6 ms·

See for yourself: https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telling-supporters-in-dc-to-go-home/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-stat

See for yourself: https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telling-supporters-in-dc-to-go-home/ https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telli... Someone described this video as taking a log off the fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline which I think is a fair characterization.

ndjdjxjsjdjdhd 6y ago
So basically you are saying: - Asking for peace isn’t enough - And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud? Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?
- fullshark 6y ago
  I'm saying this video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    So you’re ok with disenfranchising people’s genuine dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run?
    - fullshark 6y ago
      I'm ok with removing users that violate the terms of service even if they are presidents.
    - willis936 6y ago
      What’s genuine about it? It was litigated in nearly a hundred court cases, many of which had conservative political appointee judges. No evidence. No actual claims of fraud because the lawyers want to keep their bar and know the claims are fraudulent. Trump’s base is upset that they lost the election. Nothing more.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        The “no evidence” statement is demonstrably false.
    - neogodless 6y ago
      > genuine dissatisfaction with ... the way President Trump claimed without evidence the elections were run. Two bedrocks of democracy are that elections are fair so that every vote is counted, and that the people's freedom of speech outweighs the government's freedom of speech, so that governments cannot pull the kind of manipulation and deception that President Trump has been doing so successfully.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        Those are the bedrock of democracy? Please cite your sources.
    - srj 6y ago
      The truth matters. It isn't that their concerns were railroaded or not heard. There were dozens of court cases, the justice department and state authorities investigated. When that turns up nothing, you can't just keep entertaining debunked notions that our democratic system is rigged.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        Their concerns were railroaded and not heard. The “no evidence” idea is demonstrably false.
    - jmull 6y ago
      You're trying to change the context here. Trump's supporters weren't expressing their dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run. They were violently seizing the capitol building to prevent the constitutional process of the peaceful transfer of power.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        If only those breaking the law were banned that wouldn’t be a problem. What about those who never attended, never spoke about it, and merely expressed dissatisfaction with the election? Why were they banned?
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
  No you're not crazy just disingenuous. Meaning is transmitted not just by the words you use. For example by being sarcastic you can make the words mean the opposite of what their plain meaning is. Trump made clear how he felt, and his words did not reflect that.
- lazide 6y ago
  Watch the video. He spends JUST enough time saying 'go home peacefully' that someone can say he did that. However he spends all the actual time and energy saying the exact opposite - it was stolen, fight for me, etc. It is the height of disingenuousness to claim it was a call for peace or a thoughtful resolution. It was an emotional call to arms with a fig leaf on it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - hajile 6y ago
    These people aren't there because they think it's unimportant. They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds. Insulting would only lead to anger. You have to acknowledge the feelings of the other individual before they'll listen. They see themselves as good, honorable people, so you address them as such. Once you have their attention in an agreeable manner (instead of an antagonistic manner), you can address the issue at hand. Trump did precisely this. He empathized with them and their cause. After he had an agreeable mood somewhat established, he then appealed to consequences. If he hadn't asked them to stop, congress' attempt to reconvene would have no doubt been interrupted as well. The fact that didn't happen goes a long way against the claim that it was a call to violence.
    - cycrutchfield 6y ago
      They only reason why they believe the election was stolen in the first place is because Trump has been lying about it for the past two months. He is the root cause. He could end this easily, but he won’t.
    - lovecg 6y ago
      > They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds. That’s not how people work. Imagine for a second that he did come out and say that he was wrong about the fraud claims (“we looked into it and didn’t find anything”) and conceded the election. Do you honestly believe not a single one of his supporters would fall in line? There are a few people who are too far gone, but it’s entirely disingenuous to suggest he has no power over this. Not holding rallies would help a lot too. No, this is all squarely at his feet.
- hnaccy 6y ago
  You're crazy.
  - imwillofficial 6y ago
    This is a personal insult and does not elevate the level of discourse here. Please remove this.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      After asking: "Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?" the answer 'You're crazy' should be acceptable.
      - willis936 6y ago
        They aren't being impartial here. They want the rules unevenly enforced to push their political agenda; not very HN-like.
      - imwillofficial 6y ago
        Not according to the HN rules. Either follow the rules or don’t post.
- forgetfulness 6y ago
  Indeed asking for peace isn't enough if you're going to fan the flames in the same speech. That wasn't the time to reassert the legitimacy of his supporters' motives, he's not any citizen, the President of the United States should have sought to de-escalate the situation created by his mass movement in the US capital first and only. The time to talk about their struggle was another. And that without going into the legitimacy of him disputing the election results or even the legitimacy of him leading a revolutionary movement at this point.
- willis936 6y ago
  The mob started at a “Stop the Steal” Trump Rally where DJT personally used mob boss speak about it “not being so nice for some senators” and quickly following up with calls to not be weak. “Go to the capital and be strong so the legislators can’t steal our victory.” *several hours later, after they’ve broken into the capital and terrorized the legislation “Go home, but they did steal the election and you’re special and we love you.” That was him approving of their actions. That was him saying what they did was what he wanted and he would happily see them go further. Not picking up on this pattern in the past 4 years doesn’t make you crazy, but it does mean you aren’t paying close attention.
- chrisan 6y ago
  Would it be so bad to stop believing his claim of fraud after all such claims have been proven in court to be false? At what point should a person stop believing their own claims?
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  You’re not crazy, their bias really is that obvious.
- jmull 6y ago
  You're misunderstanding. What he should have done was strongly condemn the violence and call for the people to go home immediately and peacefully. And nothing else. With no softening weasel words. He would be able to keep believing his claims of election fraud uninterrupted. And continue to pursuing them, just after the violent insurrection was diffused, not during it. It's important to note that the insurrection was any least partially incited by his claims of election fraud, so repeating them in that context was extremely dangerous.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Here are the definitions of the words 'incite' and 'violence' https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws I agree he should have strongly condemned those actions and asked them to leave immediately. But I also don't see any evidence that he incited violence. Alleging election fraud, or encouraging people to protest are not the same as inciting violence. I'm open to evidence of Trump inciting violence, but thus far no one has been able to provide it.
    - jmull 6y ago
      I think you should watch the speeches given at the event immediately prior to the rioters going to the capitol building and violently seizing it, including Trump's. It's the nature of the things that you can always argue about whether a particular speech rises to the level of incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white terms. However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy to follow implication of cause and effect here. Also, remember, we're talking about his video after the violence broke out. If he didn't understand that his claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the riot, he must certainly have understood it during the riot.
      - throwawaysea 6y ago
kolbe 6y ago
Can you explain? I don't think it's constructive to hide behind analogy and cliche when you could come out and tell us the causes and effects that you think are happening here.
- fullshark 6y ago
  I think the video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence. Hence the claim it violates their terms of service.
  - kolbe 6y ago
    "Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th." If that's an incision of violence, then I'm sure you will apply such interpretations equally to other statements? Any time there's a riot, block the leaders of whatever party they riot on behalf of? I get that you want to shoehorn in a TOS violation, but it's really not. But I also get that it's important for him to not have a platform right now. I'm just not into this Orwellian twist of rules/words/interpretations to try to justify the fact that we just aren't safe with him broadcasting his lies anymore.
- bluntfang 6y ago
  Why do you think it's "hiding"? analogies have a way to explain things to people who don't have context, it's a tool to remove obfuscation, not add more layers.
  - kolbe 6y ago
    That only true when it serves to augment the plain English truth. When that's omitted, it's what I dare say is a "Trumpian" method of obscuring reality.
    - bluntfang 6y ago
      But the plain english truth is the Trump video. The analogy helps explain what people are observing. When people say "i don't have a problem with what he said, because he said for people to go home" the analogy helps ground the idea that while he may have said go home, he also said things that would rile them up. Hence the taking a log off the fire while adding gasoline analogy. It's not obfuscation. Trump's message was the obfuscation.

ndjdjxjsjdjdhd 6y ago

So basically you are saying: - Asking for peace isn’t enough - And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud? Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?

fullshark 6y ago
I'm saying this video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  So you’re ok with disenfranchising people’s genuine dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run?
  - fullshark 6y ago
    I'm ok with removing users that violate the terms of service even if they are presidents.
  - willis936 6y ago
    What’s genuine about it? It was litigated in nearly a hundred court cases, many of which had conservative political appointee judges. No evidence. No actual claims of fraud because the lawyers want to keep their bar and know the claims are fraudulent. Trump’s base is upset that they lost the election. Nothing more.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      The “no evidence” statement is demonstrably false.
  - neogodless 6y ago
    > genuine dissatisfaction with ... the way President Trump claimed without evidence the elections were run. Two bedrocks of democracy are that elections are fair so that every vote is counted, and that the people's freedom of speech outweighs the government's freedom of speech, so that governments cannot pull the kind of manipulation and deception that President Trump has been doing so successfully.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Those are the bedrock of democracy? Please cite your sources.
  - srj 6y ago
    The truth matters. It isn't that their concerns were railroaded or not heard. There were dozens of court cases, the justice department and state authorities investigated. When that turns up nothing, you can't just keep entertaining debunked notions that our democratic system is rigged.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Their concerns were railroaded and not heard. The “no evidence” idea is demonstrably false.
  - jmull 6y ago
    You're trying to change the context here. Trump's supporters weren't expressing their dissatisfaction with the way the elections were run. They were violently seizing the capitol building to prevent the constitutional process of the peaceful transfer of power.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      If only those breaking the law were banned that wouldn’t be a problem. What about those who never attended, never spoke about it, and merely expressed dissatisfaction with the election? Why were they banned?
dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
No you're not crazy just disingenuous. Meaning is transmitted not just by the words you use. For example by being sarcastic you can make the words mean the opposite of what their plain meaning is. Trump made clear how he felt, and his words did not reflect that.
lazide 6y ago
Watch the video. He spends JUST enough time saying 'go home peacefully' that someone can say he did that. However he spends all the actual time and energy saying the exact opposite - it was stolen, fight for me, etc. It is the height of disingenuousness to claim it was a call for peace or a thoughtful resolution. It was an emotional call to arms with a fig leaf on it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hajile 6y ago
  These people aren't there because they think it's unimportant. They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds. Insulting would only lead to anger. You have to acknowledge the feelings of the other individual before they'll listen. They see themselves as good, honorable people, so you address them as such. Once you have their attention in an agreeable manner (instead of an antagonistic manner), you can address the issue at hand. Trump did precisely this. He empathized with them and their cause. After he had an agreeable mood somewhat established, he then appealed to consequences. If he hadn't asked them to stop, congress' attempt to reconvene would have no doubt been interrupted as well. The fact that didn't happen goes a long way against the claim that it was a call to violence.
  - cycrutchfield 6y ago
    They only reason why they believe the election was stolen in the first place is because Trump has been lying about it for the past two months. He is the root cause. He could end this easily, but he won’t.
  - lovecg 6y ago
    > They are convinced the election was stolen and nothing you (or he) says would sway their minds. That’s not how people work. Imagine for a second that he did come out and say that he was wrong about the fraud claims (“we looked into it and didn’t find anything”) and conceded the election. Do you honestly believe not a single one of his supporters would fall in line? There are a few people who are too far gone, but it’s entirely disingenuous to suggest he has no power over this. Not holding rallies would help a lot too. No, this is all squarely at his feet.
hnaccy 6y ago
You're crazy.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  This is a personal insult and does not elevate the level of discourse here. Please remove this.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    After asking: "Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?" the answer 'You're crazy' should be acceptable.
    - willis936 6y ago
      They aren't being impartial here. They want the rules unevenly enforced to push their political agenda; not very HN-like.
    - imwillofficial 6y ago
      Not according to the HN rules. Either follow the rules or don’t post.
forgetfulness 6y ago
Indeed asking for peace isn't enough if you're going to fan the flames in the same speech. That wasn't the time to reassert the legitimacy of his supporters' motives, he's not any citizen, the President of the United States should have sought to de-escalate the situation created by his mass movement in the US capital first and only. The time to talk about their struggle was another. And that without going into the legitimacy of him disputing the election results or even the legitimacy of him leading a revolutionary movement at this point.
willis936 6y ago
The mob started at a “Stop the Steal” Trump Rally where DJT personally used mob boss speak about it “not being so nice for some senators” and quickly following up with calls to not be weak. “Go to the capital and be strong so the legislators can’t steal our victory.” *several hours later, after they’ve broken into the capital and terrorized the legislation “Go home, but they did steal the election and you’re special and we love you.” That was him approving of their actions. That was him saying what they did was what he wanted and he would happily see them go further. Not picking up on this pattern in the past 4 years doesn’t make you crazy, but it does mean you aren’t paying close attention.
chrisan 6y ago
Would it be so bad to stop believing his claim of fraud after all such claims have been proven in court to be false? At what point should a person stop believing their own claims?
imwillofficial 6y ago
You’re not crazy, their bias really is that obvious.
jmull 6y ago
You're misunderstanding. What he should have done was strongly condemn the violence and call for the people to go home immediately and peacefully. And nothing else. With no softening weasel words. He would be able to keep believing his claims of election fraud uninterrupted. And continue to pursuing them, just after the violent insurrection was diffused, not during it. It's important to note that the insurrection was any least partially incited by his claims of election fraud, so repeating them in that context was extremely dangerous.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Here are the definitions of the words 'incite' and 'violence' https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws I agree he should have strongly condemned those actions and asked them to leave immediately. But I also don't see any evidence that he incited violence. Alleging election fraud, or encouraging people to protest are not the same as inciting violence. I'm open to evidence of Trump inciting violence, but thus far no one has been able to provide it.
  - jmull 6y ago
    I think you should watch the speeches given at the event immediately prior to the rioters going to the capitol building and violently seizing it, including Trump's. It's the nature of the things that you can always argue about whether a particular speech rises to the level of incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white terms. However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy to follow implication of cause and effect here. Also, remember, we're talking about his video after the violence broke out. If he didn't understand that his claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the riot, he must certainly have understood it during the riot.
    - throwawaysea 6y ago

kolbe 6y ago

Can you explain? I don't think it's constructive to hide behind analogy and cliche when you could come out and tell us the causes and effects that you think are happening here.

fullshark 6y ago
I think the video will further instill anger in his supporters and possibly if not probably lead to greater acts of political violence. Hence the claim it violates their terms of service.
- kolbe 6y ago
  "Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th." If that's an incision of violence, then I'm sure you will apply such interpretations equally to other statements? Any time there's a riot, block the leaders of whatever party they riot on behalf of? I get that you want to shoehorn in a TOS violation, but it's really not. But I also get that it's important for him to not have a platform right now. I'm just not into this Orwellian twist of rules/words/interpretations to try to justify the fact that we just aren't safe with him broadcasting his lies anymore.
bluntfang 6y ago
Why do you think it's "hiding"? analogies have a way to explain things to people who don't have context, it's a tool to remove obfuscation, not add more layers.
- kolbe 6y ago
  That only true when it serves to augment the plain English truth. When that's omitted, it's what I dare say is a "Trumpian" method of obscuring reality.
  - bluntfang 6y ago
    But the plain english truth is the Trump video. The analogy helps explain what people are observing. When people say "i don't have a problem with what he said, because he said for people to go home" the analogy helps ground the idea that while he may have said go home, he also said things that would rile them up. Hence the taking a log off the fire while adding gasoline analogy. It's not obfuscation. Trump's message was the obfuscation.