While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds". In fact - at least as I have come to understand what happened on that day - the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation. Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged. Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say. But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place. In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters". I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
>>While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds"
There were close to 1,600 people charged with crimes for their actions during the U.S. Capitol attack. Over 400 of them assaulted police officers. Another 200 were resisting arrest or otherwise interfering with police officers. Those numbers don't include many more individuals who were filmed but never identified.
>>the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation.
You could use that excuse for literally any riot. They almost always start out as some kind of protest. That doesn't given anyone license to resort to violence and criminality.
>>Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged.
Literally none of those people were locked up for years without being charged.
>>Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say.
It's because he didn't care, Bill. He freed everyone who broke the law in his name that day, including seditionists, child molesters, cop-beaters, and sex traffickers. It didn't matter to him.
>>But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place.
Why on earth not? Why should anyone who broke the law that day get a pass?
>>In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters".
Thousands of ANTIFA and BLM rioters were charged with crimes, including arson.
>>I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right,
Then why are you saying the vast mast majority of people who committed crimes on January 6 should have never been charged in the first place?
>>but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
You believe Trump granted pardons to almost 1,600 criminals, because other people rioted that year? How does that make any sense.
Trump pardoned those people because the crimes they committed were in support of him.
Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing. Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,” labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,” and presenting disputed claims as settled fact tells you the Mr. Goldberg's conclusion was decided before the article was written.
The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies — not simply because of Trump’s “ego.” You can disagree with those concerns without pretending they were invented out of thin air.
And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether Mr. Goldberg wants to acknowledge it or not.
Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
>>Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing.
Mr. Goldberg didn't write this column. I did.
I'm no partisan (I have enormous problems with both sides and belong to neither party), but this is absolutely an opinion piece (as is every column on this website). And it's based on facts. The only assumptions I've suggested are also based on facts, which I described in detail.
>>Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,”
That is my honest, entirely defensible view of him.
>>labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,”
I said "and" cartoon villains. If it matters, I had people like George Santos in mind with that verbiage (though I suppose the J6er dressed like a viking would work as well).
>>and presenting disputed claims as settled fact
What's disputed? That Biden won the 2020 election? Sorry, but he did. The facts have long made that clear. Those who dispute it don't have the facts on their side.
>>The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies
People questioning pandemic-era rule changes (which favored no candidate over the other) has never been my beef. My beef is with those who deny that Biden won. They don't have the facts on their side.
>>not simply because of Trump’s “ego.”
If Trump (who was told by everyone around him, including his AG, that he absolutely lost) had admitted defeat and conceded the race like every other losing presidential candidate, there would have never been any meat behind this "stop the steal" nonsense. It would have been as impotent and harmless as the Al Gore stuff in 2000. What happened (and continues to happen) is directly due to Trump's actions.
>>And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether the author wants to acknowledge it or not.
I have no such double standard. I've called out all of these groups. But the fact of the matter is that no president and no DOJ set up a taxpayer fund to reward Antifa or BLM rioters. Nothing even close to that.
>>Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
Again, I wrote this. And both Bernie and I have called out corruption on both sides - many times. Why are you suggesting otherwise?
You say you’re “not partisan,” yet the entire article reads through one political lens while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty. That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals. Millions questioned the unprecedented rule changes, mass mail voting expansions, media suppression stories, court refusals to hear cases on procedural grounds, and uneven election standards between states. Reasonable people can acknowledge Biden was certified the winner while still believing the process deserved scrutiny.
As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump ignores years of election denial rhetoric from both parties. Democrats challenged 2000, 2004, and 2016 in various ways, with claims of illegitimacy, foreign interference, voter suppression, or “not my president” movements. Election skepticism did not suddenly appear in 2020.
And regarding January 6 versus the 2020 riots: your distinction is technically true — there wasn’t a federal compensation fund for BLM or Antifa rioters. But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity. Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
>>yet the entire article reads through one political lens
What political lens is that? Is it your belief that any criticism of Trump or the Trump administration is a Democratic position? If so, aren't you the one who's revealing yourself as a partisan?
>>while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty.
What opposing concerns have I dismissed? If you're talking about the ones that don't have a factual basis (or have outright been debunked by the facts) why do you believe it is incumbent on me to entertain those positions as legitimate, good-faith concerns?
>>That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
Who or what am I advocating for?
>>You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals.
LOTS of "stop the steal" people have focused on the vote totals. It was the entire basis of the movement: That Trump actually won -- that he got more votes than Joe Biden, especially in the Republican-led swing-states. There are additional branches that people climbed out on, but the basis for the whole thing was Trump won, and Biden stole the election.
>>As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump
Who's pretending that? Government distrust has been with us since our founding, as have concerns over election integrity. Trump went FARRRRRR beyond that. As President of the United States, he declared, in no uncertain terms, that the election had been stolen. He tried to stay in power after his defeat, and he pushed and pushed the "stop the steal" crap until the U.S. Capitol came under attack, police got the crap beat out of them, and lawmakers were running for their lives. And he's STILL pushing it.
>>But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
I don't disagree with any of that. And I've called a lot of it out. But that doesn't give Trump any kind of pass with me, nor should it with anyone.
>>Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity.
Why? Is there any objective argument, in your view, that Trump is not a narcissist? Have you not seen overwhelming evidence of that over at least the last 10 years? (Do you really need me to list examples?) And if you concede that he's a narcissist, do you not believe he's a higher degree of one than your average narcissist? If a Democrat acted EXACTLY the same way he does, my guess is that you wouldn't object one bit to me calling him or her a malignant narcissist.
>>Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
Other than your belief that I should be entertaining factually false claims as good-faith concerns, and abstain from using defensible (albeit unflattering) phrases to describe Donald Trump, what about my analysis do you believe is unfair? And why is there an assumption that I haven't strongly criticized Democrats?
I hope you will provide specific details on how I and thousands of others can apply for our fair share of the Trump fund. We are absolutely political victims in this sad saga. For myself, I don't sleep well because I "feel" I can no longer trust the federal government at all. I need to be financially compensated!
While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds". In fact - at least as I have come to understand what happened on that day - the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation. Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged. Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say. But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place. In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters". I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right, but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
>>While I would grant you that there were some bad dudes involved in the January 6th capitol “riots” I seriously doubt there were "hundreds"
There were close to 1,600 people charged with crimes for their actions during the U.S. Capitol attack. Over 400 of them assaulted police officers. Another 200 were resisting arrest or otherwise interfering with police officers. Those numbers don't include many more individuals who were filmed but never identified.
>>the vast majority of those January 6th “rioters” were just regular folks who got caught up in the situation.
You could use that excuse for literally any riot. They almost always start out as some kind of protest. That doesn't given anyone license to resort to violence and criminality.
>>Joe Biden's handlers kept most of these locked up for years without being charged.
Literally none of those people were locked up for years without being charged.
>>Why Trump couldn't have filtered out the bad apples from his blanket pardon, I can't say.
It's because he didn't care, Bill. He freed everyone who broke the law in his name that day, including seditionists, child molesters, cop-beaters, and sex traffickers. It didn't matter to him.
>>But IMHO the vast majority should have never been charged in the first place.
Why on earth not? Why should anyone who broke the law that day get a pass?
>>In fact, ANTIFA, BLM, and other far left groups did far worse in burning businesses to the ground while our sick liberal politicians called them "peaceful protesters".
Thousands of ANTIFA and BLM rioters were charged with crimes, including arson.
>>I am certainly not suggesting that two wrongs make a right,
Then why are you saying the vast mast majority of people who committed crimes on January 6 should have never been charged in the first place?
>>but I believe this is - at least partially - what President Trump was reacting to in granting his general pardon.
You believe Trump granted pardons to almost 1,600 criminals, because other people rioted that year? How does that make any sense.
Trump pardoned those people because the crimes they committed were in support of him.
Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing. Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,” labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,” and presenting disputed claims as settled fact tells you the Mr. Goldberg's conclusion was decided before the article was written.
The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies — not simply because of Trump’s “ego.” You can disagree with those concerns without pretending they were invented out of thin air.
And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether Mr. Goldberg wants to acknowledge it or not.
Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
>>Mr. Goldberg's article reads less like objective analysis and more like a partisan opinion piece built on assumptions, loaded language, and selective framing.
Mr. Goldberg didn't write this column. I did.
I'm no partisan (I have enormous problems with both sides and belong to neither party), but this is absolutely an opinion piece (as is every column on this website). And it's based on facts. The only assumptions I've suggested are also based on facts, which I described in detail.
>>Calling Trump a “malignant narcissist,”
That is my honest, entirely defensible view of him.
>>labeling January 6 defendants as “cartoon villains,”
I said "and" cartoon villains. If it matters, I had people like George Santos in mind with that verbiage (though I suppose the J6er dressed like a viking would work as well).
>>and presenting disputed claims as settled fact
What's disputed? That Biden won the 2020 election? Sorry, but he did. The facts have long made that clear. Those who dispute it don't have the facts on their side.
>>The piece also glosses over an important reality: millions of Americans questioned the 2020 election because of unprecedented rule changes, mass mail-in voting expansion, censorship concerns, and procedural controversies
People questioning pandemic-era rule changes (which favored no candidate over the other) has never been my beef. My beef is with those who deny that Biden won. They don't have the facts on their side.
>>not simply because of Trump’s “ego.”
If Trump (who was told by everyone around him, including his AG, that he absolutely lost) had admitted defeat and conceded the race like every other losing presidential candidate, there would have never been any meat behind this "stop the steal" nonsense. It would have been as impotent and harmless as the Al Gore stuff in 2000. What happened (and continues to happen) is directly due to Trump's actions.
>>And the comparison to “rewarding Antifa and BLM rioters” is ironic considering many politicians, media outlets, and prosecutors minimized or excused billions in riot damage, assaults, and attacks during the 2020 unrest while aggressively pursuing January 6 participants. People see that double standard whether the author wants to acknowledge it or not.
I have no such double standard. I've called out all of these groups. But the fact of the matter is that no president and no DOJ set up a taxpayer fund to reward Antifa or BLM rioters. Nothing even close to that.
>>Finally, if Mr. Goldberg truly opposes corruption and politicized government power, that scrutiny should apply equally to all administrations, not only one political side. Otherwise, it comes across as activism disguised as journalism.
Again, I wrote this. And both Bernie and I have called out corruption on both sides - many times. Why are you suggesting otherwise?
You say you’re “not partisan,” yet the entire article reads through one political lens while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty. That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals. Millions questioned the unprecedented rule changes, mass mail voting expansions, media suppression stories, court refusals to hear cases on procedural grounds, and uneven election standards between states. Reasonable people can acknowledge Biden was certified the winner while still believing the process deserved scrutiny.
As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump ignores years of election denial rhetoric from both parties. Democrats challenged 2000, 2004, and 2016 in various ways, with claims of illegitimacy, foreign interference, voter suppression, or “not my president” movements. Election skepticism did not suddenly appear in 2020.
And regarding January 6 versus the 2020 riots: your distinction is technically true — there wasn’t a federal compensation fund for BLM or Antifa rioters. But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity. Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
>>You say you’re “not partisan,”
Correct.
>>yet the entire article reads through one political lens
What political lens is that? Is it your belief that any criticism of Trump or the Trump administration is a Democratic position? If so, aren't you the one who's revealing yourself as a partisan?
>>while dismissing opposing concerns as delusion, ego, or dishonesty.
What opposing concerns have I dismissed? If you're talking about the ones that don't have a factual basis (or have outright been debunked by the facts) why do you believe it is incumbent on me to entertain those positions as legitimate, good-faith concerns?
>>That’s exactly why many people view it as advocacy rather than balanced analysis.
Who or what am I advocating for?
>>You also keep saying “the facts are clear,” but the issue was never only about vote totals.
LOTS of "stop the steal" people have focused on the vote totals. It was the entire basis of the movement: That Trump actually won -- that he got more votes than Joe Biden, especially in the Republican-led swing-states. There are additional branches that people climbed out on, but the basis for the whole thing was Trump won, and Biden stole the election.
>>As for Trump’s role, yes — he bears responsibility for escalating distrust. But pretending distrust began and ended with Trump
Who's pretending that? Government distrust has been with us since our founding, as have concerns over election integrity. Trump went FARRRRRR beyond that. As President of the United States, he declared, in no uncertain terms, that the election had been stolen. He tried to stay in power after his defeat, and he pushed and pushed the "stop the steal" crap until the U.S. Capitol came under attack, police got the crap beat out of them, and lawmakers were running for their lives. And he's STILL pushing it.
>>But many Americans watched prosecutors drop charges, politicians raise bail money, media figures minimize violence, and corporations donate millions to related causes while cities burned. That perceived imbalance is part of why people distrust establishment narratives today.
I don't disagree with any of that. And I've called a lot of it out. But that doesn't give Trump any kind of pass with me, nor should it with anyone.
>>Finally, calling Trump a “malignant narcissist” may be your opinion, but once that framing becomes central to the analysis, it naturally raises questions about objectivity.
Why? Is there any objective argument, in your view, that Trump is not a narcissist? Have you not seen overwhelming evidence of that over at least the last 10 years? (Do you really need me to list examples?) And if you concede that he's a narcissist, do you not believe he's a higher degree of one than your average narcissist? If a Democrat acted EXACTLY the same way he does, my guess is that you wouldn't object one bit to me calling him or her a malignant narcissist.
>>Strong opinions are fair in opinion journalism — but readers are equally fair in pointing out when those opinions appear to shape the interpretation of every fact in one direction.
Other than your belief that I should be entertaining factually false claims as good-faith concerns, and abstain from using defensible (albeit unflattering) phrases to describe Donald Trump, what about my analysis do you believe is unfair? And why is there an assumption that I haven't strongly criticized Democrats?
I hope you will provide specific details on how I and thousands of others can apply for our fair share of the Trump fund. We are absolutely political victims in this sad saga. For myself, I don't sleep well because I "feel" I can no longer trust the federal government at all. I need to be financially compensated!
Bernie... You are in left field on this one!!!
Bernie didn't write it. I did.
Tell me what I've written that is untrue or unfair?
Ha, I learned years ago - you cannot argue with a liberal
Which is irrelevant, being that I'm a Reagan conservative.
And since I'm a conservative, I oppose taxpayer slush funds for criminals. Why don't you?
John DAiLY, you are no republican conservative.. I was one and that’s how I concluded that you are not.. Your claim to be one doesn’t make you one.
>>John DAiLY,
Daly.
>>you are no republican conservative..
I said Reagan conservative, not Republican conservative. I haven't been a Republican since 2016.
>>I was one and that’s how I concluded that you are not..
Lol. What?
>>Your claim to be one doesn’t make you one.
No, my beliefs and positions make me one.
SAYS YOU!