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.
The problem is you're trying to disconnect cause and effect.
To use the standard free-speech analogy, imagine I go into a crowded theater, light my lighter, hold up the flame, and call out "Fire!" while pointing at the flame. The joke being that I am not saying that the building is on fire, I'm just letting people know what fire looks like. Now suppose everybody in the theater recognizes this, groans, and goes back to watching the show. I have done nothing wrong.
Regardless on whether someone died to your prank or not, the fact remains that you did something reprehensible. I'm not excusing anyone, I'm pointing out the one-sided nature of criticism of political leadership. Not just one sided, if it's 'a righteous cause' it's actually encouraged. If you dislike the person, they are spawn of satan. It's absolutely hippocratic and for you to excuse people like E. Warren because no one 'acted on it' (because you ignore the other social justice riots that have been g
Regardless on whether someone died to your prank or not, the fact remains that you did something reprehensible.
Ah, but that's where free speech comes in.
Sure, I may not like speeches with violent imagery. But people are free to speak--that's that whole "free speech" thing at work. If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept speech that you find offensive.
Actions are a different matter, though. If I say someone should be killed and someone else decides, "Y'know, he's right!" and goes and kills that person, I share the responsibility--I can't hide behind "free speech."
I think you're on the right track by separating speech from action. If Trump was at the front of the line directing people and ordering police to let people in, that would be an action. But that's not what happened: he made a speech, and people reacted. Those people who chose to break laws should be prosecuted.
Do you think that if someone says something racially insensitive, and the people who were offended decide to burn down a shopping mall, that it is the racially insensitive person's fault for the
But that's not what happened: he made a speech, and people reacted. Those people who chose to break laws should be prosecuted.
So you're saying that the mob boss who "suggests" that someone to be killed should be let off scot-free because they didn't actual kill anyone? They just suggested it.
Do you think that if someone says something racially insensitive, and the people who were offended decide to burn down a shopping mall, that it is the racially insensitive person's fault for the outcome?
Nope. Just being offensive wouldn't be enough. But if he said something like, "If you really hate me, why don't you prove it by burning down a shopping mall?" then he could be in trouble.
So now you're comparing Trump to a mob boss? Not to call back to prior administration (but I will), Obama dropped more bombs and executed more people with drones than Trump ever did. Are you going to protest any of that?
I'm pretty tired arguing the same circular reasoning with you people...it incites violence because you interpret it does. And you interpret it that way because Donald Trump said it. Orange Man Bad, I get it...
but, why not take some perspective from a fellow leftie (https://www.youtube.com
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:0)
Found this one "Elizabeth Warren: Fighting Back is an Act of Patriotism".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Cumon, hypocrites, go ahead and unleash your cancel culture on E. Warren.
I won't hold my breath.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is you're trying to disconnect cause and effect.
To use the standard free-speech analogy, imagine I go into a crowded theater, light my lighter, hold up the flame, and call out "Fire!" while pointing at the flame. The joke being that I am not saying that the building is on fire, I'm just letting people know what fire looks like. Now suppose everybody in the theater recognizes this, groans, and goes back to watching the show. I have done nothing wrong.
Now let's look at the same scenario except
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless on whether someone died to your prank or not, the fact remains that you did something reprehensible. I'm not excusing anyone, I'm pointing out the one-sided nature of criticism of political leadership. Not just one sided, if it's 'a righteous cause' it's actually encouraged. If you dislike the person, they are spawn of satan. It's absolutely hippocratic and for you to excuse people like E. Warren because no one 'acted on it' (because you ignore the other social justice riots that have been g
Re: explain (Score:2)
Regardless on whether someone died to your prank or not, the fact remains that you did something reprehensible.
Ah, but that's where free speech comes in.
Sure, I may not like speeches with violent imagery. But people are free to speak--that's that whole "free speech" thing at work. If you want to live in a free society, you have to accept speech that you find offensive.
Actions are a different matter, though. If I say someone should be killed and someone else decides, "Y'know, he's right!" and goes and kills that person, I share the responsibility--I can't hide behind "free speech."
Re: (Score:1)
I think you're on the right track by separating speech from action. If Trump was at the front of the line directing people and ordering police to let people in, that would be an action. But that's not what happened: he made a speech, and people reacted. Those people who chose to break laws should be prosecuted.
Do you think that if someone says something racially insensitive, and the people who were offended decide to burn down a shopping mall, that it is the racially insensitive person's fault for the
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not what happened: he made a speech, and people reacted. Those people who chose to break laws should be prosecuted.
So you're saying that the mob boss who "suggests" that someone to be killed should be let off scot-free because they didn't actual kill anyone? They just suggested it.
Do you think that if someone says something racially insensitive, and the people who were offended decide to burn down a shopping mall, that it is the racially insensitive person's fault for the outcome?
Nope. Just being offensive wouldn't be enough. But if he said something like, "If you really hate me, why don't you prove it by burning down a shopping mall?" then he could be in trouble.
Re: (Score:0)
So now you're comparing Trump to a mob boss? Not to call back to prior administration (but I will), Obama dropped more bombs and executed more people with drones than Trump ever did. Are you going to protest any of that?
I'm pretty tired arguing the same circular reasoning with you people...it incites violence because you interpret it does. And you interpret it that way because Donald Trump said it. Orange Man Bad, I get it...
but, why not take some perspective from a fellow leftie (https://www.youtube.com