4 ms·

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

by 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.
- croon 6y ago
  That is during the capitol assault. Which is explicitly why he isn't consistent. Where are the "thugs", "terrorists", "anarchists", etc? He's never hesitated to use those terms before. It took him a full two days to condemn the events in Charlottesville. And he didn't call it terrorism. Because it was "his" side.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    And now you want to turn the topic onto Charlottesville, where he explicitly condemned the violence and extremists. "To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered. As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America." "Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America." "I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem." "The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay." You've no issue quoting the prepared statement asking Capitol Building protesters to go home. Yet you take issue with a prepared statement about George Floyd. I'll agree that consistency is important here. This flavor of hyperpartisanship is part of the problem. There's very little you can change about Trump's supporters. Even less if you take an extreme partisan approach. This only contributes to the toxicity. https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remarks-transcript/ https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remar... https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-concedes-election-condemns-rioters-video-transcript-january-7 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-concedes-e...
    - croon 6y ago
      > You've no issue quoting the prepared statement asking Capitol Building protesters to go home What I quoted wasn't the prepared statements. The prepared statements you quoted was long after he got massive pushback and moves to impeach him (again). Exactly his modus operandi. > And now you want to turn the topic onto Charlottesville I am establishing a pattern, yes. > where he explicitly condemned the violence and extremists. After multiple days and massive flack from all sides of the aisle. > This flavor of hyperpartisanship is part of the problem. [...] Even less if you take an extreme partisan approach. This only contributes to the toxicity. I agree, which is exactly why I've been writing these posts. > There's very little you can change about Trump's supporters. You could start by not choosing rhetoric based on politics, which is exactly what he's been doing for 4 (+) years. Ducks are ducks regardless of politics, but he treats them very differently.
      - aww_dang 6y ago
        >If you say "We love you, you're special" to violent insurrectionists >What I quoted wasn't the prepared statements. Are you now cherry picking which statements are prepared and which aren't? Amazing. Choose your own meaning to extrapolate _and_ choose which statements are valid.
        croon 6y ago
        > Choose your own meaning to extrapolate _and_ choose which statements are valid. The language is very different and they're contradicting each other. And they're days apart, with one prepared and the other during the event. I'm not invalidating anything, I'm comparing apples to apples. Also you're ignoring the pattern I laid out. But I'll say it clearer. His hot takes are always partisan. Any walkbacks and sensibility only come later, after clear consequences loom.
        aww_dang 6y ago
        Which statements contradict each other? I'm not seeing it. What I do see is mass hysteria surrounding his statements. "I condemn in the strongest possible terms..." But he didn't call them terrorists (in a quote I could find) in an off the cuff statement, so you're entitled to telepathically divine another meaning from the statement? Take another angle. When Trump said, "There will be a peaceful transition to a new administration", some of his supporters imagined this meant he isn't leaving the Whitehouse. For myself, I have no telepathic abilities. Nor do I believe that those who are passionate about their love or hate for the man have telepathic abilities. What I observe is mass hysteria. From the left, this is buoyed by media spin. On the right, you have the Q types. Again this is buoyed by media dishonesty. If media institutions were less misleading, perhaps there would be more trust in establishment sources. Instead there is a vacuum where deranged conspiracies can mix in among perspectives the media would rather not cover.

by croon 6y ago

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.

croon 6y ago
That is during the capitol assault. Which is explicitly why he isn't consistent. Where are the "thugs", "terrorists", "anarchists", etc? He's never hesitated to use those terms before. It took him a full two days to condemn the events in Charlottesville. And he didn't call it terrorism. Because it was "his" side.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  And now you want to turn the topic onto Charlottesville, where he explicitly condemned the violence and extremists. "To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered. As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America." "Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America." "I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem." "The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay." You've no issue quoting the prepared statement asking Capitol Building protesters to go home. Yet you take issue with a prepared statement about George Floyd. I'll agree that consistency is important here. This flavor of hyperpartisanship is part of the problem. There's very little you can change about Trump's supporters. Even less if you take an extreme partisan approach. This only contributes to the toxicity. https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remarks-transcript/ https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remar... https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-concedes-election-condemns-rioters-video-transcript-january-7 https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-concedes-e...
  - croon 6y ago
    > You've no issue quoting the prepared statement asking Capitol Building protesters to go home What I quoted wasn't the prepared statements. The prepared statements you quoted was long after he got massive pushback and moves to impeach him (again). Exactly his modus operandi. > And now you want to turn the topic onto Charlottesville I am establishing a pattern, yes. > where he explicitly condemned the violence and extremists. After multiple days and massive flack from all sides of the aisle. > This flavor of hyperpartisanship is part of the problem. [...] Even less if you take an extreme partisan approach. This only contributes to the toxicity. I agree, which is exactly why I've been writing these posts. > There's very little you can change about Trump's supporters. You could start by not choosing rhetoric based on politics, which is exactly what he's been doing for 4 (+) years. Ducks are ducks regardless of politics, but he treats them very differently.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      >If you say "We love you, you're special" to violent insurrectionists >What I quoted wasn't the prepared statements. Are you now cherry picking which statements are prepared and which aren't? Amazing. Choose your own meaning to extrapolate _and_ choose which statements are valid.
      - croon 6y ago
        > Choose your own meaning to extrapolate _and_ choose which statements are valid. The language is very different and they're contradicting each other. And they're days apart, with one prepared and the other during the event. I'm not invalidating anything, I'm comparing apples to apples. Also you're ignoring the pattern I laid out. But I'll say it clearer. His hot takes are always partisan. Any walkbacks and sensibility only come later, after clear consequences loom.
        aww_dang 6y ago
        Which statements contradict each other? I'm not seeing it. What I do see is mass hysteria surrounding his statements. "I condemn in the strongest possible terms..." But he didn't call them terrorists (in a quote I could find) in an off the cuff statement, so you're entitled to telepathically divine another meaning from the statement? Take another angle. When Trump said, "There will be a peaceful transition to a new administration", some of his supporters imagined this meant he isn't leaving the Whitehouse. For myself, I have no telepathic abilities. Nor do I believe that those who are passionate about their love or hate for the man have telepathic abilities. What I observe is mass hysteria. From the left, this is buoyed by media spin. On the right, you have the Q types. Again this is buoyed by media dishonesty. If media institutions were less misleading, perhaps there would be more trust in establishment sources. Instead there is a vacuum where deranged conspiracies can mix in among perspectives the media would rather not cover.