3 ms·

Because those two tweets, and the video, were both offering tacit support to people violently attacking the US Capitol and continuing to promote the egregious l

by _djo_ 6y ago

Because those two tweets, and the video, were both offering tacit support to people violently attacking the US Capitol and continuing to promote the egregious lie and conspiracy theory of a stolen election that was driving the attack in the first place. What made those tweets untenable was the changed circumstances of the attack on the Capitol and the knowledge that those engaged in it were relying on Trump's support and encouragement.

roenxi 6y ago
I dunno, the further we get from the Capitol Hill riot, the harder I think it will be to sustain the argument that "I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." can only be interpreted as "violently seize control of the American government". Those are going to be famous last words if ever there are any. If you were going to put % chances that he was speaking literally, what would you put them at? Surely you'd agree there is at least a chance he was just stream-of-conciousness tweeting what he was thinking?
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  “There’s a million of us out there, and we are listening to Trump, your boss.” https://youtu.be/270F8s5TEKY?t=151 https://youtu.be/270F8s5TEKY?t=151 I don’t think you can wave away the impact of Trumps words, even if he didn’t intend violence. His audience interpreted approval. That’s what matters. To disagree is to be deliberately ignorant or to argue in bad faith.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > ...even if he didn’t intend violence. That is a totally unreasonable standard that would speak very clearly of a bias (if that is what Twitter thought, which I doubt). It isn't being applied to politicians at all evenly, it is only being applied to Trump. If the speakers intentions and literal words don't matter, and they are to be judged by the most extreme fringes of their supporters then no politician is going to be allowed to speak.

by _djo_ 6y ago

roenxi 6y ago

I dunno, the further we get from the Capitol Hill riot, the harder I think it will be to sustain the argument that "I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th." can only be interpreted as "violently seize control of the American government". Those are going to be famous last words if ever there are any. If you were going to put % chances that he was speaking literally, what would you put them at? Surely you'd agree there is at least a chance he was just stream-of-conciousness tweeting what he was thinking?

alsetmusic 6y ago
“There’s a million of us out there, and we are listening to Trump, your boss.” https://youtu.be/270F8s5TEKY?t=151 https://youtu.be/270F8s5TEKY?t=151 I don’t think you can wave away the impact of Trumps words, even if he didn’t intend violence. His audience interpreted approval. That’s what matters. To disagree is to be deliberately ignorant or to argue in bad faith.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > ...even if he didn’t intend violence. That is a totally unreasonable standard that would speak very clearly of a bias (if that is what Twitter thought, which I doubt). It isn't being applied to politicians at all evenly, it is only being applied to Trump. If the speakers intentions and literal words don't matter, and they are to be judged by the most extreme fringes of their supporters then no politician is going to be allowed to speak.