4 ms·

Trump says of the Democrats, "They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote". In context, it clearly means that the Democrats never vote the way he want

Trump says of the Democrats, "They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote". In context, it clearly means that the Democrats never vote the way he wants them to, not that the Democrats shouldn't be allowed to vote. (Note he then goes on to talk about whether the weak Republicans will vote the way he wants them to.) I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns. Really, give it up. If you want to argue that Trump incited violence in this speech, you need to find another quote from it in which he does. The one above is absolutely not incitement, as is completely clear to anyone who is not blinded by partisan rage. By the way, your country could do with less partisan rage right now.

eropple 6y ago
"In context," when you remove Trump's say-the-quiet-part-loud advocacy of beating journalists and harming arrested criminals by bashing their heads off of the frames of cars while putting them into cruisers. And also ignore what he's said repeatedly in other speeches where he thinks he should be "given" another term and, oh right, where he straight-up mobster-ranted at Georgia's Secretary of State demanding he find him votes. Sorry dude. We don't play half-blind here for the sake of your argument. And if you want less "partisan rage"--well, plenty of the chumleys who stormed the Capitol are still at large, we can sure start there! Somehow, in comparison, I think me chuckling at Parler getting their just desserts doesn't even rate. ;)
sk5t 6y ago
> I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns. The oft-displayed photos show bats, a spear, body armor, helmets, etc. The QAnon enthusiasts arrested in Philadelphia were armed. At least one individual has been arrested for carrying a loaded pistol on Capitol grounds. It is utterly fanciful to suggest none of the rioters were armed. Have you even forgotten Trump's exhortation that the "second amendment people" might "do something" about Hillary Clinton? In order to believe that Trump did not incite violence you must overlook the way he's been beating the drum and fanning the flames all along. Writing out his meandering, discursive speech tries to remove from the picture what we all know he means and intends.
- radford-neal 6y ago
  You're arguing that you have other evidence that Trump incited violence. Maybe you do. But the comment I was replying to was quoting a statement made by Trump at his rally, implying that it is evidence that he incited violence. It simply does not demonstrate that. It is not evidence of incitement. It just isn't. If you believe X because of evidence Y, it does not follow that Z must also be evidence of X, just because you believe X (even if this belief is correct). Not having the critical self-awareness to recognize this is likely to lead you to believe all sort of things that aren't really true, as you start thinking that everything you see confirms your existing beliefs, even when it doesn't.
  - sk5t 6y ago
    It looks like we're at an impasse: you believe I lack objective awareness, and I believe you lack the willingness to recognize the nuance of human communication.
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    > It simply does not demonstrate that. It is not evidence of incitement. It just isn't. Can you explain why exactly it isn't? This claim is repeatedly made, but it has no backing rationale which I would like to understand.

eropple 6y ago

"In context," when you remove Trump's say-the-quiet-part-loud advocacy of beating journalists and harming arrested criminals by bashing their heads off of the frames of cars while putting them into cruisers. And also ignore what he's said repeatedly in other speeches where he thinks he should be "given" another term and, oh right, where he straight-up mobster-ranted at Georgia's Secretary of State demanding he find him votes. Sorry dude. We don't play half-blind here for the sake of your argument. And if you want less "partisan rage"--well, plenty of the chumleys who stormed the Capitol are still at large, we can sure start there! Somehow, in comparison, I think me chuckling at Parler getting their just desserts doesn't even rate. ;)

sk5t 6y ago

> I'm not aware that the demonstrators were toting guns. The oft-displayed photos show bats, a spear, body armor, helmets, etc. The QAnon enthusiasts arrested in Philadelphia were armed. At least one individual has been arrested for carrying a loaded pistol on Capitol grounds. It is utterly fanciful to suggest none of the rioters were armed. Have you even forgotten Trump's exhortation that the "second amendment people" might "do something" about Hillary Clinton? In order to believe that Trump did not incite violence you must overlook the way he's been beating the drum and fanning the flames all along. Writing out his meandering, discursive speech tries to remove from the picture what we all know he means and intends.

radford-neal 6y ago
You're arguing that you have other evidence that Trump incited violence. Maybe you do. But the comment I was replying to was quoting a statement made by Trump at his rally, implying that it is evidence that he incited violence. It simply does not demonstrate that. It is not evidence of incitement. It just isn't. If you believe X because of evidence Y, it does not follow that Z must also be evidence of X, just because you believe X (even if this belief is correct). Not having the critical self-awareness to recognize this is likely to lead you to believe all sort of things that aren't really true, as you start thinking that everything you see confirms your existing beliefs, even when it doesn't.
- sk5t 6y ago
  It looks like we're at an impasse: you believe I lack objective awareness, and I believe you lack the willingness to recognize the nuance of human communication.
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  > It simply does not demonstrate that. It is not evidence of incitement. It just isn't. Can you explain why exactly it isn't? This claim is repeatedly made, but it has no backing rationale which I would like to understand.