17 ms·
The violating content they removed was trump repeating the same stolen election crud he's been saying for a month and then __urging the protesters to go home pe
by nullc 6y ago
The violating content they removed was trump repeating the same stolen election crud he's been saying for a month and then __urging the protesters to go home peacefully, preserve law and order, etc__.
Here is a copy: https://files.catbox.moe/71gfr1.mp4 https://files.catbox.moe/71gfr1.mp4
For those that don't want to play a video this is an unabridged transcript:
"I know your pain. I know your hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election and everyone knows it especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order we have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt. It's a very tough period of time, there has never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home, we love you, you're very special, you've seen what happens you've seen the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace."
I was watching a live stream from the mob and the protesters (the buffalo costume guy, in fact) were trying to get other protesters to leave on the basis of trumps message and people were believing the claim was fake because twitter restricted sharing so the only way to see it was to directly go to the page.
Seems like an odd choice.
- hutzlibu 6y agoIt also seems odd, that they were unable to protect the capitol. It was not a storm out of nowhere. A bit orchestrated? To show the less radical Trump supporters, this is what your president is responsible for, chaos and anarchy in the capitol. Disturbing the democratic process. But I guess, don't assume evil, what can be explained with incompetence.
- dandanua 6y agoDon't assume incompetence at the top of the most powerful military country.
- scoopertrooper 6y agoTrump had a lot of levers he could have pulled in order to ensure the security of the Capitol building. Should I take the fact he didn't pull them to mean that he sought to discredit his own movement?
- hutzlibu 6y agoI am not a US resident, so lack detail knowledge, but I did not know, securing the capitol is the job of the president? Aren't those seperate sectors? He can certainly influece it, but did he? If not, who is responsible for the lack of defensive preparations, the local police? The FBI?
- paulgb 6y ago> I did not know, securing the capitol is the job of the president? Aren't those seperate sectors? DC is not a state, it’s a district under federal control. There is a mayor and a police department, but responsibilities that would normally fall to a state-level government are handled federally. This is a contentious issue in the US right now, because it means that the residents do not have representation in the house and senate.
- scoopertrooper 6y agoPrimary policing duties are conducted by the Capitol Police, which are controlled by the Congress. However, they aren't really equipped for managing armed insurrections. So, in situations such as these they depend on the executive branch to provide support which may come from the FBI, national guard, or other agencies, which generally requires authorisation from the President.
- throwaway316943 6y agoI find the weasel word insurrection is being inserted quite a lot. It was suspiciously absent when other federal buildings were breached and vandalized earlier in the year. Calling it an armed insurrection is stretching it pretty far considering none of the videos show any armed conflict between the protesters and capital security... except for the unarmed woman who was shot in the neck and killed by security. It reeks of narrative building.
- IkmoIkmo 6y agoWell, Trump denied requests to send in the national guard multiple times according to reports. Pence later did when Trump didn't, and that's when things got under control. This could've been prevented if the president (1) didn't incite this and (2) didn't deny national guard to step-in. So what's left is the capitol police facing a mob invited by the president, without backup. And they stated they had two choices, barricade the capitol and prevent entry, or evacuate the people inside. It could've gotten ugly if the people in the capitol got overrun, e.g. Pelosi facing people that think they're sent by Q to fight off a satanic coup by Pelosi, but they got evacuated to safety. Apparently capitol police chose to evacuate rather than to barricade, in hindsight that's clearly the least risky option to human health. If they break through with nobody inside, that's not as bad if they break through anyway with people inside. A bunch of idiots roaming the capitol building isn't a threat per se, shameful and sad yes, but not one that should've been met with violent force from a small number of capitol police at the expense of (and risk of not) evacuating the people inside.
- antris 6y ago>A bunch of idiots roaming the capitol building isn't a threat per se, shameful and sad yes, but not one that should've been met with violent force from a small number of capitol police at the expense of (and risk of not) evacuating the people inside. Of course, if the mob were leftists or had any significant amount of minorities mixed in, there would have been rivers of blood outside the Capitol.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- leereeves 6y agoAll evidence to the contrary. We recently saw months of protests by leftists without "rivers of blood", even when the protestors declared autonomous zones, occupied police stations, and burned down, or tried to burn down, thousands of businesses and government buildings. Where's the evidence for your hypothesis? And what's up with downvoting this entirely factual statement in favor of the unsupported theory above?
- bzb6 6y agoGee, it’s as if Twitter benefited from the Capitol situation.
- claw_howitzer 6y agoThe insurrectionists were there because they falsely believe the election was stolen, and half of that video was him saying "yep, you guys are correct". He's done this shit before where he vigorously fans the flames but then gives a half-assed concessionary call for peace that his followers know to ignore. They were there in the first place because of his message
- claw_howitzer 6y agoAlso the video wasn't the only thing removed either; the other was this tweet: > These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!
- roenxi 6y agoThat message is self-inconsistent, but not actually that unusual. A key plank of religious tolerance is people peacefully accepting they are governed by, potentially, literal heretics. Or religious crazies in the case of the atheists. It is possible to simultaneously believe that the election results are illegitimate and to live peacefully in society. It requires a bit more mental flexibility than I like to give myself, but there is precedent. The call to action (go home with love & in peace) trumps the frame.
- enkid 6y agoBut that's not what he's saying. He's not making any sort of transition or explanation for why people should go home. It's clearly tacked on afterwards, and the protestors know it. Then they can blame it on "the deep state." He's sandwiching go home with two statements legitimizing what the protestors are doing.
- jschwartzi 6y agoThis actually shows a difference in how fascists and nationalists use words versus how the rest of us use words. For most people words are a truthful declaration of intents and ideas. But fascists often use words for a different purpose. They don't use them in their common meanings, but rather as tools to inflame and to denigrate others. Take use of the word "socialism" or "nationalism." I've seen a disturbing tendency on the right to call anything they don't like "socialist." Nothing makes that clearer than Trump's call to the Cuban expatriates in Florida to vote against the "communist" Joe Biden. If you know anything about Biden's policies you would recognize them as pretty standard Progressive policies. I have never once heard him discuss taking private property and distributing it as a public good. He's not once talked about erasing private enterprise. He is manifestly not communist. So the only conclusion I can draw is that Trump is using "communist" to mean "person you don't like" so he can fan the flames. Given that, I don't think we can take anything he says at face value. This is actually a common tendency on the right, and it's why they're so good at fanning the flames. They see what our words mean and they disregard that meaning.
- ZephyrBlu 6y agoAs someone with no horse in this race, I agree it seems _very_ odd to remove this. This even seems a lot tamer and more to the point than Trump usually is.
- discreteevent 6y agoThis was also removed (which he sent shortly after the video): "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!" I agree with the premise. If your vote is stripped from you then force may be justified as you have no other option. The problem is that votes were not stripped and he knows it.
- dilap 6y agoThe NYT homepage currently describes what happened as "Mayhem Incited by Trump." If you were to read that and go to Trump's twitter feed and read the above quoted tweet, you would now be left with two competing ideas: Was Trump inciting the mayhem or trying to quell it? On the other hand, if you go to his Twitter feed and just see what's currently there, two blank spots replaced with, "This Tweet is no longer available because it violated the Twitter Rules," you will think, "oh, Trump was inciting mayhem." So deleting those tweets helps construct a narrative.
- jboog 6y agoAh yes, because other than those two tweets Trump has never incited any mayhem before. Certainly hasn't been shrieking that the election was stolen and that if Democrats control the government it's the end of democracy. Literal apocalyptic rhetoric that millions lap up. Then of course at the rally yesterday telling people to march on the capitol building where they are currently stealing the election!
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dilap 6y agoI'm not addressing the broader question of Trump's tweets, just the specific one of why Twitter might have chosen to censor those tweets in particular.
- throwaway316943 6y agoI wonder why they are attempting to force him on to a legacy TV network instead of using social media?
- VBprogrammer 6y agoCan you think of any sitting president instigating a protest nevermind directing their ire at specific people (one of those tweets specifically targeted Mike Pence) and buildings (telling supporters to march down to the capital). Anyone could see this was the most likely outcome of Trump's behaviour. I can't see how anyone could honestly argue otherwise.
- stefan_ 6y agoGee, you kinda forgot about the 80% "I totally understand why you do it noble warrior" part in your summary.
- dan-robertson 6y agoI expect there’s been some increasing call at Twitter to basically ban trump since 2016. I expect it’s mostly grown since the summer or so. I think of this move as being less about the specifics of the event than it is about that event making more people agree with the group that want to ban trump, allowing them to take a stronger action. I feel like the “Twitter internal politics” explanation is more convincing than eg some small committee of expert moderators looking at trumps tweets and carefully deciding if they break the rules, balancing that with public interest considerations, and deciding if some restrictions should be placed on them
- atleta 6y agoIt's classic case of double talk. Everyone is free to interpret it as they will, he washes his hands of all this. If he really wanted to send people home, he could just have said: please go home. Or even: look, we've tried everything, we were wrong. I'm sure president Biden will take best care of this country. Please go home. Even if he didn't think it, as what he thinks shouldn't matter unless he wants the stirrup to continue. He's supposed to be a politician, or even just a grown up person after all, not a child who cannot control himself. Living in Hungary, living through this very same shit for 10, or maybe 14 years now, I've watched the whole Trump story in horror, but also thinking most of the time: yeah, this is kind of expected. This double talk thing is something our PM (Viktor Orban) does a lot of time. So yeah, Trump didn't want to calm these guys down, or to be more objective, that's not what he DID (even if we believe he's totally childish and dumb).
- sebow 6y agoHe did that though.He firstly invited people to his rally(obviously, like he did so many times before) then he told them to go in peace & love to home(or something along those lines). You don't suspend an account on alleged projections of whether the people would listen to him or not, that's just BS and shows twitter's partisanship.
- clairity 6y agoyes, it's double-talk, but... > "Even if he didn't think it, as what he thinks shouldn't matter..." no, that's called lying, and we don't want presidents (or any person with even a modicum of power) doing that, even if we disagree (sometimes vehemently) with what he says. we have checks and balances on what the president can do, which is what matters. it would be great if trump were gracious, but he's not, and the people have (admittedly narrowly) spoken against him. our system has actually shown that it can tolerate a presidency like his intact.
- atleta 6y agoI'm not really sure what you are arguing against. I just pondered the case what if he's intent wasn't to continue fuelling the unrest and concluded that even then he can still be blamed.
- notthegov 6y agoHow long does an investigation take? I worked for several Republican & Democratic campaigns in Colorado including Obama's. The idea that state political operatives don't try to cheat in uncorrelated ways is false. I created the mail in voter strategy for Obama 2008 in Colorado and worked on whitebox voting systems.
- whymauri 6y ago>The violating content they removed was trump repeating the same stolen election crud he's been saying for a month and then __urging the protesters to go home peacefully, preserve law and order, etc__. There were two more tweets that led to the definitive suspension of the account, per the NYT. This is one tweet that was taken down almost immediately around 6:00PM. “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” he tweeted. “Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!” I mean, 'Remember this day forever'? Like it's the Alamo? Really?
- rualca 6y ago> (...) and then __urging the protesters to go home peacefully, preserve law and order, etc__. Considering the way Trump, during his infamous Georgia phone call, fell back to weasel words to allow him to claim plausible deniability, such stating that "in my opinion they are shredding votes" after fellow Republicans made it very clear that there was absolutely no doubt that no vote was shredded... Those statements sound like nothing more than further weasel words to allow him to weasel himself out of any responsibility for his own actions.