4 ms·

Please provide a message, communication, quote, or tweet from Trump that explicitly calls for violence. I too have been looking and can't find one.

croon 6y ago
If you say "We love you, you're special" to violent insurrectionists after the fact, I don't think you need anything more explicit than that.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  Empathizing with someone and addressing their concerns is a textbook opener. It is not the same as condoning their choice of actions. "Please go home now" seems like a very explicit call to action. That aside, a post-hoc statement can't be construed as a precipitory.
  - croon 6y ago
    Sure, like he called BLM protestors "thugs" and the movement a terrorist organization to calm things down. He's not being diplomatic, that's not a thing he does. He likes things that benefits him, and condemns all things that don't. It's amazing that people can still with a straight face make these kinds of excuses for him. "I know your pain, I know your hurt" "great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long." "These Anarchists, not protesters" "Disgraceful. Never seen anything like it. Thugs." "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" "domestic acts of terror." I'll leave it up to you to guess whom he's addressing in each quote.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      Try to stick to one topic at a time. We are attempting to discuss a very narrow claim about incitement of the Capitol Building riot. I'm having difficulty understanding how your comment relates to mine. If you would like to debate the merits of Trump's persona, you'll have to find someone else. I'm absolutely not claiming that he is above criticism. However, that doesn't relate at all to the specifics of what I've said here. RE: your edits Yes, he also condemned the injustice surrounding police abuse. You are cherry picking, or perhaps viewing things through the lens of a partisan media.
      - croon 6y ago
        > Empathizing with someone and addressing their concerns is a textbook opener. It is not the same as condoning their choice of actions. I was responding to that. That's how it relates. I proved that he condoned the actions through a comparison. Re your edit: How is it cherry picking because I chose quotes relevant to my post?
        aww_dang 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't see how anything you've said 'proves' that Trump's post-hoc statement condoned, much less incited the actions of the violent minority within the protest. In regards to the separate topic of the BLM protests, you could've presented quotes such as this: "All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain. But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities. And as their president, I will fight to keep them safe. I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-mobilize-federal-resources-stop-violence-restore/story?id=71008802 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-mobilize-fe... Instead you cherry picked to present a narrative that fits your argument.
        croon 6y ago
        I'm not surprised that he's read a prepared measured speech. What I haven't seen, and I would love to see "cherry picked" is the rhetoric I posted but reversed between the two groups. I'll make a bet and say that that's never happened. Which brings us back around to; he's condoning the specific group storming the capitol, while fast and loose condemning every unruly edge case of the BLM movement.
        aww_dang 6y ago
        "...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." Sounds consistent. Peaceful protest, yes. Violence, destruction of property, no.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
offby37years 6y ago
If he actually said something that explicitly called for violence CNN would have had it on loop 24/7 since Wednesday.

croon 6y ago

If you say "We love you, you're special" to violent insurrectionists after the fact, I don't think you need anything more explicit than that.

aww_dang 6y ago
Empathizing with someone and addressing their concerns is a textbook opener. It is not the same as condoning their choice of actions. "Please go home now" seems like a very explicit call to action. That aside, a post-hoc statement can't be construed as a precipitory.
- croon 6y ago
  Sure, like he called BLM protestors "thugs" and the movement a terrorist organization to calm things down. He's not being diplomatic, that's not a thing he does. He likes things that benefits him, and condemns all things that don't. It's amazing that people can still with a straight face make these kinds of excuses for him. "I know your pain, I know your hurt" "great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long." "These Anarchists, not protesters" "Disgraceful. Never seen anything like it. Thugs." "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" "domestic acts of terror." I'll leave it up to you to guess whom he's addressing in each quote.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Try to stick to one topic at a time. We are attempting to discuss a very narrow claim about incitement of the Capitol Building riot. I'm having difficulty understanding how your comment relates to mine. If you would like to debate the merits of Trump's persona, you'll have to find someone else. I'm absolutely not claiming that he is above criticism. However, that doesn't relate at all to the specifics of what I've said here. RE: your edits Yes, he also condemned the injustice surrounding police abuse. You are cherry picking, or perhaps viewing things through the lens of a partisan media.
    - croon 6y ago
      > Empathizing with someone and addressing their concerns is a textbook opener. It is not the same as condoning their choice of actions. I was responding to that. That's how it relates. I proved that he condoned the actions through a comparison. Re your edit: How is it cherry picking because I chose quotes relevant to my post?
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        Sorry, I don't see how anything you've said 'proves' that Trump's post-hoc statement condoned, much less incited the actions of the violent minority within the protest. In regards to the separate topic of the BLM protests, you could've presented quotes such as this: "All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain. But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities. And as their president, I will fight to keep them safe. I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-mobilize-federal-resources-stop-violence-restore/story?id=71008802 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-mobilize-fe... Instead you cherry picked to present a narrative that fits your argument.
        croon 6y ago
        I'm not surprised that he's read a prepared measured speech. What I haven't seen, and I would love to see "cherry picked" is the rhetoric I posted but reversed between the two groups. I'll make a bet and say that that's never happened. Which brings us back around to; he's condoning the specific group storming the capitol, while fast and loose condemning every unruly edge case of the BLM movement.
        aww_dang 6y ago
        "...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." Sounds consistent. Peaceful protest, yes. Violence, destruction of property, no.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

offby37years 6y ago

If he actually said something that explicitly called for violence CNN would have had it on loop 24/7 since Wednesday.