How exactly did Trump incite violence? He condemned the insurgents. He said today that killing cops should result in the death penalty. How exactly is he inciting violence?
He called for the violence. He celebrated the violence. To the people who perpetrated the violence, he told them 'I love you.'
He is the cause of the violence, and continues to call for more violence.
He uses the word "fight" 23 times during the 1 1/4 hour rambling speech. This is what he says towards the end:
“Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore....
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’r
You know who else uses 'fight' a lot? Elizabeth Warren. Her words absolutely evoke violent imagery. "We came to this movement to pick a fight (please see 2:32 in the following video): https://youtu.be/y57Zgz41UKw?t... [youtu.be]. No one blinked an eye at that, did they?
Anyone who decries Trump but turns a blind eye to every other politician who uses aggressive language in their speech is a complete hypocrite.
That's what post-Trum presidency will be known as: The Rise of the Hyopcrites.
Anyone who decries Trump but turns a blind eye to every other politician who uses aggressive language in their speech is a complete hypocrite.
Context. Anyone who declares the equivalence of situations occurring in vastly different contexts is likely to be either disingenuous or grossly myopic.
Sure, like a bunch of people breaking a few windows and doors to get into a congressional chamber vs. a group of rioters that shut down an entire city block for 3 weeks, looting businesses and committing arson.
You do know that violently interfering with the operation of government is the very definition of insurrection, right?
You are equating a crime against 330M people with a crime against several thousand. Neither are good, but one is FAR worse than the other. And both should be punished. Fully. Which means bringing this President to account.
Distortion of events in order to try to justify the unjustifiable is fun, but adults are talking here.
Instead of using a dictionary definition, why don't you try the way it's defined under US law [cornell.edu], as that's kind of germane to a discussion about insurrection in the United States Capitol:
From 10 USC section 253:
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or (2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
Are you saying that the events of Wednesday didn't obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States, specifically the execution of the electoral process defined in the 12th Amendment?
It was absolutely an act of insurrection. The government was conducting business, and those people interfered with it. But this has happened multiple times by the left, yet no one has called it insurrection there. Why?
Just to be clear: creating a riot zone around federal buildings so that people are unable to work is hindering the execution of laws of the State, is it not?
A LISP programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing.
-- Alan Perlis
explain (Score:-1, Troll)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
Here you go: https://www.rev.com/blog/trans... [rev.com]
He uses the word "fight" 23 times during the 1 1/4 hour rambling speech. This is what he says towards the end:
“Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. ...
So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You know who else uses 'fight' a lot? Elizabeth Warren. Her words absolutely evoke violent imagery. "We came to this movement to pick a fight (please see 2:32 in the following video): https://youtu.be/y57Zgz41UKw?t... [youtu.be]. No one blinked an eye at that, did they?
Anyone who decries Trump but turns a blind eye to every other politician who uses aggressive language in their speech is a complete hypocrite.
That's what post-Trum presidency will be known as: The Rise of the Hyopcrites.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who decries Trump but turns a blind eye to every other politician who uses aggressive language in their speech is a complete hypocrite.
Context. Anyone who declares the equivalence of situations occurring in vastly different contexts is likely to be either disingenuous or grossly myopic.
Re: (Score:0)
Sure, like a bunch of people breaking a few windows and doors to get into a congressional chamber vs. a group of rioters that shut down an entire city block for 3 weeks, looting businesses and committing arson.
Re: explain (Score:2)
You do know that violently interfering with the operation of government is the very definition of insurrection, right?
You are equating a crime against 330M people with a crime against several thousand. Neither are good, but one is FAR worse than the other. And both should be punished. Fully. Which means bringing this President to account.
Re: (Score:1)
https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
So, by that definition, any protest against government is insurrection.
Are you trying to equate insurrection with coup? Because no one there was interested in taking over government.
Re: (Score:2)
Distortion of events in order to try to justify the unjustifiable is fun, but adults are talking here.
Instead of using a dictionary definition, why don't you try the way it's defined under US law [cornell.edu], as that's kind of germane to a discussion about insurrection in the United States Capitol:
From 10 USC section 253:
(1)so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2)opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
Are you saying that the events of Wednesday didn't obstruct the execution of the laws of the United States, specifically the execution of the electoral process defined in the 12th Amendment?
You're corr
Re: (Score:1)
It was absolutely an act of insurrection. The government was conducting business, and those people interfered with it. But this has happened multiple times by the left, yet no one has called it insurrection there. Why?
Just to be clear: creating a riot zone around federal buildings so that people are unable to work is hindering the execution of laws of the State, is it not?