3 ms·
Could you clarify you position here? I can read your comment a few ways: 1. The president did not incite violent insurrection. 2. None of the presidents actio
by nemosaltat 6y ago
Could you clarify you position here? I can read your comment a few ways:
1. The president did not incite violent insurrection.
2. None of the presidents actions meet the legal standard for incitement. Full Stop.
3. None of the presidents actions meet the commonly understood definition of incitement. Full Stop.
I think an argument could be made for 1. I’d struggle with 2 or 3. IANAL but let’s consider:
> So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
> So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I want to thank you all. God bless you and God bless America. Thank you all for being here, this is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- outside1234 6y agoPlease stop. He went on for two months about how the election was stolen (with no evidence), talked about the 2nd amendment and "how it could solve this", and then sent proxies to talk about "taking it to Congress," not to mention literally thousands of other lies. Enough with the gaslighting - this was entirely justified.
- mlyle 6y ago??? lightgreen was saying it wasn't incitement. nemosaltat, whom you replied to, was -arguing- with lightgreen. nemosaltat said that he was pretty sure it met the legal standard for incitement. Maybe he doesn't say it quite as strongly as you would like, but you can hardly call this "gaslighting".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]