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’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
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.
Liz Warren isn't speaking to a heavily armed constituency with a large number of militias that preach the need for a violent revolution. It's understood from the context of who she is addressing that she means a non-violent fight. It is very much understood from the context of Trump and his presidency that he's inciting violence. There have been multiple instances of violence leading up to the 6th. You can bet had Warren been in the same shoes she'd have been calming the situation down rather than tossing fuel on the already burning pyre.
Trump didn't do that. And so he's getting deplatformed. He crossed the line into violence, and your whataboutism can't change that.
outside of 5 guys on Youtube who call themselves "Breadtube" there are no Marxists in the United States, and none of them are tankies. I can count the number of tankies on the hand of a meth addled shop teacher.
Seriously, get some help. You're so far down the rabbit hole you missed Alice.
Notably, her speech didn't include picking a target and commanding her flying monkeys to take flight. No riot followed, nobody got killed. Just those tiny little details.
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.
Strange, I don't recall any of those BLM protests rising to the level of sedition by forcibly ending a legal democratic election to keep a wannabe dictator in place and/or involving an attempt to take senators hostages in this country's highest seat of power. The worst riots in history will never be equivalent to a coup attempt no matter how you and your crew of parrots try to spin it. You surely know all this already, so I'm guessing disingenuous is the label for you after all. If you don't know what that word means, I suggest you look it up along with any of the other words the adults are using that you don't understand.
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.
'Every other poilitician' doesn't have a bunch of violent right-wing extremists, white supremacists, racists, etcetera, as their 'followers'.
I get a speeding ticket. I say "I'm going to FIGHT this!" By your logic that means I must be going to court to BEAT UP THE JUDGE.
You're a fucking idiot like all Trump supporters, and an apologist for a traitor and criminal. Fuck off, the decent people of this country have had enough of you assholes.
When the people invading the Capitol are wearing Elizabeth Warren baseball caps and waving Elizabeth Warren campaign flags, I'll be right on board with you.
You can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding.
Oh and when Elizabeth Warren says that while there is an active insurrection of violent thugs hellbent on murdering the vice president and members of Congress invading the capital.
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 one person panics, jumps over the back of his seat to get out of the theater, trips, falls, and breaks his neck. Dead. I am responsible for his death. He would not have panicked had I not made my joke.
You can say whatever you want. But you cannot avoid responsibility for actions taken by others due to what you say by claiming "Free speech." About my only defense would be to say that the vast majority of people "got the joke"--only one person in a crowded theater panicked after all, so this one person must have no sense of humor and I shouldn't be expected to have to deal with the lone person who doesn't get it. If a large enough number of people panicked, that defense would be harder to maintain.
So, yes, if people took Elizabeth Warren's words to mean pick up a gun and start shooting, she could be held responsible for the people who died. Fortunately, no one did that.
"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."
Actually, yes you have. And law enforcement can hold you accountable for it.
Can you explain the air-plane example for me? I'm honestly not aware of what it means and if someone did that I would most likely just shrug my shoulders and wonder why he introduced his friend to everyone, I'm just curious.
Can you explain the air-plane example for me? I'm honestly not aware of what it means and if someone did that I would most likely just shrug my shoulders and wonder why he introduced his friend to everyone, I'm just curious.
He's basically shouting "This is a hijack" in an aircraft. A stupid stunt that would get you beat down and arrested on a good day, shot by a Federal Air Marshal if you were unlucky enough to have one on board.
Which, do they still even have federal air marshals? Back when I worked at the airport in college we would get them occasionally. Pretty easy to tell who they were once you knew, they all looked alike: tall and muscular-fat, grumpy looking with short hair.
A better example would be making the "Hi Jack" joke during an actual hijack. See what people think of that. Because that seems to be what the Trump apologists are saying.
Or like Barack Obama [reuters.com]? "Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”"
seems like their supporters are smarter than trump supporters and can understand the metaphors (unlike trump supporters which trump takes advantage of)
Fight.. as in Fight for my rights, Fight in court, you need to better than that.
How about. In 2018, Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told her supporters to physically harass members of Trump’s cabinet. “Squad” member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called for continued "unrest in the streets." When Minneapolis was burning because of rioters, another Squad member, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), tweeted, “Our anger is just. Our anger is warranted.”
You're feeding a troll. It does not matter if he is sincerely stupid, proudly ignorant, or paid to fake it.
At least you should change the trolls' typically stupid subjects. However I see few reasons to waste time with them. Lose-lose games are not that amusing and troll research is mostly for specialists in a few limited fields. (But my first degree sort of includes one or two of those fields...)
Morons think, "Oh, Mr Anderson, such a nice restaurant you got here. So nice with good ambiance... Would be a terrible shame if something should happen to it. I think it would be most wise of you to engage Luciano here for security. Mr Cosetilli will just arrange to send you a monthly bill for, eh, services, rendered, What ya, say Mr. It's an offer you can't afford to refuse!"
Is not a threat and they can argue in court it was just a business proposition. Dog whistles are well known and recognized and been used to convict people of extortion.
We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--
And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.
How do you "take back 'our' country" with "strength"? How do you read that? By going back in time and turning up in greater numbers at the ballot box 2 months ago? Is that what you think he's saying?
After being impeached, Trump should stand trial for the murder of the capital police officer.
I am sure there will be a lot of civil lawsuits but that doesn't really cut it. The whole reason this happened is because Trump was born rich and never personally suffered a negative consequence in his life. With enough money you can send out lawyers to play rope-a-dope with the law until you die of old age, almost no matter what you have done.
Biden won because regular people have grown really tired of Trump. It's the Reality Television Show they can't turn off.
The fact that the vote count was a close as it was shows what a stinker Biden is. Nobody really voted for Biden. They voted for not-Trump. Now that Trump is out of the picture, the hangover after the party is about to start.
The fact that the vote count was a close as it was shows what a stinker Biden is.
Not much less than half the country would vote for a dead rat on a stick if it had an R next to its name. You know this. All of the bible bashers for example.
Nobody really voted for Biden. They voted for not-Trump.
Ironically no one really voted for Trump either, they voted for not Clinton then had to double down and pretend it was what they wanted when they actually won.
Now that Trump is out of the picture, the hangover after the party is about to start.
Nah, now we're going to turn to the sweet stimulant of pure cash. Biden is going to give $10k of student loan forgiveness [cnbc.com], and $2000 to every citizen [yahoo.com] Do you think it will stop there? Why would it? Keep printing the cash until it hurts.
Funny, I didn't hear you complaining when multi-billion dollar international corporations get trillions in taxpayer money, on top of the hundreds of billions they receive each year.
Trump has been president for 4 years. That means he's captured a lot of attention from people on social media, which in no little part is due to how actively he participated on platforms. Before and during his presidency Trump ruffled a lot of feathers, to put it mildly, and that generates a ton of publicity, especially if it is done by someone in such a powerful position.
Biden has been mostly insignificant compared to how attracted attention to himself.
To most people with at least a shred of common sen
How do you read that? By going back in time and turning up in greater numbers at the ballot box 2 months ago? Is that what you think he's saying?
After being impeached, Trump should stand trial for the murder of the capital police officer.
No, Biden should be standing trial. If he hadn't stolen the election, none of this would have happened. And yes, Biden very likely did steal the election, or at least, someone stole it for him
Trump got fewer votes in both elections. In the first he got lucky with the electoral college; in the second he didn't. He should never have been president.
Trump got fewer votes in both elections. In the first he got lucky with the electoral college; in the second he didn't. He should never have been president.
But by design you don't elect the president of The United States by popular vote but by something that gives most of the weight to the number of people voting for a candidate but also some weight to the geographical distribution of the voters.
And to be frank it does not really matter how you do it if most people find the process fair. Democracy (in its modern representative form with strong constitutions - this form includes republics) at its core is not really about letting 51% of the population decide ove
Have you moved the goalposts so far that elections are now decided by twitter followers? How many does he have now, oh right none because he's been banned so Biden wins again I guess.
How likely is it that a person with four to five times the following of his rival lost the election?
Do you really think this way? Really? That "followers" on social media equate to votes cast?
Let me introduce this wild theory for you to ponder:
1. There are literally more than 100,000,000 registered voters that don't "follow" either candidate. 2. There are followers of Trump that wouldn't vote for him if he were the ONLY candidate on the ballot - either they follow his text vomit because they have to / need to for employment purposes (journalists, pundits, news organizations, staff of opposition members o
There are violently inclined people who will use any excuse to commit acts of violence. There were 40 million people who voted for Trump, and the vast majority of them have never committed any violent acts.
That's because Trump actually thought he had lost the 2016 election. Check the tapes, he kept telling people in 2016 that he was going to lose because the election was fixed! Its a broken record. He didn't really run to win the election, he just wanted to scam the matched election funds to pay off all his lawsuits. Dems didn't vote much in 2016, and Repubs did. Trump probably would have won this election had he not raided (stolen from)his election warchest in late 2019.. That's why Repubs didn't have the mo
You are right - the majority of Trump voters are not violent insurrectionists.
However, 100% of the violent insurrectionists we saw last week ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS, who were told to "be strong and fight" by Trump, and told to march on the capitol by Trump, earlier that morning.
A significant portion of that crowd were also radicalized Qanon morons, who are deluded enough to think that Trump is our savior who will lead us to utopia after arresting and executing the cannibal pedos that make up "the deep state" i
Just like you held all the rioters who killed 60 police officers and destroyed billions in property over the summer acccountable?
Now you're suddenly concerned about police [tumblr.com]? Funny, I didn't see the very people who claim to be pro-police following orders. What we saw was them beat police, one of them with a fire extinguisher who later died.
But to answer your question, at least one was held accountable. Unfortunately, he was a white male right-wing terrorist.
I do expect Trump voters to be more physically violent. I also think Trump got over 70 million votes. They are a large part of the country. The US is a violent country. Deal with it without dismissing them as merely deluded and controlled by Putin.
I have never known a single person who has *never* committed *any* violent acts. I know I'm nitpicking and that was not your point, but that statement was so out of reality I just couldn't not reply.
Most people would not proclaim their love for people erecting gallows on the grounds of the United States Capitol. Or flying the flag of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the Capitol building. Or flags of the KKK. Or wearing clothing with white nationalist phrases on them while walking through Statuary Hall.
Most people would instead say "the terrorists performing these shameless and deplorable acts should be repudiated by all law-and-order loving people of this country, including myself. This desecration of the
The fringe idiots were his election base. The people who kept believing every lie he told, even after it was proven again and again that he was lying. He was the Emporer with no clothes on, but kept yesmen around him who kept telling him how beautiful his clothes were!
there's been chatter in right wing forums for months now about violent uprisings. Trump knows this, his Secret Service and intelligence details would have told him. Instead of conceding the election he lost he continued to make thinly veiled threats.
Again, context matters, and from that context we can easily infer Trump & the GOP meant for there to be violence. The GOP is hoping to use the violence to oust Trump from control of the party. Trump was hoping to keep his base engaged and donating money and, quite possibly, to get an opportunity to declare martial law.
The Capital Building was occupied by violent extremists. The extent of what that means hasn't fully sunk in. After all, It Can't Happen Here.
How do you know that this chatter did not originate from US intelligence agencies? You know that as of 2012 it's legal for the US govt to spread propaganda to US citizens, yes?
It is happening here. Biden is the main author of Patriot 1 (they reused a lot of a bill from 1994) and he is now calling the demonstrators terrorists. You'll have patriot 2 soon. With your enthusiastic support.
We might. And that's unfortunate. Our Democracy suffered a dark day. The Republican traitors have taken away a big part of our freedom. We used to be able to vote for president, have the states and courts adjudicate the results, and then peacefully transfer power even if we don't like those results. That's is now gone. And we now have the choice to preserve our individual freedoms or the value of our vote. Many people will choose the value of their vote under the premise that it can be used to cure i
Biden is calling them terrorists because that's what they are. They used violence and threats of violence to accomplish a political goal including (but by no means a complete list):
- Breaking into a Federal building where the Vice President and full Congress were meeting - Chanting "Hang Mike Pence" - Constructing a noose and gallows - Multiple people had bunches of zip cuffs of the sort used by police when they have to arrest multiple people - Planted bombs - Brought guns and weapons into the Federal building
If a group of Muslims from the Middle East did this while chanting "Jihad", we'd be (rightfully) calling it a terrorist attack. Just because the perpetrators were white Americans doesn't mean it's not terrorism. It just makes it domestic terrorism.
Full stop. They came with weapons to halt election proceedings. Several of them came with heavy zip ties to take hostages. The "protests" were way, way more violent than Fox News and OAN are showing you. Step outside your media bubble. Start with that video of the cop being beaten to death with the American flag. Hell, start by reading that sentence two or three more times until it bloody well sinks in.
And what is my media bubble then? fox news? I have said so before on here, I'm much closer to leftish people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi.
This is a crisis situation. A lot of stupid decisions are taken at such moments. And slapping a name on it which carries the load of the last two decades of an extremely aggressive foreign and domestic policy is the most stupid reaction you can have. You want terrorism? Make sure all those Trump supporters have the feeling that all their roads of action have been c
Those zips were weird in any case. They're a cop thing. Part of what makes the riots worrying is there is a lot of sympathy in services with arms. Police, armed forces, even CIA funnily enough.
And you can interpret "take of" many different ways but when a mob boss says "take care of so and so" you know it isn't about giving them a foot massage. And then Guiliani follows up with "trial by combat" comments that clarified intent even more.
And the fact that literally thousands of protestors believed this his comments meant to take over the capitol building is proof that Trump was trying to incite. If one or two or few people misunderstood that would be one thing... but thousands believed he greenligh
You can interpret fight many ways. It's a stretch to think he meant physical violence, especially since he condemned that.
Incitement is all about what a reasonable person knew or should have known. In this case, Trump absolutely should have known (and maybe knew) that a percentage of the people he was speaking to were ready for violence. He'd been feeding them a steady diet of "Your government has been subverted and democracy no longer works" for months, and QAnon and associated conspiracies had been preparing them for longer. The Proud Boys openly embrace violence, and had announced their intention to be there and be ready.
Had he gotten lucky and no violence happened, this would have been written off as yet more dangerously irresponsible rhetoric that "only" undermined confidence in democracy. But he didn't get lucky, and his dangerously-irresponsible rhetoric led to deaths, to a crowd who broke into the capitol looking to hang Mike Pence, etc., etc., etc.,
Any reasonable man would have focused on calming and reducing the chance of violence, but Trump did none of that. Oh, he threw in the occasional phrases about being peaceful, salted lightly into his aggressive rhetoric, heavily laden with violent metaphors. But a responsible person would have flipped that 180 degrees. Trump chose to continue pushing and the outcome, while not guaranteed, was totally predictable.
I can see you people bought into the leftist nonsense and fairy tales
Like a typical Trumpette, you obviously care about the rule of law only when it's convenient to your goals or interests. This is one of the things that separates Trumpettes from true conservatives.
You can interpret fight many ways. It's a stretch to think he meant physical violence, especially since he condemned that.
Bullshit. He's telling a mob to go to the capitol and fix an election that he lost. He's actively and clearly asking for the constitution to be overthrown, just as he has for months since he realised that he would probably lose the election.
It is not a stretch and I hope you enjoy your well-deserved -1. Furthermore, as part of the speech, he repeated the misinformation which formed the central "complaint" of the protesters. The video was universally condemned as inciting more violence rather than helping to reduce it. Any attempt to say otherwise is the equivalent of arguing that the sun doesn't rise in the east. The sitting president of the US tried to stage an insurrection and nobody is going to tolerate spreading of falsehoods that try
The best part is that Trump told them "we love you" on one day and the very next when someone explained to him the legal and political exposure he turned on his beloved Patriots and wanted them punished to the "fullest extent of the law".
He has zero loyalty to anyone and Pence can attest right now. He pushed Pence to do something that would have gone down in the history books as straight-up sedition and unconstitutional and when Pence refused he turned in an instant and called Pence a coward.
This is Trump's MO, push people to risk everything but he will never risk anything himself and will turn on them when things go bad.
This isn't a real question and I hope this post gets the -1 it deserves. Whether or not people here Trump *now* is really irrelevant. We all watched the live coverage of the Kristallnacth and heard the things he said when he said them. Don't go back and try to write a revisionist history.
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: explain (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’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
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.
Again, Context matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump didn't do that. And so he's getting deplatformed. He crossed the line into violence, and your whataboutism can't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, you're serious, let me laugh harder (Score:2)
Seriously, get some help. You're so far down the rabbit hole you missed Alice.
Re: explain (Score:4, Insightful)
Notably, her speech didn't include picking a target and commanding her flying monkeys to take flight. No riot followed, nobody got killed. Just those tiny little details.
Re: explain (Score:4, Insightful)
One key feature of authoritarianism is that the Leader is never accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt very much any of those activities are Warren's idea, certainly not something she directed anyone hearing the referenced speech to do.
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: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Strange, I don't recall any of those BLM protests rising to the level of sedition by forcibly ending a legal democratic election to keep a wannabe dictator in place and/or involving an attempt to take senators hostages in this country's highest seat of power. The worst riots in history will never be equivalent to a coup attempt no matter how you and your crew of parrots try to spin it. You surely know all this already, so I'm guessing disingenuous is the label for you after all. If you don't know what that word means, I suggest you look it up along with any of the other words the adults are using that you don't understand.
Re: (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:2)
I get a speeding ticket. I say "I'm going to FIGHT this!" By your logic that means I must be going to court to BEAT UP THE JUDGE.
You're a fucking idiot like all Trump supporters, and an apologist for a traitor and criminal. Fuck off, the decent people of this country have had enough of you assholes.
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
When the people invading the Capitol are wearing Elizabeth Warren baseball caps and waving Elizabeth Warren campaign flags, I'll be right on board with you.
You can't shake the devil's hand and say you were only kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
OMG that would be hilarous (Score:4, Insightful)
"Sensible Monetary Policy!"
"When do we want it?"!"
"During the next full session of Congress!"
Warren's base is predominately middle aged professional women (I followed her a lot in the primary). Molotov Mimosas anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to remember when leftist protestors invaded the Capitol building in 2018.
Your age is causing faulty memories?
Re: (Score:2)
You can add the CEO of Twitter (Dick Costolo) [nypost.com] to your list.
Re: explain (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 one person panics, jumps over the back of his seat to get out of the theater, trips, falls, and breaks his neck. Dead. I am responsible for his death. He would not have panicked had I not made my joke.
You can say whatever you want. But you cannot avoid responsibility for actions taken by others due to what you say by claiming "Free speech." About my only defense would be to say that the vast majority of people "got the joke"--only one person in a crowded theater panicked after all, so this one person must have no sense of humor and I shouldn't be expected to have to deal with the lone person who doesn't get it. If a large enough number of people panicked, that defense would be harder to maintain.
So, yes, if people took Elizabeth Warren's words to mean pick up a gun and start shooting, she could be held responsible for the people who died. Fortunately, no one did that.
Re: (Score:2)
"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."
Actually, yes you have. And law enforcement can hold you accountable for it.
This is the same as being on
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain the air-plane example for me? I'm honestly not aware of what it means and if someone did that I would most likely just shrug my shoulders and wonder why he introduced his friend to everyone, I'm just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you explain the air-plane example for me? I'm honestly not aware of what it means and if someone did that I would most likely just shrug my shoulders and wonder why he introduced his friend to everyone, I'm just curious.
He's basically shouting "This is a hijack" in an aircraft. A stupid stunt that would get you beat down and arrested on a good day, shot by a Federal Air Marshal if you were unlucky enough to have one on board.
Which, do they still even have federal air marshals? Back when I worked at the airport in college we would get them occasionally. Pretty easy to tell who they were once you knew, they all looked alike: tall and muscular-fat, grumpy looking with short hair.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He uses the word "fight" 23 times during the 1 1/4 hour rambling speech.
Ah, yes, proof positive - after all, no Democrat has ever used the word "fight" metaphorically in a speech!
Re: (Score:3)
Trump wasn't using "fight" metaphorically. The proof was in the pudding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them.
When Maxine Waters or Kamala Harris organizes a protest that turns violent, I would support banning them from everywhere as well.
Re: (Score:2)
He uses the word "fight" 23 times during the 1 1/4 hour rambling speech.
So, like Hillary Clinton [vox.com]?
Or like Barack Obama [reuters.com]? "Mr. Obama said in reference to the general election rumble with the Republicans: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The word "fight" is often used in a political or legal context.
Your lawyer might "fight" for you in court, that doesn't mean he starts punching the opposing counsel.
An election is also often referred to as "a fight", but you never saw Trump and Biden stepping into a ring together.
Re: (Score:3)
Fight.. as in Fight for my rights, Fight in court, you need to better than that.
How about.
In 2018, Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) told her supporters to physically harass members of Trump’s cabinet. “Squad” member Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called for continued "unrest in the streets." When Minneapolis was burning because of rioters, another Squad member, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), tweeted, “Our anger is just. Our anger is warranted.”
Missouri Democratic State Sen. Maria Chappelle
Takes a nut to defend a Trump (Score:2)
You're feeding a troll. It does not matter if he is sincerely stupid, proudly ignorant, or paid to fake it.
At least you should change the trolls' typically stupid subjects. However I see few reasons to waste time with them. Lose-lose games are not that amusing and troll research is mostly for specialists in a few limited fields. (But my first degree sort of includes one or two of those fields...)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, he also uses the word "love". Aww... Pennsylvania Avenue hugs you, too, Donald!
Re: (Score:3)
"They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote."
Notice its in the present tense. Not the past tense.
What was he implying they weren't going to be allowed to vote on? What was he implying was going to need to be done to stop it?
Those are the two questions he wanted the crowd to answer. And they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult to read because it's on Twitter, but here's a guy who analyzed the speech.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Set... [twitter.com]
Re: explain (Score:5, Informative)
Is not a threat and they can argue in court it was just a business proposition. Dog whistles are well known and recognized and been used to convict people of extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
And of course that famous phrase "I'm not saying nothing.."
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
"You're going to get what's coming to you."
In some contexts: a threat.
In other contexts: description of a package delivery.
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
The rhetorical technique is known as Gricean Implicature and it stands out a mile. Everyone knows it's a threat.
https://plato.stanford.edu/ent... [stanford.edu]
The fine reddit poster @Jackpot777 did the hard yards in explaining so I don't have to:
https://www.reddit.com/r/polit... [reddit.com]
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you "take back 'our' country" with "strength"? How do you read that? By going back in time and turning up in greater numbers at the ballot box 2 months ago? Is that what you think he's saying?
After being impeached, Trump should stand trial for the murder of the capital police officer.
Re: (Score:2)
At the very least I hope the family of the murdered capitol police officer sues Trump in civil court for wrongful death.
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Biden won because regular people have grown really tired of Trump. It's the Reality Television Show they can't turn off.
The fact that the vote count was a close as it was shows what a stinker Biden is. Nobody really voted for Biden. They voted for not-Trump. Now that Trump is out of the picture, the hangover after the party is about to start.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the vote count was a close as it was shows what a stinker Biden is.
Not much less than half the country would vote for a dead rat on a stick if it had an R next to its name. You know this. All of the bible bashers for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody really voted for Biden. They voted for not-Trump.
Ironically no one really voted for Trump either, they voted for not Clinton then had to double down and pretend it was what they wanted when they actually won.
Re: explain (Score:2)
Agreed. People are tired of, how do I say this politely, Trump's "shenanigans."
Re: (Score:2)
Now that Trump is out of the picture, the hangover after the party is about to start.
Nah, now we're going to turn to the sweet stimulant of pure cash. Biden is going to give $10k of student loan forgiveness [cnbc.com], and $2000 to every citizen [yahoo.com] Do you think it will stop there? Why would it? Keep printing the cash until it hurts.
Funny, I didn't hear you complaining when multi-billion dollar international corporations get trillions in taxpayer money, on top of the hundreds of billions they receive each year.
Re: (Score:2)
For what? Specifically what Federal statute did he violate that would land him in prison for 20 years?
I'm fine with a link to the section and paragraph in the United States Code. [govinfo.gov]
Oh, don't have one? Then shut the fuck up and go back to 4chan. In these parts we cite sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden has been mostly insignificant compared to how attracted attention to himself.
To most people with at least a shred of common sen
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I'm a Finnish citizen and hate Trump and I was one of those "followers". This is just as stupid as Trumps "rally size" argument.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you read that? By going back in time and turning up in greater numbers at the ballot box 2 months ago? Is that what you think he's saying?
After being impeached, Trump should stand trial for the murder of the capital police officer.
No, Biden should be standing trial. If he hadn't stolen the election, none of this would have happened. And yes, Biden very likely did steal the election, or at least, someone stole it for him
Trump got fewer votes in both elections. In the first he got lucky with the electoral college; in the second he didn't. He should never have been president.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump got fewer votes in both elections. In the first he got lucky with the electoral college; in the second he didn't. He should never have been president.
But by design you don't elect the president of The United States by popular vote but by something that gives most of the weight to the number of people voting for a candidate but also some weight to the geographical distribution of the voters.
And to be frank it does not really matter how you do it if most people find the process fair. Democracy (in its modern representative form with strong constitutions - this form includes republics) at its core is not really about letting 51% of the population decide ove
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How likely is it that a person with four to five times the following of his rival lost the election?
Do you really think this way? Really? That "followers" on social media equate to votes cast?
Let me introduce this wild theory for you to ponder:
1. There are literally more than 100,000,000 registered voters that don't "follow" either candidate.
2. There are followers of Trump that wouldn't vote for him if he were the ONLY candidate on the ballot - either they follow his text vomit because they have to / need to for employment purposes (journalists, pundits, news organizations, staff of opposition members o
Re: explain (Score:2)
Kanye has 3 Twitter followers. By your illogic he should have more votes than Biden.
Hint: we don't select the President by how many followers they have on social media.
Re: explain (Score:2)
Stupid autocorrect. **30M followers for Kanye**
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Kanye has 3 Twitter followers."
You mention him because he's also a crazy egomaniac?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a stretch to think he meant physical violence
And yet, somehow, that's exactly how it was interpreted.
Unqualified for office, unsuited to serve, unfit to command. Trump must go NOW.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are violently inclined people who will use any excuse to commit acts of violence.
There were 40 million people who voted for Trump, and the vast majority of them have never committed any violent acts.
Re: explain (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn’t see armed nutjobs carrying zip cuffs storming the senate back in 2016. Very odd.
Re: explain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I tried explaining that to the judge: "Your Honor, just look at the 299,999,999 million people I didn't rob!"
But he didn't buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet all the flags and hats I see in the videos from the 6th say 'TRUMP.'
Failure to hold Trump accountable will lead us to certain ruin.
Re: explain (Score:2)
Other violent people overlap with democrat supporters When democrat supporters storm the Capital I'll come back and mod you insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
You are right - the majority of Trump voters are not violent insurrectionists.
However, 100% of the violent insurrectionists we saw last week ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS, who were told to "be strong and fight" by Trump, and told to march on the capitol by Trump, earlier that morning.
A significant portion of that crowd were also radicalized Qanon morons, who are deluded enough to think that Trump is our savior who will lead us to utopia after arresting and executing the cannibal pedos that make up "the deep state" i
Re: (Score:2)
Just over 74 million people voted for trump.
How many people turned up to protest? How many of those protesters participated in violent acts?
Re: (Score:2)
Enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like you held all the rioters who killed 60 police officers and destroyed billions in property over the summer acccountable?
Now you're suddenly concerned about police [tumblr.com]? Funny, I didn't see the very people who claim to be pro-police following orders. What we saw was them beat police, one of them with a fire extinguisher who later died.
But to answer your question, at least one was held accountable. Unfortunately, he was a white male right-wing terrorist.
Re: (Score:2)
I do expect Trump voters to be more physically violent.
I also think Trump got over 70 million votes. They are a large part of the country. The US is a violent country. Deal with it without dismissing them as merely deluded and controlled by Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never known a single person who has *never* committed *any* violent acts. I know I'm nitpicking and that was not your point, but that statement was so out of reality I just couldn't not reply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people would not proclaim their love for people erecting gallows on the grounds of the United States Capitol. Or flying the flag of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the Capitol building. Or flags of the KKK. Or wearing clothing with white nationalist phrases on them while walking through Statuary Hall.
Most people would instead say "the terrorists performing these shameless and deplorable acts should be repudiated by all law-and-order loving people of this country, including myself. This desecration of the
Re: explain (Score:4, Funny)
And one of them was President of the United States.
Re: explain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Context matters (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, context matters, and from that context we can easily infer Trump & the GOP meant for there to be violence. The GOP is hoping to use the violence to oust Trump from control of the party. Trump was hoping to keep his base engaged and donating money and, quite possibly, to get an opportunity to declare martial law.
The Capital Building was occupied by violent extremists. The extent of what that means hasn't fully sunk in. After all, It Can't Happen Here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is happening here. Biden is the main author of Patriot 1 (they reused a lot of a bill from 1994) and he is now calling the demonstrators terrorists. You'll have patriot 2 soon. With your enthusiastic support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Context matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Biden is calling them terrorists because that's what they are. They used violence and threats of violence to accomplish a political goal including (but by no means a complete list):
- Breaking into a Federal building where the Vice President and full Congress were meeting
- Chanting "Hang Mike Pence"
- Constructing a noose and gallows
- Multiple people had bunches of zip cuffs of the sort used by police when they have to arrest multiple people
- Planted bombs
- Brought guns and weapons into the Federal building
If a group of Muslims from the Middle East did this while chanting "Jihad", we'd be (rightfully) calling it a terrorist attack. Just because the perpetrators were white Americans doesn't mean it's not terrorism. It just makes it domestic terrorism.
They are terrorists. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And what is my media bubble then? fox news? I have said so before on here, I'm much closer to leftish people like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi.
This is a crisis situation. A lot of stupid decisions are taken at such moments. And slapping a name on it which carries the load of the last two decades of an extremely aggressive foreign and domestic policy is the most stupid reaction you can have.
You want terrorism? Make sure all those Trump supporters have the feeling that all their roads of action have been c
Re: (Score:3)
Those zips were weird in any case. They're a cop thing. Part of what makes the riots worrying is there is a lot of sympathy in services with arms. Police, armed forces, even CIA funnily enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Get real. If you're sitting on a toilet it's occupied. Can't you read the sign on the door!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you can interpret "take of" many different ways but when a mob boss says "take care of so and so" you know it isn't about giving them a foot massage. And then Guiliani follows up with "trial by combat" comments that clarified intent even more.
And the fact that literally thousands of protestors believed this his comments meant to take over the capitol building is proof that Trump was trying to incite. If one or two or few people misunderstood that would be one thing... but thousands believed he greenligh
Re: explain (Score:4, Insightful)
You can interpret fight many ways. It's a stretch to think he meant physical violence, especially since he condemned that.
Incitement is all about what a reasonable person knew or should have known. In this case, Trump absolutely should have known (and maybe knew) that a percentage of the people he was speaking to were ready for violence. He'd been feeding them a steady diet of "Your government has been subverted and democracy no longer works" for months, and QAnon and associated conspiracies had been preparing them for longer. The Proud Boys openly embrace violence, and had announced their intention to be there and be ready.
Had he gotten lucky and no violence happened, this would have been written off as yet more dangerously irresponsible rhetoric that "only" undermined confidence in democracy. But he didn't get lucky, and his dangerously-irresponsible rhetoric led to deaths, to a crowd who broke into the capitol looking to hang Mike Pence, etc., etc., etc.,
Any reasonable man would have focused on calming and reducing the chance of violence, but Trump did none of that. Oh, he threw in the occasional phrases about being peaceful, salted lightly into his aggressive rhetoric, heavily laden with violent metaphors. But a responsible person would have flipped that 180 degrees. Trump chose to continue pushing and the outcome, while not guaranteed, was totally predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can see you people bought into the leftist nonsense and fairy tales
Like a typical Trumpette, you obviously care about the rule of law only when it's convenient to your goals or interests. This is one of the things that separates Trumpettes from true conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can interpret fight many ways. It's a stretch to think he meant physical violence, especially since he condemned that.
Bullshit. He's telling a mob to go to the capitol and fix an election that he lost. He's actively and clearly asking for the constitution to be overthrown, just as he has for months since he realised that he would probably lose the election.
Re: (Score:2)
I also recall hearing "by any means necessary".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: explain (Score:5, Insightful)
The best part is that Trump told them "we love you" on one day and the very next when someone explained to him the legal and political exposure he turned on his beloved Patriots and wanted them punished to the "fullest extent of the law".
He has zero loyalty to anyone and Pence can attest right now. He pushed Pence to do something that would have gone down in the history books as straight-up sedition and unconstitutional and when Pence refused he turned in an instant and called Pence a coward.
This is Trump's MO, push people to risk everything but he will never risk anything himself and will turn on them when things go bad.
Re: (Score:2)