3 ms·

No, because they were doing things the president told them to! He scheduled the rally to directly coincide with congress's certification session. He didn't te

No, because they were doing things the president told them to! He scheduled the rally to directly coincide with congress's certification session. He didn't tell them to break into the Capitol, but he told them to march there. He didn't tell them to attack congress, but he told them they were in session trying to steal his election. I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. It's not. Any other speaker at that rally who had said the same things would be trivially charged. This was a crime, in ways that BLM organizing a march isn't. (Maybe there are some other BLM-related actions where people called out a target like this, it was a big movement. I'm not aware of one though.)

tartoran 6y ago
> I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. It’s denial and it’s obvious that they want to believe something else with all their might. If Trump said it literally go do the deed there would be some who would argue that’s not true. Strategy amongst trolls is to wear us down a la gaslighting but I don’t understand what’s the long term goal, if there is any.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
"I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry." Because it is. I dislike Trump as much as the next guy, but he didn't say anything new in that speech ( frankly, neither did anyone that preceded him ). What he did, however, is consistently rile up his base. This time he overshot. And he did not even overshot with words. Tons of worse things are said on many political meetings if you ever been to one. He overshot with the timing and a sense of desperation. And the retard got burned playing with fire.
wombatmobile 6y ago
> I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. What you are really saying is that you don't think it is blurry. The reason people argue that it is blurry is because they want to advance the interests of that side. So they argue whatever they can, including the blur, which might give them a 50-50 chance of prevailing in amongst the confusion. It's how people argue when they can't prevail in an argument based on principle, logic, or literality.

tartoran 6y ago

> I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. It’s denial and it’s obvious that they want to believe something else with all their might. If Trump said it literally go do the deed there would be some who would argue that’s not true. Strategy amongst trolls is to wear us down a la gaslighting but I don’t understand what’s the long term goal, if there is any.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

"I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry." Because it is. I dislike Trump as much as the next guy, but he didn't say anything new in that speech ( frankly, neither did anyone that preceded him ). What he did, however, is consistently rile up his base. This time he overshot. And he did not even overshot with words. Tons of worse things are said on many political meetings if you ever been to one. He overshot with the timing and a sense of desperation. And the retard got burned playing with fire.

wombatmobile 6y ago

> I don't understand why people keep arguing that the incitement thing is blurry. What you are really saying is that you don't think it is blurry. The reason people argue that it is blurry is because they want to advance the interests of that side. So they argue whatever they can, including the blur, which might give them a 50-50 chance of prevailing in amongst the confusion. It's how people argue when they can't prevail in an argument based on principle, logic, or literality.