Back to episode — Episode 2730 CWSA 01/24/25
Context —
quote miss where the error was on the side of Trump and conservatives? Because as I learned from Google, Zuck, and all regime media corrections over the decade, these errors always cut one way. A fair system would have misses on either side. And then Cernovich points out that the tech businesses still don't hire Trump supporters. Wow, yeah. And so that's exactly the right question. Now I think Sa…
← Previous segment →ry 6 stuff is really deeply into the political model. That's not exactly a common sense thing. And if you treat it like it's common sense, I think that's where you go wrong. So I'm going to give you the reframe that I think works best, worded the way I think it works best, in case you want to use it. So from a framing and communication and persuasion perspective, I think this is the best take that I've seen. Certainly the best one I've done. But I think it's the best one I've seen to explain why releasing the, what Jason referred to as the J6ers who beat cops. So that was one of his low grades for Trump, releasing or pardoning or commuting whatever it is the sentences of J6ers who beat cops. So that was the thing that triggered me to do a response.
So I'm just going to read it, and I want you to absorb it. So I started out by saying, quote, J6ers who beat cops is a misleading frame, to put it politely. I said there are people who already served more time than most people with similar offenses. Anything extra is political imprisonment. That's the right frame. But I'm just beginning.
So the start is that if they've served as much time as comparable violators of the law, even violent ones, even violent ones, if they served as much time in general but their sentence would have gone much longer, that much longer part is the political imprisonment part. And it's the only part that Trump forgave. He forgave the political part of the sentence, not the part they've already served, because they did indeed hurt people who in law enforcement.
Now I'd like to also give you some extra context. I agree with most of the country that if you do some violence to a police officer or a first responder of any kind, that should be a longer sentence. Is everybody on board with that? If the only thing you knew, there were no other circumstances, if you hurt a police officer or a fireman or anybody in the first responder world, that hurts society. That's not just the person who got hurt. So once you throw in, my God, are you making it impossible to have police if you're going to be hurting police and we're not going to punish you properly? No, that's a hard line. If you hurt somebody in that field of work, you're hurting me because I'm paying that person, and I don't want to pay the
Context —
m to be on disability. I mean it's not about money. It's about what's right. It's about what works. It's about common sense. So yes, a longer sentence, all things being equal, for that kind of thing makes sense. But the next part is, are all things equal? Is this just an ordinary, we've got evidence you hurt somebody, it's a police officer or somebody acting in that capacity? No. Here's the extra…
Next segment → →