Trump incited violence during his candidacy and all through his time in office. For anyone to claim that he hasn’t constantly, consistently, and blatantly urged his followers to resort to violence - up to and including the January Insurrection - is ludicrous.

Boru

(September 6, 2021 at 5:08 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Trump incited violence during his candidacy and all through his time in office. For anyone to claim that he hasn’t constantly, consistently, and blatantly urged his followers to resort to violence - up to and including the January Insurrection - is ludicrous.

Boru

Were dealing with IA...

(September 6, 2021 at 4:49 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(September 6, 2021 at 3:00 pm)Irreligious Atheist Wrote: The reports that Trump was amused in the moment are not hard to believe. I can believe that. Still, that has nothing to do with him telling people to riot and kill, which never happened. He told people that we can't let them steal the election, and that you need to be strong but peaceful. That is nowhere near enough to impeach the man, imo, or to hold him accountable in a court of law or whatever. Trump was very clever in his choice of words. Legality and morality are two very different things. Let's be careful not to conflate them. You don't have a legal case that can hold up under scrutiny, I'm sorry to say.

Here's what legal scholar, Garrett Epps, concluded

Quote:Trump clearly knew there were people in that crowd who were ready to and intended to be violent, and he certainly did nothing to discourage that. He not only did nothing to discourage it, he strongly hinted it should happen.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55640437

And the key points of the speech that you forgot to mention:

'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'

'We will stop the steal'

'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

Those things can be interpreted several ways. They can easily be interpreted as "We will stop the steal... by protesting hard in front of the Capitol and making our voices heard, and then winning in court." "If you don't fight like hell by letting your voices be heard, you're not going to have a country anymore." Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder when someone is unclear about exactly what they are asking for like Trump was doing with his supporters that day.

I'm not impressed by that legal scholar. Trump said be peaceful. Have you watched his speech? He literally told them to be peaceful. Anyone in any crowd could take a politicians words and be violent. Democrat politicians literally told people to harass Republican politicians in public, and they knew that some of them could take that the wrong way and be violent too. I don't want those Democratic politicians to be held legally accountable for anything either.

Quote:Those things can be interpreted several ways. They can easily be interpreted as "We will stop the steal... by protesting hard in front of the Capitol and making our voices heard, and then winning in court." "If you don't fight like hell by letting your voices be heard, you're not going to have a country anymore." Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder when someone is unclear about exactly what they are asking for like Trump was doing with his supporters that day.

No, it can't it's a freaking call to violence and fearmongering and it's crystal clear what Trump wanted. Don't be dense 

Quote:I'm not impressed by that legal scholar. Trump said be peaceful. Have you watched his speech? He literally told them to be peaceful. Anyone in any crowd could take a politicians words and be violent. Democrat politicians literally told people to harass Republican politicians in public, and they knew that some of them could take that the wrong way and be violent too. I don't want those Democratic politicians to be held legally accountable for anything either.

Again covering his ass is not a refutation, And no they did not say harass Republican politicians in public so not even close to the same, And lastly, it is obvious Trump meant to stir up trouble and then reveled in the chaos he created. Again don't be dense 

Repeating the same debunked points over and over isn't going to help you.

Oh sure jan, the reason you swear that the traitors weren't traitorous and insist that there's a weasel word exemption in our subversive activities laws is because you don't want dems held accountable. 0/10, lack of effort.

(September 6, 2021 at 7:15 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Oh sure jan, the reason you swear that the traitors weren't traitorous and insist that there's a weasel word exemption in our subversive activities laws is because you don't want dems held accountable.  0/10, lack of effort.

This is all the funnier because there is no comparison to Trump inventing a lie and then stirring up anger over that lie to get followers to commit violent acts.

Just for the record, here’s an article chronicling Trump’s attempts at trying to use the law to overturn the election as of the morning of the storming of the Capitol.. His accomplishments in the intervening two months:

• 62 lawsuits filed by Trump or his allies to contest the results of the election.
  
• 61 of those lawsuits were lost.
  
• The sole victory being that Pennsylvania voters who failed to provide proper ID three days after the election could not cure their votes. Very few votes were effected and it had zero effect on the election results. 
  
• Two lawsuits headed for the Supreme Court and endorsed by Trump were dismissed by the Supreme Court. 
  
• Three recounts in two states, each of which Biden won. 
  
• Zero electoral college votes were changed as a result of these claims. 
  
• An attempt to strong-arm the governor of Georgia to give him a large enough margin of votes for him to win.
  
• A last-ditch effort to claim that Mike Pence could overrule the results of the election, which turned out to be fake. 
  

The idea that Trump could meaningfully challenge the results and regain the presidency, even on the morning of January 6, were slim to none, and it looks like even Trump was aware of this. 

And as for the speech that day, looking at it, I couldn’t help but notice that he used the word “fight” twenty times, and any variant of “peace” exactly once. And, if there was to be no violence, what did Giuliani mean when he talked about “trial by combat” earlier in the day? And, furthermore, there were reports that people attending the rally were looking to start something. How likely was it that he didn’t know about this and said some shit  that could be taken as provocation to violence anyway? And why would Trump have been reveling in the chaos at the Capitol if he honestly planned for a peaceful demonstration? You can see why I (and, frankly, anyone who isn't Hell-bent on exonerating Trump) don't buy that he seriously expected that the protesters would all be peaceful, right?

A little late to IA's latest spiel, but if we really cared about the children we wouldn't allow them to be exposed to the horrors of the straight community in which they tend to be raised.

No, now we've moved on from trans panic to insurrection denialism.

Just saying, I was raised by straight people in the hetero-normative community and I'm pretty scarred for life because of it.