You are so ridiculous. GP Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you, but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line.
Trump is an insurrectionist
Posts
Total:
335
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
You are so ridiculous. GP Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you, but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So your theory is that you can predict violence and that's not incitement but only when there is no date attached?If there is a date attached, now it's incitement?
My god dude. Pay attention.
This one particular point isn't even about incitement. Right now, we are talking about Trump's "will be wild" comments. Specifically, we are talking about whether those comments were an allusion to violence. That matters in this conversation because it demonstrates Trump's intent, which is an important element of whether he should be held responsible and to what degree.
So no, this has nothing to do with predicting violence. It has to do with whether one expects there to be violence and what one does with that expectation. Someone who really believes it "will be wild" and doesn't want that, would not have continued to hold that rally let alone tell the crowd to fight like hell.
So how do you respond? By pointing out that the individual making the uprising claim was speaking to someone, just like Trump. Wow, good one.You said:[Double_R] That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.That's a bit silly and I pointed that out.
A comment spoken to someone and a comment aimed at someone are two different things.
It's the notion that you can throw "context" out like a pokemon card and then you don't have to find a defamatory statement that continues to simultaneously disgust and amuse me.
Them you are disgusted and amused by a conversation you made up in your own mind.
I explained in detail how Trump's statements were defamatory. You never absorbed it because you don't have the capacity to handle nuance. All you wanted was one statement that was defamatory on its own, that's not how language works. Context matters no matter how forcefully you ignore it.
I will be ignoring any further comments you want to make on that here, if you want to rehash the defamation debate go back to that thread.
And I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point?My point is clearly and repeatedly to apply the standards you imply to the big picture instead of the narrow targets you intend.
You can't apply my standards until you understand them which requires actually reading what I wrote, something you have no demonstrated no interest in.
The fact that you keep trying to compare January 6th to the BLM riots proves just how uninterested you are in a good faith conversation. The two are not analogous to each other. All you're doing there is looking at the two, going "dUh TheY wEre bOTh vIolEnt" and... that's it. It's the context of that violence that matters to this conversation, but context doesn't seem to exist for you.
Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe.Yet you don't consider them insurrectionists despite many meeting the definition you imply.
Because they weren't trying to overthrow their government genius.
And if you had bothered to listen to a word I've said, ever, you might notice that I've never called January 6th an insurrection. Have you not noticed that I use the term rioters? Have you not noticed that I keep saying Trump incited the riots? No, of course not.
You're too busy arguing against "the left" through me to care about what the actual positions of the person you're actually talking to... are.
-->
@Double_R
So your theory is that you can predict violence and that's not incitement but only when there is no date attached?If there is a date attached, now it's incitement?My god dude. Pay attention.This one particular point isn't even about incitement. Right now, we are talking about Trump's "will be wild" comments. Specifically, we are talking about whether those comments were an allusion to violence. That matters in this conversation because it demonstrates Trump's intent, which is an important element of whether he should be held responsible and to what degree.
Responsible for.... _______?
So no, this has nothing to do with predicting violence.
Of course it does. You claim that "wild" refers to violence, that "it will be wild" predicts violence and further that a prediction of violence is endorsement of violence and an endorsement of violence is incitement, and incitement of a riot is insurrection.
If you deny that you're claiming that then you were lying before.
would not have continued to hold that rally let alone tell the crowd to fight like hell.
and someone who expected uprisings every day would have told people to be peaceful instead of saying you have to be ready to throw a punch.
Every point of comparison, I win.
A comment spoken to someone and a comment aimed at someone are two different things.
A pathetic semantic excuse and a reasonable dialogue are two different things.
I explained in detail how Trump's statements were defamatory.
Without quoting a comment <sarcasm>impressive</sarcasm>
You never absorbed it because you don't have the capacity to handle [bullshit].
fixed
All you wanted was one statement that was defamatory on its own
Or a theory with precedent on how non-defamatory statements combine to a defamatory effect. You gave neither. You just said "context" and dropped the mic.
that's not how language works
It's how sane honest people work, but it's not how you work.
Context matters no matter how forcefully you ignore it.
What you fail to realize is that I was born in context, shaped by it, molded by it. My context is more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
And I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point?My point is clearly and repeatedly to apply the standards you imply to the big picture instead of the narrow targets you intend.You can't apply my standards until you understand them which requires actually reading what I wrote, something you have no demonstrated no interest in.
You contradicting your implicit standards doesn't mean there is problem with my reading comprehension, it means you don't actually have standards because you're a feckless hack.
The fact that you keep trying to compare January 6th to the BLM riots proves just how uninterested you are in a good faith conversation. The two are not analogous to each other.
Pearl clutching attempt: Failed
They are analogous as they are both political violence and one was way worse for many reasons not the least of which is that one was an actual insurrection (declared to be in opposition to the constitution and continued existence of the united states and where territory was seized by armed militia)
It's the context of that violence that matters to this conversation
The context is you don't care to apply your definitions of 'incitement' 'insurrection' or 'rule of law' to the left-tribe, not their foot soldiers or their leaders, because you think they're the good guys. No shame in admitting it, just stop pretending you have some code of morals that allows to call Trump evil without knowing if the right-tribe is on the 'right side of history'.
Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe.Yet you don't consider them insurrectionists despite many meeting the definition you imply.Because they weren't trying to overthrow their government genius.
Insisting on elections because your constitution is being violated is not overthrowing your government. Declaring that the government has no sovereignty in a region and using weapons to enforce that declaration is the definition of insurrection.
And if you had bothered to listen to a word I've said, ever, you might notice that I've never called January 6th an insurrection.
Then incitement. You can hardly enter a thread with this title, claim for pages that someone incited something and act surprised when someone assumes you're talking about inciting an insurrection.
It changes nothing. Left-tribe leaders have used violent rhetoric and predicted violence far more often, with more clarity, and with no "false exculpatories". If Trump is somehow morally or criminally responsible for the behavior of right-tribe rioters then so are left-tribe leaders.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If Trump is somehow morally or criminally responsible for the behavior of right-tribe rioters then so are left-tribe leaders.
This passes the Alan Dershowitz "Shoe on the Other Foot" test for fair rule of law.
This passes the Alan Dershowitz
The child rapist?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
My god dude. Pay attention.This one particular point isn't even about incitement. Right now, we are talking about Trump's "will be wild" comments. Specifically, we are talking about whether those comments were an allusion to violence. That matters in this conversation because it demonstrates Trump's intent, which is an important element of whether he should be held responsible and to what degree.Responsible for.... _______?
*Sigh* So once again I have to teach you how basic communication and argument works. Fine. Settle down.
When debating nuanced topics, we often have broad categories and sub categories. In this case, incitement is the broad category we are discussing. That can be broken up into at least two sub-categories; incitement (of the rioters - in other words, did they riot because they believed Trump wanted them to), and intent. The significance of Trump's "will be wild" comments, is that it demonstrates his intent, so it is a sub category of the larger topic.
Here, let me give you another example; theft. To prove theft you would generally have to prove two things: (1) that the object was taken by the accused, and (2) that the accused intended to take it. Without the second, it's not theft, or at the very least you cannot hold someone accountable for it (this goes back to the guy who leaves the store with an unpaid item in his shopping cart vs the guy who shoves the item down his pants and runs).
So when I said this part wasn't about incitement, I was saying this part wasn't about the question of whether Trump's words here (will be wild) caused the rioters to riot. Once again and for the, what, 5th time (?), Trump's "will be wild" comments demonstrated that Trump was well aware of the potential for violence at the rally that he was calling for, organizing, and headlining. And he followed through with it anyway. That demonstrates intent.
Do you have an argument against this? Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?
that "it will be wild" predicts violence and further that a prediction of violence is endorsement of violence and an endorsement of violence is incitement, and incitement of a riot is insurrection.
Not one of these "is's" logically follows.
I can very easily predict violence without endorsing it.
I can very easily endorse what happened on January 6th without being the person who incited January 6th.
I can very easily incite people to riot without inciting people to engage in an inserection.
You can hardly enter a thread with this title, claim for pages that someone incited something and act surprised when someone assumes you're talking about inciting an insurrection.
I never said Trump incited something. I've said, dozens of times in this conversation alone, that he incited the January 6th riots. After all this time, after all these posts, you are just now realizing that I never talked about insurrection. Yet another example of how you don't listen.
It changes nothing. Left-tribe leaders have used violent rhetoric and predicted violence far more often, with more clarity, and with no "false exculpatories". If Trump is somehow morally or criminally responsible for the behavior of right-tribe rioters then so are left-tribe leaders.
This right here is the problem. No, what left tribe leaders are responsible for has nothing to do with what Trump is responsible for. Every situation needs to be assessed on its own merits.
This thread is about January 6th. This conversation specifically has been about whether Trump is responsible for the violence that occurred that day. That's the argument I've been making from the start. You started off engaging in that argument, but once you could no longer defend your position you started with the constant whataboutisms of the BLM riots.
So it really is this simple, here's the question; Is Donald Trump responsible for the violence that occurred on January 6th? Yes or No??? Do you have an answer to this question that is not "but BLM!"?
This is the difference between us. I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck up. The person who suggested there should be uprisings was dread wrong. I have no issue calling out bad behavior by whatever you are calling in your own mind "My tribe". Can you do the same?
And I'm sure I know what you'll say next; "but you've been defending them this whole time!". No, I haven't. Pointing out that two different things are different is not an endorsement of either of those things. My original position stands; Trump was responsible for January 6th. Explain how he is not.
-->
@Double_R
Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?
Yes
A wild event can be an exciting event:
Can you explain how "uprisings all the time" is anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?
Not one of these "is's" logically follows.I can very easily predict violence without endorsing it.I can very easily endorse what happened on January 6th without being the person who incited January 6th.I can very easily incite people to riot without inciting people to engage in an inserection.
I know. Each one of those is a logical gap between Donald Trump and the title of this thread.
You can hardly enter a thread with this title, claim for pages that someone incited something and act surprised when someone assumes you're talking about inciting an insurrection.I never said Trump incited something
Yea you did:
If any member of Congress spent months telling black people "the police in that station over there are killing black people, so on [insert date here] I want you to meet me next to [insert police station here], WILL BE WILD!", and then went on to hold a rally right outside of that police station on that date full of all their followers where he pointed to the station and said "you have to go over there and fight like hell or you're not going to have a community anymore", but then ended it by saying "peacefully and patrioticly make your voices heard"...I would absolutely hold that member accountable for inciting a riot, and so would you.
So what was your argument again defending his speech?It's speech. It's supposed to be a free countryYelling "bomb" on a plane is also speech, doesn't mean it gets first amendment protection.Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful, and since the first amendment does not protect against incitement of a riot?
I've said, dozens of times in this conversation alone, that he incited the January 6th riots.
Riots and insurrection aren't mutably exclusive.
No, what left tribe leaders are responsible for has nothing to do with what Trump is responsible for.
In fairyland that might be true. In the real world codes of behavior are predicated upon social contracts. The most objective moral arguments I know of distinguish between people who respect liberty and the savages who don't. You owe nothing to people who won't respect your liberty and you owe nothing to a society which violates its contract.
So yes it matters if the KKK can lynch people and get away with it but if you fight back you get charged for murder.
Anyone who denies this is doing so to defend their double standards and for no other reason would they not care.
Tolerating double standards is not only unjust, it skews the perception of the truth and if allowed to continue in endless layers can obscure it entirely. Every time I point out how your rules would damn the left I make a powerful appeal to absurdity. If your "rule of law" can only be applied to political enemies of the left there is something wrong with your theory.
You started off engaging in that argument, but once you could no longer defend your position you started with the constant whataboutisms of the BLM riots.
Wrong, the first time I responded to you in the second line I wrote:
Is Donald Trump responsible for the violence that occurred on January 6th? Yes or No?
No, the people who rigged the elections and refused to do real audits are.
I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck up
But you have not said nancy pelosi or maxene waters should be held responsible.
The person who suggested there should be uprisings was dread wrong
She didn't say "should" and neither did Trump. She predicted violence and said you have to be ready for to throw a punch.
I have no issue calling out bad behavior by whatever you are calling in your own mind "My tribe". Can you do the same?
You speak as if we agree on what bad behavior is.
There is no point comparing moral frameworks until both are internally consistent. If one is not internally consistent it's clearly wrong regardless of any other frameworks.
That is why I always attack double standards first.
Trump was responsible for January 6th. Explain how he is not.
Causality can be divided into necessary and sufficient causes. A complete set of necessary causes is itself a sufficient cause.
It can be said that a person causes an outcome when they trigger the final necessary condition.
They are responsible for the outcome if enacting that trigger could reasonably be predicted to be the final necessary condition.
If the outcome is evil, they are morally responsible only if they provided the first necessary condition that was not within their objective rights to provide (i.e. a violation of rights).
Let's agree that a capitol police officer getting boinked with a shield is an evil. Not a very big evil in the grand scheme of things, but still an evil.
Now even if Trump had said "Go my minions, attack! Show no mercy!" That would make him responsible for the attack, but it would not make him morally responsible for the evils that result from the attack.
In order to know that you would have to know that no other necessary condition was a violation of rights. In this case the necessary condition of Jan 6 was the rigging of the election which was a violation of social contract. No cause that comes after that aggression can shift the blame.
Let me give you an example that you would probably agree with: Bombing Dresden. Was giving the order to bomb Dresden the last necessary condition which could reasonably be expected to be the last necessary condition before evil results?
YES
Is Bomber Harris morally responsible, was he in the wrong? NO
Why?
The nazis launching wars of extermination to the east was the first necessary condition which was outside their right to liberty. Thus they are and will always be morally responsible for every little boy or girl burned or buried at Dresden.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?YesA wild event can be an exciting event:
Right, never seen anything more exciting than a bunch of peaceful protesters making their voices heard.
Can you explain how "uprisings all the time" is anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?
No, because it clearly is.
I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck upBut you have not said nancy pelosi or maxene waters should be held responsible.
Because we treat different things... Differently.
But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.
But/For Nancy Pelosi... Nothing about the BLM riots would have been any different
But/For Maxine Waters... Nothing about the BLM riots would have been any different
When you can show me the rioters and looters who said we're here because Nanci Pelosi told us to be, and you can show me where she called for them to be there... Then we can talk. But you know you'll never be able to show that, because you know damn well not a single person rioted because Maxine Waters told them to.
She didn't say "should" and neither did Trump. She predicted violence and said you have to be ready for to throw a punch.
Did she also go on to call for, organize and headline the rally she predicted would turn violent?
You speak as if we agree on what bad behavior is.There is no point comparing moral frameworks until both are internally consistent. If one is not internally consistent it's clearly wrong regardless of any other frameworks.That is why I always attack double standards first.
If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".
Whether my moral framework is internally consistent has nothing to do with whether yours is.
Now even if Trump had said "Go my minions, attack! Show no mercy!" That would make him responsible for the attack, but it would not make him morally responsible for the evils that result from the attack.In order to know that you would have to know that no other necessary condition was a violation of rights. In this case the necessary condition of Jan 6 was the rigging of the election which was a violation of social contract. No cause that comes after that aggression can shift the blame.
We both know that we have diametrically opposing views on whether the election was rigged, and we already seemed to agree that if the election was actually rigged, violence is a naturally predictable and to some extent a morally justifiable consequence. So it would appear that our only difference here is on the evidence of election rigging.
But that's not what you have been arguing here, or at least you did not stop there otherwise we wouldn't be debating this week's later.
You are simultaneously arguing that the election was rigged and therefore violence was a natural, morally permissible, and to some extent a necessary response, but also that Trump despite leading the charge on the case for a rigged election never wanted the violence and that any reasonable person would recognize that he never wanted there to be violence.
Those are two opposing things. You cannot argue that Outcome A was a natural and permissible response and also that no one should have believed that Outcome A was the desired outcome.
-->
@Double_R
Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?YesA wild event can be an exciting event:Right, never seen anything more exciting than a bunch of peaceful protesters making their voices heard.
I'll take that as acceptance of my answer.
I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck upBut you have not said nancy pelosi or maxene waters should be held responsible.Because we treat different things... Differently.
For instance black people are different than white people so we can treat them differently.
But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.
It would have happened some other place and time. This is not a relevant difference.
But/For Nancy Pelosi... Nothing about the BLM riots would have been any differentBut/For Maxine Waters... Nothing about the BLM riots would have been any different
You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).
When you can show me the rioters and looters who said we're here because Nanci Pelosi told us to be, and you can show me where she called for them to be there...
Don't forget insurrectionists.
I'll be able to do that just as soon as I can arrest them after pulling their text messages in a mass canvas, face them up against a jury of proud-boys, threaten them with ten years in prison, and imply that the only chance of lenience would be if they blame it all on Nancy Pelosi.
She didn't say "should" and neither did Trump. She predicted violence and said you have to be ready for to throw a punch.Did she also go on to call for, organize and headline the rally she predicted would turn violent?
She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.
Maxine waters set a timeline: "tonight" (I will go and take Trump out tonight)
Elizabeth warren wanted it even sooner "take him out now".
If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".
Why is that?
Whether my moral framework is internally consistent has nothing to do with whether yours is.
That's true, but my moral framework isn't the only one that needs to be critically examined.
So it would appear that our only difference here is on the evidence of election rigging.
No, it's the most important difference but I also deny that Trump is responsible for the violence in any sense even the non-moral one. i.e. Bomber Harris is amorally responsible for killing children in Dresden (as are the bomber crews, the bomb makers, the anglophone public, etc...), but he is not morally responsible.
Trump is neither morally nor amorally responsible for the violence on Jan 6. I don't think he intended it. He certainly didn't ask for it in a way a reasonable person would understand. What you call a false exculpatory is absolutely damning proof of this. If you want people to attack without telling them to attack it would be hard enough to get that message across much less sending mixed signals.
In Trump's mind there was still a chance to save democracy peacefully, and that was by congress rejecting electors. This fully explains why he organized a protest instead of trying to assemble loyalist from the military like anyone who wanted to use force to stay in power would have.
The right-tribe had not been violent before. Trump didn't expect it. Neither did the left-tribe. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to ask the question: Why were they so unprepared?
I know the conspiracy theory is that they had insufficient fencing and crowd control because they wanted to invite violence but that is far from the simplest explanation. Deep down, they knew from experience that the right-tribe of the modern era has never been violent or even disrespectful of symbolic fencing. They knew all their rhetoric about terrorism was pure fiction, because if they believed it they might have done something right? Well unless you're ready to believe the conspiracy theory.
The violence shocked Trump and the capitol police. I think it shocked left-tribe leaders and maybe even the more cunning thinkers of the deep state. They thought they could just keep pushing forever. They were wrong, and if they think making martyrs out of the people they've locked up for seditious conspiracy or shot dead has neutralized the threat they are wrong again.
Let me tell you as someone with an ocean of rage bottled up. Fear doesn't make it go away, it just adds to it. They're just winding the spring tighter. Making sure the next shot will be to kill.
You are simultaneously arguing that the election was rigged and therefore violence was a natural, morally permissible, and to some extent a necessary response, but also that Trump despite leading the charge on the case for a rigged election never wanted the violence and that any reasonable person would recognize that he never wanted there to be violence.
For once your summary is accurate.
Those are two opposing things. You cannot argue that Outcome A was a natural and permissible response and also that no one should have believed that Outcome A was the desired outcome.
Of course I can because there is temporal distance between them.
So say the election is rigged, but there are audits pending. Is violence necessary yet? No of course it's the last resort.
Audits are cursory, unpublished, and there are whistleblowers who say the state lied about doing audits in several cases. Violence yet?
No, there are still tons of court cases pending. Judges hide under their benches, hand down ridiculous excuses that basically absolve courts of involving themselves in elections if believed. Violence yet?
No, there are still state legislatures, they could act. They cower as well, in some cases they are paralyzed by governors refusing to call sessions. Violence yet?
No, congress could reject the electors and/or Pence could refuse to count them. This would force a constitutional crises that would likely have to be resolved by a combination of the supreme court and the state legislatures, hopefully a full constitutional convention where amendments related to election integrity are added.
Pence failed, congress bailed; but Trump didn't count on that outcome. Trump didn't have a military solution. We wish he had, but he never did. We would have learned all about it if he had done anything more than speculate. A mob of unarmed people you told to be peaceful isn't a military solution. A mob of unarmed people putting their feet on Pelosi's desk doesn't force a constitutional convention.
Now that may have been the hope of many of the rioters and protestors but they had no other options they were already inside the building, congress was gone, there was no one to shout at. Trump was POTUS and cloaked in enormous power (to quote Lincoln). If he wanted to try a military solution he may have failed but he could have done a hell of a lot better than the shaman's fake spear.
At the time he called for the protest, there was a theory of a peaceful solution. Even now there is a theory of a peaceful remedy: If you expose enough deep state lies it will become impossible to neutralize the growing majority with fraud.
Now this is important to realize, because there will continue to be growing violence and separatism every election doubt remains. Nothing is resolved. If Trump is apparently elected in 2024 that will simply be called illegal and illegitimate with some other set of excuses. The violence of the left-tribe hasn't gone anywhere it just has expression in the form of the DOJ right now. This cycle is not going to end until the federal government is gutted and elections are diamond houses (transparent yet impossible to break into).
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Right, never seen anything more exciting than a bunch of peaceful protesters making their voices heard.I'll take that as acceptance of my answer.
So you don't understand sarcasm either. Noted.
Because we treat different things... Differently.For instance black people are different than white people so we can treat them differently.
Differences that are relevant.
My 10 year old niece would have figured that out.
But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.It would have happened some other place and time. This is not a relevant difference.
Right, it would have happened the next time a major presidential candidate refused to concede and declared himself the victor, then went on to claim the other side stole the election. That's why every losing candidate has congratulated their opponent for hundreds of years. They all understood this, Trump didn't give a shit. It's another example of why we all said in 2016 that he was dangerous to the country, it's why Putin launched his own campaign trip help him - because he knew Trump would ensure the demise of our democracy.
You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).
Never said nor implied this.
I'll be able to do that just as soon as I can arrest them after pulling their text messages in a mass canvas, face them up against a jury of proud-boys, threaten them with ten years in prison, and imply that the only chance of lenience would be if they blame it all on Nancy Pelosi.
They said it at the Capitol genius. Others said it as they were being prosecuted regardless, others said it after their trials.
She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.
Another example of your unseriousness. This is what it looks like when you don't have a logical leg to stand on but insist on defending your position anyway.
If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".Why is that?
Because my double standards would be irrelevant to the fact that you would be right, so your constant deflections and whataboutisms would only take away from your ability to prove it.
What you call a false exculpatory is absolutely damning proof of this. If you want people to attack without telling them to attack it would be hard enough to get that message across much less sending mixed signals.
It wasn't a mixed signal. I already explained this.
Trump spent months telling his supporters the election was stolen. He then called for them to come to the Capitol on January 6th. He told them it "will be wild" (despite your utterly stupid Pepsi ad example, that's an obvious allusion to violence), he spoke alongside his right hand man saying let's have trial by combat, he pointed to the building where their voices were in the offices of being stolen and then spoke and told them to fight like hell or their not going to have a country anymore.
All of this on one side, but on the other, he said "peacefully" in an hour long speech. Not one single sentence anywhere else in his hour long speech emphasized the need to be peaceful. Everything else about it was inflammatory. No one was confused. It's basic communication.
It's telling how you keep arguing that I'm wrong about basic human communication, but cannot provide a single example in any other scenario where your theory of communication makes any sense.
In Trump's mind there was still a chance to save democracy peacefully, and that was by congress rejecting electors. This fully explains why he organized a protest instead of trying to assemble loyalist from the military like anyone who wanted to use force to stay in power would have.
If Trump had tried to steal the election by force it would have failed because none of his senior officials would have went along with it, just like when he tried to make Jeffrey Clark the acting AG and his entire senior DOJ staff threatened to resign.
The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors. And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier. That's why instead of making phone calls to the national guard as any other president would have her instead had his attorney calling senators telling them to use the delay to stop the certification. That was the plan.
The right-tribe had not been violent before. Trump didn't expect it. Neither did the left-tribe. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to ask the question: Why were they so unprepared?
Probably because we as a nation just went through months of civil unrest over excessive police force so they didn't want the look of a military vs the people the way they did a few months prior when BLM protested there. Regardless of why, all of the warning signs were there. It was objectively a monumental failure.
Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?
Those are two opposing things. You cannot argue that Outcome A was a natural and permissible response and also that no one should have believed that Outcome A was the desired outcome.Of course I can because there is temporal distance between them.
Not one thing you went on to describe in any way supports your statement here. The fact that there is technically a theory of peaceful resolution (to overturn the election) does not mean that any reasonable person would have bought it, and certainly no one did.
By this point every republican governor already signed off on Trump's loss, every judge including those that Trump appointed rejected his lawsuits, and every attempt to gain any real traction on Congress by this point was clearly DOA. No one in their right mind expected anything other than for Congress to certify Biden as the next president. This Monday morning quarterbacking you're doing right now completely defies all reality of the situation as it was on January 6th.
It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise.
-->
@Double_R
But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.It would have happened some other place and time. This is not a relevant difference.Right, it would have happened the next time a major presidential.... [bla bla bla]
So you have no argument for the relevance of specific time and place being necessary for incitement.
You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).Never said nor implied this.
You did imply it. If "will be wild" isn't secret-speak for "violence" then it is irrelevant. If Trump endorsing violence was not necessary for violence then it wasn't incitement.
I'll be able to do that just as soon as I can arrest them after pulling their text messages in a mass canvas, face them up against a jury of proud-boys, threaten them with ten years in prison, and imply that the only chance of lenience would be if they blame it all on Nancy Pelosi.They said it at the Capitol genius.
Show me.
She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.Another example of your unseriousness.
You drop the point.
If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".Why is that?Because my double standards would be irrelevant to the fact that you would be right, so your constant deflections and whataboutisms would only take away from your ability to prove it.
Why would pointing out your double standards take away from my ability to prove my own standards?
What you call a false exculpatory is absolutely damning proof of this. If you want people to attack without telling them to attack it would be hard enough to get that message across much less sending mixed signals.It wasn't a mixed signal. I already explained this.
You claimed to have. You did not. 'Peaceful' is not violent, they're opposites.
All of this on one side, but on the other, he said "peacefully" in an hour long speech. Not one single sentence anywhere else in his hour long speech emphasized the need to be peaceful.
Your arbitrary expectations for the ratio between urging peace and inflammatory (but not unequivocally violent) rhetoric are irrelevant.
but cannot provide a single example in any other scenario where your theory of communication makes any sense.
The theory of communication is that you don't get to pick the more obscure and contradictory interpretation because you need to GET TRUMP.
In Trump's mind there was still a chance to save democracy peacefully, and that was by congress rejecting electors. This fully explains why he organized a protest instead of trying to assemble loyalist from the military like anyone who wanted to use force to stay in power would have.If Trump had tried to steal the election by force it would have failed because none of his senior officials would have went along with it
You know nothing about military solutions if you think that. The first step would be to bypass anyone you can't trust, get a platoon (personally by going to a base); have them ready, and then fire anyone who has ever shown a hint of questioning your orders or having any motivation to do so. Escort them to house arrest with your loyal soldiers.
just like when he tried to make Jeffrey Clark the acting AG and his entire senior DOJ staff threatened to resign.
Stalin would have accepted their resignations and then had them sent to Siberia after they had left the building.
The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors.
That is the only option he planned for.
And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier.
Why is that?
The right-tribe had not been violent before. Trump didn't expect it. Neither did the left-tribe. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to ask the question: Why were they so unprepared?Probably because we as a nation just went through months of civil unrest over excessive police force so they didn't want the look of a military vs the people the way they did a few months prior when BLM protested there.
If the mainstream media was free and fair you would know there were plenty of military-level-equipment people there. They stood by. My point stands (easily), you're saying they cared about optics so they didn't want to militarize it like they did before (I bet whatever you're referring to is no more militarized than the capitol was on Jan 6).
That's a motivation not an explanation. If they thought the right-tribe were liable to start burning things down (as the left-tribe repeatedly tried to do) that risk would have outweighed optics.... unless they liked the optics of the right-tribe burning things down.
Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?
I think it's more likely than not that he mentioned something.
The fact that there is technically a theory of peaceful resolution (to overturn the election) does not mean that any reasonable person would have bought it, and certainly no one did.
Even if that was true, it's one unreasonable plan vs another unreasonable plan. Walking around the capitol taking selfies with cops and mildly mocking the personal property of congress people (without destroying anything) does not have a reasonable chance of success, in fact it's a hell of a lot more unreasonable than putting pressure on Pence and congress by chanting and shouting.
It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise.
Well except for telling them to respect the police and go home. Your complaints about timing continue to break against the facts like waves on rocks.
You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).Never said nor implied this.You did imply it. If "will be wild" isn't secret-speak for "violence" then it is irrelevant.
I never strayed from my original point. This is the game you love to play, note the bold on your original comment above, that's what I just told you I never suggested nor implied.
The argument is not nor was it ever that "will be wild" was necessary for J6 to turn violent. The argument has always been that his words were a clear allusion to violence, which means two things:
- It is therefore demonstrative of Trump's intent
- it was yet another indication to his followers that he was calling for violence
They said it at the Capitol genius.Show me.
This is literally the second link to pop up in my Google search. I would show you more but we both know that is a complete waste of time as you will find an excuse to hand waive away any example I provide.
She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.Another example of your unseriousness.You drop the point.
Because the point was stupid and there are only so many hours in a day. "All over the place" isn't a location. My 10 year old niece understands that, if you don't it's not worth my time to explain it to you.
Why would pointing out your double standards take away from my ability to prove my own standards?
Because it's a distraction. If you could prove your points you would focus on that instead of giving me 40 individual responses to spread my time and attention to as well as putting anyone who might be interested in reading your points to sleep while we bicker over stupid shit like figuring out what 4 > 1 means.
Your arbitrary expectations for the ratio between urging peace and inflammatory (but not unequivocally violent) rhetoric are irrelevant.
Arbitrary expectations... This is exactly why you are not a serious person to discuss issues with.
What I outlined is a matter of basic communication and I gave you a whole other example to illustrate how it works. You had no thoughtful or substantive response to it. But this isn't something any good faith person can shrug off, it's the entire heart of the case.
At what point does a person's message become clear even in the face of what might seem like a contradictory message if viewed in isolation? How do we even go about understanding what a person wants in general? Why is it so obvious to any reasonable person that "nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them" is not actually an expression of concern but rather a threat to you and your family? These are the things that matter if we're really trying to determine what the reasonable take away from the evidence here is, but you have no interest in that conversation. I wonder why? (actually I don't)
but cannot provide a single example in any other scenario where your theory of communication makes any sense.The theory of communication is that you don't get to pick the more obscure and contradictory interpretation because you need to GET TRUMP.
More obscure contradictory interpretation??? Yet another example of how unserious you are. You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months. The idea that those three words outweighed everything else is just plain stupid.
You know nothing about military solutions if you think that. The first step would be to bypass anyone you can't trust, get a platoon (personally by going to a base); have them ready, and then fire anyone who has ever shown a hint of questioning your orders or having any motivation to do so. Escort them to house arrest with your loyal soldiers.
Spoken like a true dictator.
The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors.That is the only option he planned for.
Right, that's why he watched the riots by himself from the dining room wondering why no one else was as excited as he was.
And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier.Why is that?
Because his goal was to stop the certification, and it worked... At least temporarily. The plan failed only because members of Congress, including and especially the republicans, decided that failing to fulfill their constitutional duty was going too far and because those same members refused to listen to Trump's lawyers calling them during the riots to tell them not to verify the results.
you're saying they cared about optics so they didn't want to militarize it like they did before (I bet whatever you're referring to is no more militarized than the capitol was on Jan 6).
That's a motivation not an explanation.
You literally asked me to explain their motivations.
Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?I think it's more likely than not that he mentioned something.
And why would he have made that offer of he wasn't expecting any violence?
Even if that was true, it's one unreasonable plan vs another unreasonable plan.
Yes, so stop pretending that all of this constitutional strategizing is a useful way to analyze this.
It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise.Well except for telling them to respect the police and go home.
Right, in a Facebook post he didn't write and had to be pleaded with to allow to be released.
Here's another real question for you:
You're the president of the US. Your supporters gather to protest at the US Capitol. You learn that they have turned violent and are breaching the Capitol perimeter, you also get news that your VP had been evacuated for his safety. Congress is being evacuated as well.
Please enlighten me... What do you do? What do the next three hours look like for you?
If you are going to answer just one thing I've said with actual thought, make it this question.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Former President Trump holds a 6-point lead over President Biden in a hypothetical 2024 match-up, new polling shows, even as the Republican frontrunner faces mounting legal woes.
A Harvard CAPS-Harris poll found Trump with 48 percent to Biden’s 42 percent in a head-to-head race, with another 9 percent of registered voters unsure who they would back between the two.
Even if Trump is indicted in one of his legal battles, the polling suggests he could still defeat Biden.
If Trump is convicted of trying to influence the 2020 election results in Georgia, he’s still the favorite to win, with 52 percent to Biden’s 48 percent.
If he’s convicted for inciting the riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, his lead extends to 8 points, with 54 percent to Biden’s 46 percent.
-->
@Double_R
it was yet another indication to his followers that he was calling for violence
The other one being "peacefully and patriotically let your voices be heard"
They said it at the Capitol genius.Show me.This is literally the second link to pop up in my Google search. I would show you more but we both know that is a complete waste of time as you will find an excuse to hand waive away any example I provide.
Contains no sound recordings from the capitol.
"All over the place" isn't a location. My 10 year old niece understands that
"All over the country", and if that isn't a location "on the planet Earth" isn't a location either. You and your niece better tell NASA, they have been working under some mistaken premises for a while now.
Why would pointing out your double standards take away from my ability to prove my own standards?Because it's a distraction.
No, I would prioritize defending my moral theory if there was a time conflict.
Why is it so obvious to any reasonable person that "nice family you got there, would be a real change of something were to happen to them" is not actually an expression of concern but rather a threat to you and your family?
You also tried to use this so called example to explain why you didn't need to identify any defamatory statements and yet were comfortable claiming there was defamation. Not a serious person.
You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months.
He never told anyone to be violent. He did tell them to be peaceful. Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.
You know nothing about military solutions if you think that. The first step would be to bypass anyone you can't trust, get a platoon (personally by going to a base); have them ready, and then fire anyone who has ever shown a hint of questioning your orders or having any motivation to do so. Escort them to house arrest with your loyal soldiers.Spoken like a true dictator.
Deflection. That is what a military solution would look like.
The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors.That is the only option he planned for.Right, that's why he watched the riots by himself from the dining room wondering why no one else was as excited as he was.
Do you also believe that he tried to hijack his own car? Lol
And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier.Why is that?Because his goal was to stop the certification, and it worked... At least temporarily. The plan failed only because members of Congress, including and especially the republicans, decided that failing to fulfill their constitutional duty was going too far and because those same members refused to listen to Trump's lawyers calling them during the riots to tell them not to verify the results.
We know the plan was to stop the certification, and we know that Trump was telling them not to certify beforehand. What does violence have to do with it?
you're saying they cared about optics so they didn't want to militarize it like they did before (I bet whatever you're referring to is no more militarized than the capitol was on Jan 6).
June 2nd is the day after they tried to burn down the church and sent POTUS into a bunker.
That's a motivation not an explanation.You literally asked me to explain their motivations.
No I asked you "Why were they so unprepared". You gave a reason why they would not want to appear militarized, but that motivation doesn't outweigh the motivation of wanting to prevent a riot (if you assume they are honest).
It thus follows that they either did not foresee a riot or they did not truly want to prevent one.
Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?I think it's more likely than not that he mentioned something.And why would he have made that offer of he wasn't expecting any violence?
Someone could have asked about it. Damned either way apparently. If he didn't offer you say its because he wanted an attack to succeed (somehow at something), if he did that proves he was expecting violence.
Something about the thought process of a conspiracy theorists? You can fill in the blanks you've accused others plenty of times.
Even if that was true, it's one unreasonable plan vs another unreasonable plan.Yes, so stop pretending that all of this constitutional strategizing is a useful way to analyze this.
"Even if" != "I totally cede the point"
It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise.Well except for telling them to respect the police and go home.Right, in a Facebook post he didn't write and had to be pleaded with to allow to be released.
Well there is a video of him saying it.
You're the president of the US. Your supporters gather to protest at the US Capitol. You learn that they have turned violent and are breaching the Capitol perimeter, you also get news that your VP had been evacuated for his safety. Congress is being evacuated as well.Please enlighten me... What do you do? What do the next three hours look like for you?
Well if I have a functioning brain with the most basic understanding of military matters I would know that you can't shove people out of a building unless you have similar numbers and if the hallways are all full it's impossible without people getting trampled to death.
There is also no point pretending you can instantly deploy more infantry. Even fast reaction aerial cavalry (chopper and osprey deployed) need to be on standby. Everything else but local police and whatever was there already would have taken hours. The metropolitan police went in at 2:24 PM. Shortly after there were people in full camo with combat helmets and M4s on the hill just forming a perimeter (so much for not appearing militarized). There was also a crowd control squad sitting over by the supreme court doing nothing.
So I would say fill the building with tear gas and wait for them to leave, but it wouldn't be my call because nobody on scene was actually under my command. If you're implying that words alone would have mattered
First rioter enters the building - 2:12 p.m
"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" - 2:38
That's 26 minutes. Not three hours. The reason the majority of people left is because congress left. Not Trump's tweet. Not tear gas. Not metro police.
That's assuming I disagree with the violence, which I don't; in which case I would cheer them on and promise to pardon each one for anything short of rape, murder, unnecessary arson, and maiming. Of course since I believe violence was already called for I wouldn't have let a bunch of desperate unarmed people handle it. I would have declared the states with fake election to be in a state of insurrection and deployed the military to administer a fully transparent election. If the supreme court started making noise I would have put them under house arrest. Same to any congressman or senator who starting rumbling about impeachment. It worked before after all.
-->
@Greyparrot
If he’s convicted for inciting the riots at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, his lead extends to 8 points, with 54 percent to Biden’s 46 percent.
It's not a great idea to read too deeply into polls. They gave a false sense of security to the deep state in 2016 and to the right tribe in 2022.
Still it wouldn't surprise me if this is reflecting a true shifting of opinion as more and more people realize they're out to GET TRUMP. In a way the EJC and "civil fraud" stuff were tactical mistakes even under the premise of fascist lawfare, since they are so outrageously unjust and unprecedented they are waking people up.
The way the mind works is once they no longer trust the accusers they care less about the accusations, which is how people like me have thought for a long time; but anyway it's not that 6% more people are happy to vote for an insurrectionist, it's that 6% of people are angry and frightened that if they don't punish the people going after Trump we'll be full banana republic in short order (in regards to Trump & friends we already are).
It's hilarious (in a sad way), they accuse "us" of being obsessed with Trump, of having devotion for him, but their own actions make supporting Trump the only sane option. It's not a martyr complex, it's that 'we' need to show 'them' they can't get away with this. It's unacceptable. You do not get to veto giant political movements by using lies and the apparatus of the state to attack figureheads.
IF we let them get away with this, we will no longer have a democracy even if the elections are secure because the range of candidates will be filtered to the ones they won't railroad.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not a one-off poll. Trump's numbers have been climbing steadily for months as he campaigns from the courthouses. There is most definitely a shift in the public opinion on this, especially as censored info about Jan 6 gets strategically leaked out by the GOP. This was always going to be the problem with hanging your hopes on a kangaroo court select committee's year old version of the events.
This is why I asked Historybuff a few days back if the DNC might change their campaign strategy, and he admitted they probably will not. This means Trump will probably win by default. I'm not happy with another 4 years of Trump, but the alternative is far worse.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months.He never told anyone to be violent. He did tell them to be peaceful.
Right, and the mob boss never told you he was going to come after your family. He did however express concern over the well being of their safety.
This is where we are in this conversation. On one hand, I am going to keep pointing to the months of Trump telling his supporters the democrats were stealing their country from them culminating in Trump calling for them to make one last stand giving them the time and place, in a message that clearly alluded to violence, where Trump would go on to tell his supporters to fight like hell.
And on the other hand you will point to one word Trump utteted in the middle of an hour long speech.
And to you, these two things are proportional to each other.
There is no point in debating this point with you any further. When someone has demonstrated such flagrant disregard for basic common sense and communication, there is no room left for a rational dialog
Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.
You agreed with it in this very thread. You literally ended your last post by telling me you agreed with the violence for the exact same reason you are claiming the rioters were unjustified for believing Trump wanted the violence. The double standards aren't on this end.
No I asked you "Why were they so unprepared". You gave a reason why they would not want to appear militarized, but that motivation doesn't outweigh the motivation of wanting to prevent a riot (if you assume they are honest).
I don't have an explanation on why they were so incompetent so I offered a speculative answer. That was obvious by the word "probably" in my answer.
You are pretending the answer is an either/or, that they either believed there would be violence or they didn't, and since the Capitol was overrun they must have believed there would be no violence. That's nonsense. They had more security at the Capitol on J6 2021 than we had ever seen on J6 of any election year. That was directly because of Trump and the threat his supporters represented. They failed to anticipate the size of that threat. The reason why is irrelevant.
Damned either way apparently. If he didn't offer you say its because he wanted an attack to succeed (somehow at something), if he did that proves he was expecting violence.
Yes, either way the answer is damning. That's what it looks like when you are wrong.
If Trump did not offer the troops then every time he tells this story he is lying through his teeth. That is entirely consistent with a man who wanted violence and is now trying to backtrack.
If he did offer the troops then your position is contradictory. To believe he offered up 10k troops is to believe he recognized the likelihood of violence on that day. So if he was aware of it and didn't want the to be violence, he would not have held that rally or at the very least, he would have forcefully conveyed to his supporters that he did not want violence. Using the word "peaceful" once in the middle of an hour long speech that ended with "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore" is the opposite of what any sane person trying to avoid violence would do.
Did I mention it was an hour long speech? Please perform the following excercise: find just one speech that anyone in history has ever given where the speaker clearly conveyed to his/her followers the need to be peaceful while using the word peaceful only once, and an extra bonus if you can find one in which they used the word "fight" 20 times.
Hint: you will never be able to find this because it never happened, because it is a completely absurd and frankly ridiculous thing to suggest. You know this damn well but you pretend not to. The reason why is beyond me.
Well if I have a functioning brain with the most basic understanding of military matters I would know that you can't shove people out of a building unless you have similar numbers and if the hallways are all full it's impossible without people getting trampled to death.There is also no point pretending you can instantly deploy more infantry. Even fast reaction aerial cavalry (chopper and osprey deployed) need to be on standby. Everything else but local police and whatever was there already would have taken hours. The metropolitan police went in at 2:24 PM. Shortly after there were people in full camo with combat helmets and M4s on the hill just forming a perimeter (so much for not appearing militarized). There was also a crowd control squad sitting over by the supreme court doing nothing.So I would say fill the building with tear gas and wait for them to leave, but it wouldn't be my call because nobody on scene was actually under my command. If you're implying that words alone would have mattered
The question is what would you as president have done in that situation. Three paragraphs in and your answer is literally "nothing". This is what flailing around looks like.
First rioter enters the building - 2:12 p.m"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" - 2:38That's 26 minutes. Not three hours. The reason the majority of people left is because congress left. Not Trump's tweet. Not tear gas. Not metro police.
The Capitol barricades were breached at 12:53pm. Trump's motorcade arrived back at the White House at 1:19pm. He's the president, if he didn't know the Capitol was starting to lose to the Mob it's because he didn't care.
The rioters then beach the Capitol at 2:12pm. Trump immediately after learning that Pence had been evacuated for his safety at 2:24 tweets to his followers "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done". That is not someone concerned with the violence.
So even if Trump wrote that tweet (he didn't), and even if he sent it out of genuine concern (he didn't) it is remarkably appalling that it took him that long to do so. At 2:32 - 6 minutes earlier - Laura Ingraham texted Mark Meadows "Hey Mark, The president needs to tell people in the Capitol to go home.". Why the fuck is Laura Ingraham ahead of the President of the United States on what needs to be done to deter his own supporters and ensure the safety of the US Capitol?
Donald Trump watched those riots from 1:25pm all the way till 4:03pm till he finally got off of his ass to record the video everyone on his staff and in his inner circle had been pleading him to send out. That is absolutely disgraceful, but what's even worse is that there are people like you out there by the millions pretending that this is what it looks like when we have a president who doesn't want violence. The stupidity is utterly embarrassing.
-->
@Double_R
You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months.He never told anyone to be violent. He did tell them to be peaceful.Right, and the mob boss never told you he was going to come after your family. He did however express concern over the well being of their safety.
Your theory of coded language fails for this above many other reasons: It doesn't work when the addressed don't have the cipher.
You assert "it will be wild" must mean violence. That is your assertion, no different than those who claim the "OK" hand signal is white supremacist dog whistling. "It will be wild" remains your only claimed coded language.
Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.You agreed with it in this very thread.
I did not.
If someone screams "murder murder" that doesn't mean they're calling for violence, even though violence is an appropriate response to murderers.
No I asked you "Why were they so unprepared". You gave a reason why they would not want to appear militarized, but that motivation doesn't outweigh the motivation of wanting to prevent a riot (if you assume they are honest).I don't have an explanation on why they were so incompetent so I offered a speculative answer.
and the form of the 'incompetence' was the presumption of non-violence from the right-tribe.
The reason why is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant. It is evidence that the threat was not obvious, which goes to show that you're trying to rewrite history so that it appears obvious and inevitable that when Trump calls for a wild protest he must mean an attack. If it was so obvious, why is it that the entire left-tribe leadership failed to (in their erroneous view) 'protect democracy'?
Damned either way apparently. If he didn't offer you say its because he wanted an attack to succeed (somehow at something), if he did that proves he was expecting violence.Yes, either way the answer is damning. That's what it looks like when you are wrong.
Uh huh.
Three paragraphs in and your answer is literally "nothing".
If you want to mischaracterize my answer I can't stop you, but I've answered the question.
"Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what needed to be done". That is not someone concerned with the violence.
If Mike Pence had done what needed to be done the violence would have simmered down.
That is absolutely disgraceful, but what's even worse is that there are people like you out there by the millions pretending that this is what it looks like when we have a president who doesn't want violence.
I have said that he didn't call for violence, that he called for peace beforehand, that he didn't expect violence, and that violence was not part of his plan to save democracy.
I have not said that he didn't want violence. Everyone who is angry wants violence. It was clearly cathartic for him to see people were just as angry as he was.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Right, and the mob boss never told you he was going to come after your family. He did however express concern over the well being of their safety.Your theory of coded language fails for this above many other reasons: It doesn't work when the addressed don't have the cipher.
It's not coded language, it's common sense. If I give you two, and I give you another two, you don't need a cipher to figure out I just gave you four.
This is why I keep using the mob boss analogy. There is no cipher there yet every person with an IQ above room temperature knows what the mob boss is saying. It's basic human communication and you have yet to provide any alternative theory or provide any examples to show how I'm not getting it right.
You assert "it will be wild" must mean violence.
My assertion is that this is the only reasonable interpretation in context. I've explained why in detail, you have yet to offer any meaningful rebuttal other than a very lazy attempt to provide an alternate example where the context was not only entirely absent but where the word "wild" itself was being used as a pun. F-
Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.You agreed with it in this very thread.I did not.
Here is you in post 191:
I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.
You did agree to it. It's right there ^. I would define the terms if there was anything to define but there isn't because it's really basic English. You can backtrack if you misspoke, that's fair although by this point questionable. But stop lying by saying you didn't agree to it. You did. Right there.
It is not irrelevant. It is evidence that the threat was not obvious, which goes to show that you're trying to rewrite history so that it appears obvious and inevitable that when Trump calls for a wild protest he must mean an attack. If it was so obvious, why is it that the entire left-tribe leadership failed to (in their erroneous view) 'protect democracy'?
First of all you are engaging in a clear black or white fallacy. Like I already explained, this isn't a question of either/or, it's a scale. They did beef up security at the Capitol directly because of Trump's fanning of the flames. The problem is that they failed to accurately anticipate the size and scale of the threat.
Second, there is nothing here that needs to be rewritten. The failure has already been investigated a dozen times over. Every investigation concluded that the officials responsible for Capitol security had all of the warning signs but failed miserably to act on them.
Third, it's not like this was something no one was taking about. I was at work on that day and still had my phone tuned into live feeds because I wanted to know if it would "get wild" myself, never anticipated Capitol security would be so unprepared though.
Articles and news broadcasts from before the riot are very difficult to find because search terms relating to J6 are swamped with reporting on the aftermath, but here is an audio report from NPR from a reporter on the morning of J6 talking about the rally and talking about the violent mood of the crowd. This was common knowledge to anyone paying attention to the news at the time.
I have said that he didn't call for violence, that he called for peace beforehand, that he didn't expect violence, and that violence was not part of his plan to save democracy.I have not said that he didn't want violence. Everyone who is angry wants violence. It was clearly cathartic for him to see people were just as angry as he was.
I should have just skipped to the end. This right here ^^^ is exactly the point and problem.
He didn't call for violence explicitly. What he did however was make very clear to his supporters that he wanted them there to commit violence, and he knew that by making this clear some portion of his followers would act on it. That's been my point since this thread started.
Your argument is at best, a legal defense. That is to say it is a defense that could only work in theory to provide reasonable doubt as to whether Trump is responsible. It fails miserably by the standards of applying basic logic and reason to determine whether Trump should ever be trusted with the oval office again.
-->
@Double_R
Right, and the mob boss never told you he was going to come after your family. He did however express concern over the well being of their safety.Your theory of coded language fails for this above many other reasons: It doesn't work when the addressed don't have the cipher.It's not coded language, it's common sense. If I give you two, and I give you another two, you don't need a cipher to figure out I just gave you four.
If you give four examples of fraud and one of non-fraud that means the overwhelming majority is non-fraudulent. Yes very common.
At this point you're not making an argument you're just saying "everybody sees it that way", which they don't and it would be the conclusion of the argument you need to make but aren't making; so if you insist that you're continuing a debate at this time your fallacy is: begging the question.
yet to provide any alternative theory or provide any examples to show how I'm not getting it right.
Alternate theory: Wild = exciting, peaceful = peaceful, you have to fight like hell = you have to be proactive and engaged, one on one duels = joke
I've explained why in detail
If that's what you call detail I hate to see what you call an overview.
Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.You agreed with it in this very thread.I did not.Here is you in post 191:I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.You did agree to it. It's right there ^.
Nope. Learn English. F-
First of all you are engaging in a clear black or white fallacy.
Fuzzy or not the logical relationship remains.
NPR from a reporter on the morning of J6 talking about the rally and talking about the violent mood of the crowd.
That is a red herring. It is not enough for violence or a violent mood to exist to prove it was incited or that it was incited by primarily one thing (or person).
I have said that he didn't call for violence, that he called for peace beforehand, that he didn't expect violence, and that violence was not part of his plan to save democracy.I have not said that he didn't want violence. Everyone who is angry wants violence. It was clearly cathartic for him to see people were just as angry as he was.I should have just skipped to the end. This right here ^^^ is exactly the point and problem.He didn't call for violence explicitly. What he did however was make very clear to his supporters that he wanted them there to commit violence, and he knew that by making this clear some portion of his followers would act on it. That's been my point since this thread started.
So any angry politician is making it clear that he or she wants people to commit violence. Got it. Interesting theory of incitement, I look forward to its completely equitable application.
It fails miserably by the standards of applying basic logic and reason to determine whether Trump should ever be trusted with the oval office again.
I wasn't trying to prove Trump can be trusted, I succeeded at proving the lying hypocrites who are after him are worse than him and that their supporters are worse than his supporters. They are a danger to any hope of restoring a democratic republic. They are the enemies of reason and justice and haven't room to play moral judges over Putin much less Trump.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
At this point you're not making an argument you're just saying "everybody sees it that way", which they don't
When a mob boss tells you "eh, that's a nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them"... Is he:
A) threatening you
B) expressing concern for the well being off your family?
A or B? Or are you going to dodge this?
Alternate theory: Wild = exciting, peaceful = peaceful, you have to fight like hell = you have to be proactive and engaged, one on one duels = joke
You forgot the last part: "context is irrelevant"
Yeah, that's about right.
I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.You did agree to it. It's right there ^.Nope. Learn English.
You can piss on my leg and tell me it's raining all you want, I can still see you're pissing on my leg.
NPR from a reporter on the morning of J6 talking about the rally and talking about the violent mood of the crowd.That is a red herring. It is not enough for violence or a violent mood to exist to prove it was incited or that it was incited by primarily one thing (or person).
It's not a red herring. You are pretending that there was no real indication of violence before January 6th. Reality says there was. Anyone who didn't want violence was concerned about it, this is just one example of it.
There is a reason I was plugged in to this while I was at work. It's not because I was so captivated by Congress casting votes. The threat of violence was obvious.
So any angry politician is making it clear that he or she wants people to commit violence. Got it.
No, you don't. Not because it hasn't been explained to you but because you don't want to.
I wasn't trying to prove Trump can be trusted, I succeeded at proving the lying hypocrites who are after him are worse than him and that their supporters are worse than his supporters.
Well it was always obvious that you were never interested in a good faith conversation about the facts and reality of this topic and instead were just playing a silly little game of "own the lib", so thank you for at least being honest.
-->
@Double_R
At this point you're not making an argument you're just saying "everybody sees it that way", which they don'tWhen a mob boss tells you "eh, that's a nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them"... Is he:A) threatening youB) expressing concern for the well being off your family?A or B? Or are you going to dodge this?
A
but lack of preparing for violence was inexplicable ('excuse' only valid for the left-tribe)The threat of violence was obvious.
Nothing else warranted comment.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When a mob boss tells you "eh, that's a nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them"... Is he:A) threatening youB) expressing concern for the well being off your family?A or B? Or are you going to dodge this?A
So words when put together a certain way don't always mean what the dictionary says then, right?
The threat of violence was obvious.but lack of preparing for violence was inexplicable ('excuse' only valid for the left-tribe)
They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.
I've explained this to you three times already. Normally the way it works is that you acknowledge the point and move on from there. When you just keep repeating the same thing as if the previous point wasn't made it only gives further confirmation you know you're wrong
-->
@Double_R
So words when put together a certain way don't always mean what the dictionary says then, right?
Dictionaries contain words, not phrases.
The threat of violence was obvious.but lack of preparing for violence was inexplicable ('excuse' only valid for the left-tribe)They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.
but that excuse doesn't work for Trump because?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I still want to know how waving people in and providing a police escort through the halls constituted "preparing for violence"
-->
@Greyparrot
Well technically having guards is preparing for violence. The people who were being waved in were peaceful and if I had to guess the guards correctly concluded that the best way to keep things peaceful was to not block their way.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
That makes sense. Footage showed it got very nasty right after the police let loose the gas and batons. It would be more accurate to say the DC police were prepared to "get violent" than claiming they were prepared "for violence" according to the video footage.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Dictionaries contain words, not phrases.
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.but that excuse doesn't work for Trump because?
Because it's a categorically different thing.
Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.
And what makes it far worse then that for Trump is that it was in fact his responsibility to protect the nation, so not only did he encourage the mob to feel empowered to do this, but he used the platform he was entrusted with to do it.