jerk each other essentially laundering propaganda to make each other seem legitimate. You bought it hook, line, and the sinker is sticking out of your anus.

Phony baloney: The 9 fakest fake-news checkers

 

2) Media Bias Fact Check

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as "the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet." The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: "Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting" and, "Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence."

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt's byline. Ironically, the "fact checker" fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: "I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website."

Concerning his purported "25+ years" of experience writing for print and web media, he said: "I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the '90s. I felt that what I wrote in the '90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree."

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

"I can't say they have," Van Zandt replied. "Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on."

MBFC-banner.jpg

 

Van Zandt says he uses "three volunteers" to "research and assist in fact checking." However, he adds that he doesn't pay them for their services.

Van Zandt lists WND on his "Right Bias" page, alongside news organizations such as Fox News, the Drudge Report, the Washington Free Beacon, the Daily Wire, the Blaze, Breitbart, Red State, Project Veritas, PJ Media, National Review, Daily Caller and others.

"These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes," Van Zandt writes. "They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy."

His special notes concerning WND link to Snopes.com and PolitiFact.com, websites that have their own questionable reputations and formulas as so-called "fact checkers." (See the "Snopes" and "PolitiFact" entries below.)

Van Zandt says he uses a "strict methodology" in determining which news sources are credible, but his website offers vague and typo-ridden explanations of his criteria, such as the following:

VanZandt-categories.jpg

 

Asked if his own political leanings influence his evaluations, Van Zandt said: "Sure it is possible. However, our methodology is designed to eliminate most of that. We also have a team of 4 researchers with different political leanings so that we can further reduce researcher bias."

Bill Palmer of the website Daily News Bin accused Van Zandt of retaliating when the Daily News Bin contacted him about his rating. Palmer wrote:

"[I]t turns out Van Zandt has a vindictive streak. After one hapless social media user tried to use his phony 'Media Bias Fact Check' site to dispute a thoroughly sourced article from this site, Daily News Bin, we made the mistake of contacting Van Zandt and asking him to take down his ridiculous 'rating' – which consisted of nothing more than hearsay such as 'has been accused of being satire.' Really? When? By whom? None of those facts seem to matter to the guy running this 'Media Bias Fact Check' scam.

"But instead of acknowledging that he'd been caught in the act, Van Zandt retaliated against Daily News Bin by changing his rating to something more sinister. He also added a link to a similar phony security company called World of Trust, which generates its ratings by allowing random anonymous individuals to post whatever bizarre conspiracy theories they want, and then letting these loons vote on whether that news site is 'real' or not. These scam sites are now trying to use each other for cover, in order to back up the false and unsubstantiated 'ratings' they semi-randomly assign respected news outlets. ...

"'Media Bias Fact Check' is truly just one guy making misleading claims about news outlets while failing to back them up with anything, while maliciously changing the ratings to punish any news outlets that try to expose the invalidity of what he's doing."

But Van Zandt accused Palmer of threatening him, and he said MediaBiasFactCheck welcomes criticism. If evidence is provided, he said, the site will correct its errors.

"Bottom line is, we are not trying to be something we are not," he said. "We have disclaimers on every page of the website indicating that our method is not scientifically proven and that there is [sic] subjective judgments being used as it is unavoidable with determining bias."

 

 

 

 

Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
 

You just can't stop. 

WND.COM!!!
 

The VERY first line of the very first article on the main page;

Quote

Since President Donald Trump won the presidential election in November, there's been an explosion of "fake-news" checker sites, some cloaked behind a veil of anonymity.

Except Trump LOST the election so once again you use a fucking JOKE of a source to try and debunk me?? 
Massive amounts of laughter. 

Are you gonna release a Kraken on me next?

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW:

 

Analysis / Bias

Based on reviews by all of our researchers, WND is a Questionable online news source that has a far-right bias and dabbles in right-wing conspiracies such as President Obama’s birth certificate. They also use misleading clickbait headlines that do not always match the article’s content (See M. Allen’s review below). WND also has an abysmal track record with fact-checkers:

 

During the CoronaVirus outbreak of 2020, WND has been accused of peddling false and misleading information regarding the virus.

Several different media outlets have criticized WND for both promotion of white nationalism and peddling conspiracy theories. For example, the Washington Post and Columbia Journalism Review have written articles describing WND as Far Right and Alt-Right. Further, The Southern Poverty Law Center labels WorldNetDaily as an antigovernment extremist group. (D. Van Zandt 6/19/2016) Updated (12/16/2018). Below are the detailed reviews of each researcher.

WND is deceptive in that its news articles appear moderate and not overly sensational. However, Snopes has slammed them on many an occasion for parsing facts and using inaccurate data. In my opinion, this site, concerning news, is pretty deceiving as their outward appearances seem well-balanced (scam ads notwithstanding). When you take a look at their Opinion page, their true colors are more evident. This is not a reliable site by any measure for news, and the rest of the site is pretty much a rag. (F. Locke Siewert (2/25/2017)

WND is a decidedly right-biased site that does carry some center and slightly left content. This is through linking to reports from less biased sources—for example, Black students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The actual article is a fairly well-balanced look at the issue by Todd Richmond of the Associated Press. The lead-in line WND used for the article was somewhat misleading, however. Using white supremacists in quotes seems to imply that it isn’t a factor in the student’s demands when it is. Where the real bias on the site is evident is on the editorial pages and staff-generated articles. Although mixed factual, the wording is heavily weighted and misleading. Carrying some moderate content is not enough, balanced against the editorial stance, to rate WND anything other than right biased and Questionable. (D. Kelley 2/25/2017)

 

WND is far-right/alt-right. This story just came out.  Direct quote “The story, nevertheless, was issued by the AP, which explained it obtained an 11-page document that “calls for the unprecedented militarization of immigration enforcement as far north as Portland, Oregon, and as far east as New Orleans, Louisiana.”

falselink

The issue here is it doesn’t link to the source but another news outlet that uses the source that then links to the source there.  This is something you might find in a typical badly cited essay in college.  Always cite sources when referencing material.

The second issue in the article – “On Thursday, activists protesting Trump’s effort to enforce immigration law carried out a “Day Without Immigrants” protest in which immigrants were to stay home from work or school.

In Denver, some parents left work to take lunch to their children in public schools when the lunchroom workers took part in the protest.”

This is minor, but it shows a significant downplay of how widespread and national the “Day Without Immigrants” was. It shows clear bias in how they view said protest when you marginalize like this. A better solution is to not reference it at all to limit bias in reporting.

Screen capture of their headlines as of 2/17/2017

screen-wnd

We can see what they want to show the viewer first and what bias may or may not exist here in these headlines.

Firstly the “PUNKED! Congresswoman Falls For ‘Russian Hacking’ Prank” article is the same one seen on every right-leaning website out there, but not picked up by Fox or even Breitbart as of yet.  It links only to a Youtube channel. The same group of Russian “Pranksters” also called Sen. McCain.  If anybody in this country has ever tried to call a US Rep or US Senator should know, you’ll be lucky to speak to any humans.

This article is biased against liberals; however, it is sourced accurately, and the quotes are accurate.  Again I take issue with them citing a questionable source like Breitbart which is just citing the actual study, which they should link directly to.

poorlink

This image shows the Breitbart link but fails to direct link to the study – the site goes on to deride the lack of teaching US History in history course work throughout many “elite” colleges around the country. Ironically, they fail to follow a standard referencing practice you might learn at one of those citing primary sources only.

This article links to the Washington Times.  This particular article is decent in its reporting. A study was done; now, in the Washington Times, they reference other entities that decry said report about the illegal registrations. The ODC poll was used in conjunction with a separate poll by The National Hispanic Survey.  As per the article: “Inside the poll is a page devoted to voter profiles. Of the randomly selected sample of 800 Hispanics, 56 percent, or 448, said they were non-citizens, and of those, 13 percent said they were registered to vote. The 448 would presumably be a mix of illegal immigrants and non-citizens who are in the U.S. legally, such as visa holders or permanent residents”. As one can see from this, their use of the poll is a tiny sample set to gauge a very broad accusation.  However, this is just reporting what is being talked about and not make assumptions either way.  It could be argued either way that the poll is bad science or not. The most current narrative, especially from those of the right, finds polls unreliable and bad predictors. So referencing a poll conducted in 2013 and conjunction with a separate poll using different methods and then trying to make those 2 studies and polls work is dubious at best. However, ODC and George Mason are both well-respected schools. The issue of this article is the clickbait – “VOTER FRAUD” title.  There’s no actual case of voter fraud; there’s a case of possible voter registration errors, a felony but not a fraud. (M. Allen 2/25/2017)

Overall, we rate WND Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

 

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...