Finished his rally speech by telling the crowd to fight like hell or their not going to have a country anymore.
This is actually true though. However it doesn't seem reasonable to think storming the capital would work
It's irrelevant whether that was a reasonable assumption. The conversation here is about Trump's violent rhetoric and as I have laid out in detail, there is no coherent alternative explanation other than Trump's rhetoric being aimed at stoking violence in his behalf.
It doesn't matter how a reasonable person would react, that's the entire point of stochastic terrorism. You say things that you know will appeal to the unreasonable people within the group who are a statistical certainty to be there. Every public speaker understands this, please stop pretending Trump was unaware that some people among his followers would take his message to it's logical ends and act on it.
I would be more concerned with Nancy Pelosi refused. Maybe so she could form this false narrative. There is also footage showing capital officers letting protestors in and unlocking doors for the.. have you ever wondered why that would happen if not to set up a narrative?
This is all tin foil hat nonsense.
Trump never offered 10k troops to Nancy Pelosi, but he claims he did so either you accept that he's lying which calls into question why he would need to lie about something like that if his motives were pure, or he did offer those troops which speaks to his awareness of the threat as he repeatedly told the crowd to fight like hell.
This narrative that Pelosi refused the troops to set the stage for J6 is just stupid. Those troops would have been offered literally for her own protection, there are very few people who would have been more in danger if the protesters managed to get their physical hands on lawmakers. And that's setting aside the absurd disregard for Occam's razor to even suggest such a ridiculous plot.
The Capitol police began letting the protesters in after Congress had been evacuated because that was the only choice they had at that time. They were overpowered so the rational course of action at that point was to stand down to avoid further bloodshed. It was common sense, not conspiracy.
the middle of the speech surrounded by no supporting context he utters the words "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard.
So it seems pretty obvious that statement would not be here if he didn't want that to be the takeaway..
It's called a false exculpatory and anyone with an IQ above room temperature can figure out why someone would throw a line like that in there... Because they know cultists like you will use it to defend them. This is very much like when a mob boss tells you what a shame it would be of something happened to your family. No, that's not an expression of concern.
Moreover, you focus only on this one miniscule part of his speech and throw away not only every other word he uttered, but also everything he's said and done for the prior two months.
Again, he uttered 13,000 words. I challenge you to pull up the transcript of that speech and see how long it takes you to find it, and while you're at it I dare you to search for a single sentence anywhere else in his speech aimed at cooling down the temperature of the crowd. It isn't there because that's not what he wanted. And the people who stormed the Capitol understood that.
I didn't go there to do that, so it wasn't my take away at all.
Your personal takeaway is irrelevant.
Did anyone say we should assassinate Trump, or is that just the conclusion you came to regarding what the logical way to respond to that would be?
Yes. Even directly saying it mtiple times.
Then you agree that telling people to come to a rally to fight like hell if they want to have a country after having a presidential election literally stolen from them... Does not mean... Peacefully make your voice heard.
Therefore, it is logical when two words out of a 13k word speech contradict everything else within that speech and said over the prior two months, to dismiss it as a false exculpatory aimed at pointing to it as an excuse when accused of orchastrating the violence that would ensue.
will be wild". Please tell me something... When the hell has a peaceful protest ever been described as "wild"?
I just got invited to a party where I was told it was going to be wild. We just drank beers and set off fireworks. When white people say wild we aren't saying it to mean murder politicians.
We're not talking about a college style party genius, we're talking about a political rally protesting the alleged theft of a presidential election.
Google the word "context"
Hillary Clinton had the same opinion.
Tired, debunked, absurd, false equivalence.
Hilary Clinton argued Trump's victory was illegitimate, not that he didn't win.
Do you understand the difference between those two things.
It's his opinion that there were some unfair elements.
"The election was rigged" is not a statement of opinion, it's a statement of fact. To substantiate statements of facts you need evidence. Not only does Trump not have any, he couldn't have possibly had any given that the votes hadn't even been counted yet by the time he started claiming it.
When all of the evidence supporting a claim comes out after the claim was made, it doesn't take a genius to see that it's all an ad hoc bullshit backwards rationalization to justify the original claim, which logically leads to a motive to use that claim for other purposes. This is all common sense.
You guys also literally called George Bush Hitler for years...
You also don't have the moral high ground here after the left was rioting for months
You aren't talking to "the left". You're talking to a real person with real thoughts and opinions. I never called Bush Hitler, I wasn't even paying attention to politics then. I did not support the riots and have never defended them.
Stop deflecting with irrelevant nonsense. You can either defend your position or you can't.
