what do you think trump should have done to magically fix the situation ?
Yeah, that pretty much sums up our entire conversation. When I accuse Trump of inciting and then allowing the attack on the Capitol your answer is essentially "no he didn't, but it's good that he did".That does not describe the context of the above response in the slightest.
you guys want Trump to be the guy he was on January 6thI never said that, in fact I said things that directly contradict that statement.
while pretending he was never that guy because you know the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want it.No sane person could believe that I censor my opinions based on what the majority of the country does or does not want.
No I don't know that. Notice "don't" not "didn't", because it's still the case.
Did you see the video of Pelosi admitting responsibility?
Completely and totally made up.There are only two other explanations:1.) She refused because she wanted violence (for optics)2.) She refused because she didn't see a threatTake your pick
The tweet? The fact that he and the secret service agree he wanted to go to the capitol?
He wanted to go to the Capitol to inspire the riotets, not stop them.
Fanfiction. Nostrodamus. Yawn.
You have certainly argued he didn't incite the riot while also arguing that the riots were a good thing and expressing that your gripe about Trump is that he didn't go far enough, which means he did go in that direction and you like that. So yeah, it wasn't intended to be a literal take but it's pretty damn close.
you guys want Trump to be the guy he was on January 6thI never said that, in fact I said things that directly contradict that statement.Do you or do you not support the rioters?
Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?
while pretending he was never that guy because you know the overwhelming majority of the country doesn't want it.No sane person could believe that I censor my opinions based on what the majority of the country does or does not want.It wasn't a take on you individually
it was a generalization about the political right. Part of my point was that the republican party is not as explicit as you are because if they were the democrats would run the table in November.
3) The offer was never made
The tweet? The fact that he and the secret service agree he wanted to go to the capitol?He wanted to go to the Capitol to inspire the riotets, not stop them.
The fact that the US Capitol was under attack for three hours and the only evidence you have that he did anything at all during those three hours is a tweet... tells me everything I need to know.
I should have started with that and not bothered to write anything else.
I suppose when I ask you what Trump's plan is to stop the war in Ukraine or Gaza you'll tell me he'll stop that with his Twitter account as well.
That is supposition.
Good fiction is still logical, it just has a few premises that might be (or could easily have been) true.That is supposition.I prefer fanfiction.
Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?Inaction doesn't assist.
It wasn't a take on you individually".... and goes to show why folks like yourself have no coherent argument here, you...."
The BLM riots were the close call with the left-tribe, Jan 6 was the close call with the right-tribe.
In both cases leaders used incendiary rhetoric (left-tribe still worse, I'll bring out the compilation if you deny it).
3) The offer was never madeand they just couldn't find enough security in the whole wide world... poor them.
The fact that the US Capitol was under attack for three hours and the only evidence you have that he did anything at all during those three hours is a tweet... tells me everything I need to know.Good, then you have your answers. Thread succeeded.
His failure to stop justified rioting
Do you or do you not recognize that Trump's inaction only further assisted the rioters?Inaction doesn't assist.It absolutely does when you are directly responsible for intervening.
Trump was the president, he is directly responsible for intervening in the event we have an attack of the US Capitol and the authorization to intervene starts with him. If any of our other 44 (now 45) presidents were in office they would have intervened
The BLM riots was a violent response to violence, January 6th was a violent response to bullshit conspiracy theories that were adjudicated and disproven.
Big difference.
Irrelevant to the fact that the offer was never made.
So with all of that said just how much of a difference would that have made? Not all that much,
So when the left-tribe leadership of Washington and Seattle did nothing to stop this murder that makes them accessories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_Reinoehl
The oath is to defend the constitution
Difference between your violence and my violence is that I'm right. Yea, heard that one before; right back at ya.
Big difference.The lack of a specific time and place merely meant it went on everywhere for a long time
There is no relevance in debating a point when no hard evidence exists.It comes down to credibility and you won't acknowledge that your sources are pathological liars. End of story.
So with all of that said just how much of a difference would that have made? Not all that much,bingo
So when the left-tribe leadership of Washington and Seattle did nothing to stop this murder that makes them accessories? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killings_of_Aaron_Danielson_and_Michael_ReinoehlNo. Tying someone to an action via a dubious chain reaction theory that could work in any circumstance is a not remotely the same as holding someone responsible for watching a crime in action and making a conscious decision to do nothing about it despite having both the means and responsibility to actively intervene.
I present arguments to back up mine.
Big difference.The lack of a specific time and place merely meant it went on everywhere for a long timeIt also shows that this was a matter of civil unrest, not a plot orchastrated by the person who was supposedly swarn to protect against such actions.
There is no relevance in debating a point when no hard evidence exists.It comes down to credibility and you won't acknowledge that your sources are pathological liars. End of story.Calling my sources pathological liars while your source is Trump. Oh the irony.
No. Tying someone to an action via a dubious chain reaction theory that could work in any circumstance is a not remotely the same as holding someone responsible for watching a crime in action and making a conscious decision to do nothing about it despite having both the means and responsibility to actively intervene.Oh, he had the means now? and the state of Washington and the city of Seattle didn't?
Civil unrest = attacking small family businesses in poor urban areas
Attacking the giant corrupt organization of traitors stealing half your money and trying to rule the world through military posturing
= "a plot"
Double standards (yours).Whataboutism.
= "a plot"Yes, it was a plot because it was orchastrated by one man and without that one man it would have never happened. That's the difference between January 6th and the BLM riots.
what about all those people who elected and supported that one man?
Yes yes, big chain of causality, but you keep saying "but for one man" like it matters; so clearly you think something special happens when the chain of causality passes through a single individual. You also seem to ignore the difference between a specific event and an event of the same import.what about all those people who elected and supported that one man?We all must take responsibility for what the people we voted for do, that is irrelevant for the responsibility of the person who committed the act.
Supporting Trump before January 6th was one thing, supporting him after is another. The latter is the scum of this country and will be the reason it falls (if we don't stop it first).
Nations rise and fall, the only true tragedy is diminished ethics.
Yes yes, big chain of causality, but you keep saying "but for one man" like it matters; so clearly you think something special happens when the chain of causality passes through a single individual.
I see no morally relevant differences between Trump telling people to "fight like hell" and a bunch of left-tribers using similar (or more violent) language; justifications aside of course.
....Yes yes, big chain of causality, but you keep saying "but for one man" like it matters; so clearly you think something special happens when the chain of causality passes through a single individual.Chain of causality arguments are always fallacious because the same logic can be applied to anything.
We're talking about how Trump is directly responsible for January 6th.
He's the one who lead the charge for two months telling everyone the election was stolen
he's the one who was supposed to send in the troops
Pretending January 6th was just some coincidental thing that had little if anything to do with Trump is just dumbfoundingly stupid.
Nations rise and fall, the only true tragedy is diminished ethics.Gee, that’s deep.You think Trump is ethical?
It doesn't matter if he is ethical if what he does (and what people do to stop him) slows/reverses the collapse into tyranny.
Principles > "the law"
Principles > "the law"
Captured slaves were once convicted felons too.
To you he told a lie, the lie inspired violence.To me BLM (and top left-tribe personalities) told a lie (that racist cops go out looking to murder minorities), the lie inspired violence.
The charge that the police are.... [bla bla bla]
There is nothing like that when it comes to claims of a stolen national election
The only variable is Trump.
