ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Getting popcorn ready for unhinged Trump posts.
Did you actually watch his full speech and read his "Be there. Will be wild!" tweet a couple of weeks prior? When the hell is a peaceful protest against the government supposed to be wild? You have to take everything he did and said up to that point in aggregate to get the actual context from that day.
'will be wild'? I trust there is some actual evidence. Can't begin to make a reasonable case on 'fight like hell' or be there will be wild'. Maybe it can add some context on top of a substantial argument
This sort of thing really bugs me because it will be the left who end up bearing the brunt of 'being wild' and 'fighting like hell' despite being overwhelmingly non-violent.
'will be wild'? I trust there is some actual evidence. Can't begin to make a reasonable case on 'fight like hell' or be there will be wild'. Maybe it can add some context on top of a substantial argument
This sort of thing really bugs me because it will be the left who end up bearing the brunt of 'being wild' and 'fighting like hell' despite being overwhelmingly non-violent.
Evidence, like a tweet?
Protest is fine. being wild is fine. Fighting like hell is fine. Even if you're in the wrong.
I understand the case against trump is much stronger than that. And it needs to be.
If he was actually correct and the election really was straight up stolen, storming the Capitol would have been justified. So that’s why he deserve blame for the riot and death caused 100% by his lies
Of that tweet? I quite clearly remember it, and a quick Google confirms.
Can't begin to make a reasonable case on 'fight like hell' or be there will be wild'. Maybe it can add some context on top of a substantial argument
What do you think those messages are doing aside from providing context? I don't see a whole lot of people (actually, I don't see anyone, but I can't confirm that no one is anywhere) making the argument that based on those two tweets alone Trump is responsible for an attempted insurrection, and it's pretty silly of you to suggest this is the argument being made here. Of course there's not any "Hey everyone, time to go out and overthrow the government" message, and that's why no one is making that argument. Trump built up to this in the days and weeks prior, was there to give his big speech to the protestors, and then happily sat back and watched. It wasn't difficult to see that there was potential for trouble, and one would expect a sitting president to make an effort to calm the situation, or at the very least not inflame it. Mentioning a peaceful march near the beginning of a very long speech that goes on to talk about fighting like hell certainly isn't aiming to calm anything, nor was his social media messaging, until things were very much out of hand and reportedly he had to be pleaded with even then to do anything.
Are those reasonable interpretations of Trump's "will be wild!" tweet? Maybe not. But how much does that matter if Trump was happy to let them stand uncorrected?
I don't have the legal knowledge to be able to say that he should or shouldn't be found guilty of any of the specific charges around insurrection. There's lots of room for interpretation around what constitutes an insurrection, and precisely how culpable he is for what happened. But what I am convinced of, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that he was more than happy to stir up a hornet's nest and then watch how it all played out. Precisely how much trouble he was expecting and hoping for, I couldn't say, but it was a **** of a lot more than any sitting president should want to see. I think Trump has shifted the Overton window so much that it becomes easy to forget how unacceptable that behaviour would have been considered just 10 years ago. It was indeed wild.
That's good to hear, but then why are you picking at individual pieces of the evidence and suggesting they don't prove anything on their own? Of course they don't, none of them will.
I was just objecting to people claiming the phrase 'fight like hell' implies violence. It's come up before and of course it doesn't imply violence. (and then 'being wild').
As I said, it will be the left who end up bearing ther brunt of this sort of nonsense. With trump there is really no need to make stuff up to get him
So are we to interpret
Fight for your right to Party is criminal
I was just objecting to people claiming the phrase 'fight like hell' implies violence. It's come up before and of course it doesn't imply violence. (and then 'being wild').
And yet, people interpret it that way, as you can see in the image I posted. Whether they choose to interpret that way to give justification to what they already planned, or actually believe that's what Trump wants, either is a problem. And of course Trump knows this. What his phrasing does or doesn't imply isn't all that relevant when we know (and Trump knows) what people will infer from it.
I think you give trump an extraordinary amount of credit there. The man is a buffoon who spouts without much if any thinking. But yeah I've dont really doubt that will also be how they get any leader on the left who calls for protests where some are then violent. I can already see it in the Daily Mail.
Just popped in to say... bwahahaha
I think you give trump an extraordinary amount of credit there. The man is a buffoon who spouts without much if any thinking.
To be clear, I'm not crediting him with some master plan where he saw this playing out exactly as it did. He wanted chaos, he got chaos. Whether it was because he wanted the certification delayed a day or two in hopes of winning some court battles, whether he hoped Pence would cave to pressure and refuse to certify and/or accept some other states' "alternative" electors, or whether he actually wanted people to literally overrun the Capitol, I don't know. And I don't even know if he knew specifically what he wanted, aside from chaos.
But yeah I've dont really doubt that will also be how they get any leader on the left who calls for protests where some are then violent. I can already see it in the Daily Mail.
Wait, is this where you were going with your comments about it potentially hurting the left? I totally missed that, and all I can say is...LOL.
If some leader on the left spends months predicting and then proclaiming election fraud based on nothing, then spends weeks lying about that and trying to stir up the most extreme elements of their supporters, and finally encourages everyone to come down for a "wild" day of protest and does nothing to bring calm to an obviously volatile situation, I certainly hope they do "get" him or her legally. But if you're suggesting that when we make one of the many pieces of evidence that he said "fight like hell", it will be a problem when someone on the left says something similar, the right will try to bring them down for it...what is your alternative suggestion here? The very nature of this case means it's going to be nothing but a collection of individual behaviours that on their own one can portray as harmless or no big deal. There's no avoiding that. Do they have to let it drop for fear that the "other side" will in the future use one of those behaviours against "their side"? Who ****ing cares? Either there's a case to be made, or there isn't, and whether or not you proceed can't be based on what the reaction will be to elements of said case.
I dont agree with you on much but 'fight' in the politcal context simply doesn't imply violence. There's far more than enough wrong about trump to need make ourselves look stupid by pretending not to know this. Worse is we shoot ourselves in the foot because we should be fightinbg like hell and it shouldn't be violent.
That doesn't get trump off the hook but it's not because he used the word 'fight'
A lot depends on the extent to which Trump believes his claims.
There is no reason to think the election was stolen and thinking it was a landslide the other way is on par with a loch Ness monster sighting.
But, if it was true that a landslide presidential victory was simply stolen by the other party, a riot might be an appropriate response. Since your votes no longer matter, what else can you do?
If he knew these claims were false, I think he must have known he was likely inciting violence.
To be clear, I'm not crediting him with some master plan where he saw this playing out exactly as it did. He wanted chaos, he got chaos. Whether it was because he wanted the certification delayed a day or two in hopes of winning some court battles, whether he hoped Pence would cave to pressure and refuse to certify and/or accept some other states' "alternative" electors, or whether he actually wanted people to literally overrun the Capitol,
You can find it funny if you want but the reality isn't funny at all.
The authorities and the media far easier side with the right. If we also have to face merited accusations of double standards or hypocristy then it hurts badly.
You talk of moving the overton window - when we move it to supporting such weak political arguments then it's the left who will most often find themselves thrown though that window.
A lot depends on the extent to which Trump believes his claims.
There is no reason to think the election was stolen and thinking it was a landslide the other way is on par with a loch Ness monster sighting.
But, if it was true that a landslide presidential victory was simply stolen by the other party, a riot might be an appropriate response. Since your votes no longer matter, what else can you do?
If he knew these claims were false, I think
He was creating a situation where violence was likely. That is often true though - if we organise an angry protest then violence is always likely. It can't be rested on whether we were right to be angry. The problem we will create for ourselves with such a weak argument is that all the authorities have to do is say we were wrong.
His failure to take steps to deal with the likely violence may well be damning and iirc there are times where he actually called for and endorsed violence. Plus loads of other real stuff.
As a side note i would hate to be on a jury where I was asked to convict trump only if I believed he didn't believe some nonsense which made him look better.
He was creating a situation where violence was likely. That is often true though - if we organise an angry protest then violence is always likely. It can't be rested on whether we were right to be angry. The problem we will create for ourselves with such a weak argument is that all the authorities have to do is say we were wrong.
His failure to take steps to deal with the likely violence may well be damning and iirc there are times where he
Yeah. I share these concerns.
Lefties are very bad at realizing that things like restrictions on speech will ultimately be used against them.
My argument could apply for something like "these people are destroying the planet." I..e. that would be a pretty good reason to riot or even kill.
I really don't know the extent to which Trump believes what he says. But, if you could document him saying that he knew he lost, but wanted to cause violence and chaos by using false claims, maybe that would be a different kettle of fish.
If he is just a crazy moron spouting to ther crazy morons, it's hard to say he intended to start a riot.
lol lol lol
you dont have any witnesses, evidence, nothing, nada.
but your fine with that, right? thats lol
if you have cite or ban. otherwise it all just basesless lies.
You can find it funny if you want but the reality isn't funny at all.
The authorities and the media far easier side with the right. If we also have to face merited accusations of double standards or hypocristy then it hurts badly.
You talk of moving the overton window - when we move it to supporting such weak political arguments then it's the left who will most often find themselves thrown though that window.
I don't know what's going on in this conversation; it's like you're just skimming my posts are something. I'll try one more time...
The case against Trump consist of a whole lot of things that, on their own, many would find dismissible. Each individual circumstance of Trump saying the election was stolen? No big deal. Come on down to the Capitol, it'll be wild? No big deal. Telling people to fight like hell? No big deal. Dragged his feet putting out messages to keep the protest peaceful? No big deal. But when we put them all together, we have a pretty clear pattern, and something one can make a case from.
No one is looking at him saying "fight like hell" in isolation and saying that means he was calling for violence. No one is looking at him saying "it'll be wild" in isolation and saying that means he was calling for violence. So when you carry on about one of those particular instances, in isolation, and suggest that we shouldn't make a big deal out of that because then the right will do the same in the future, that is indeed quite laughable. Like, what are you proposing? We shouldn't make a thing of fight like hell and we shouldn't make a thing of it'll be wild and we shouldn't make a thing of time A when he said the election was a fraud and and we shouldn't make a thing of time B when he said the election was a fraud, or time C, or time D, or that the Proud Boys should stand by, or time G when he called out Mike Pence for not going along with his plans, or Time H, or Time I? Because any one of those things was no big deal and if we make a fuss over one of those things then one day the Republicans will make a big deal out of the Democrats doing one of those things, right? I'm sorry, but this is just nonsense. There is a very clear pattern here. Whether it's enough to fight him guilty of anything, I'm not qualified to determine, but it's certainly worth pursuing IMO.
If he was actually correct and the election really was straight up stolen, storming the Capitol would have been justified. So that’s why he deserve blame for the riot and death caused 100% by his lies
If BLM is right and police actually targets unarmed non violent blacks for point blank assassinations (hint: it absolutely doesn't) much more often than others, then violent rioting against police buildings and cars would have been justified.
That's why BLM leadership and all politicians who supported it are each individually legally responsible for all the damage caused by those riots, and the deaths.
See how it works?
Imho it's insane to consider someone responsible for the purported effects of speech, people have free will
