3 ms·

>So what you're saying is: he called for violence against someone that disagrees with him politically. This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" agai

>So what you're saying is: he called for violence against someone that disagrees with him politically. This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified. Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here. >Which of course is why he refused to condemn it while it was happening, He literally told the people assembled there to go home.

tw04 6y ago
>This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified. You keep moving the goal posts to try to justify abhorrent behavior. First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting? I'll be honest: it's pretty sad the lengths you're going to in order to justify actions that wouldn't be tolerated in a kindergarten classroom. >Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here. No, you really couldn't without the same mental gymnastics you've been going through to ignore reality. The Capitol "protestors" physically assaulted badged police officers while breaking into a federal building. The protestors at Trump's rally paid for a ticket to enter a place they were lawfully allowed to be - peacefully spoke out in protest, and then left when they were told to. In the process they were assaulted. The fact you'd try to equate the too shows a complete lack of honesty and integrity on your part. >He literally told the people assembled there to go home. Hours and HOURS after the damage had been done, and the police had the situation back under control, he issued a taped message telling the rioters that he loved them but they needed to go home. At some point it's obvious you condone physical violence against people that have different political views than you do, and you should just own it. But you also should take a long, hard look at history. The founding fathers didn't agree with your point of view. The constitution doesn't agree with your point of view. The majority of Americans don't agree with your point of view. Our Democracy is founded on a peaceful transition of power, and intelligent thoughtful discourse on policy. Your violence has no place in America.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  >First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting? You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were *IN ONE CASE* regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see. The fact that you have to lie to make your point means that this conversation is over. I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home. Trump DID NOT tell any of those assembled to storm the capitol, violently or otherwise, and to insist that he did is a further lie.
  - tw04 6y ago
    >You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were IN ONE CASE regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see. You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat. It is literally never justified for a politician to ask his supporters to physically assault a peaceful protestor. Full stop. You can squirm, gyrate, and try to justify it, but it's not OK. > I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home. You can stand by whatever you want. Trump released a pre-recorded video that "we love you, but go home" - 6 HOURS after the Capitol was stormed. HOURS. At that point it didn't matter, reinforcements had arrived and the building was already cleared. Furthermore, telling violent insurrectionists you "love them"??? Really?
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      >You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat. Again you lie, because HN won't let you edit a post more than 2 hours old. Those words were there when the post you reply to was originally made. Stop lying.

tw04 6y ago

>This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified. You keep moving the goal posts to try to justify abhorrent behavior. First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting? I'll be honest: it's pretty sad the lengths you're going to in order to justify actions that wouldn't be tolerated in a kindergarten classroom. >Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here. No, you really couldn't without the same mental gymnastics you've been going through to ignore reality. The Capitol "protestors" physically assaulted badged police officers while breaking into a federal building. The protestors at Trump's rally paid for a ticket to enter a place they were lawfully allowed to be - peacefully spoke out in protest, and then left when they were told to. In the process they were assaulted. The fact you'd try to equate the too shows a complete lack of honesty and integrity on your part. >He literally told the people assembled there to go home. Hours and HOURS after the damage had been done, and the police had the situation back under control, he issued a taped message telling the rioters that he loved them but they needed to go home. At some point it's obvious you condone physical violence against people that have different political views than you do, and you should just own it. But you also should take a long, hard look at history. The founding fathers didn't agree with your point of view. The constitution doesn't agree with your point of view. The majority of Americans don't agree with your point of view. Our Democracy is founded on a peaceful transition of power, and intelligent thoughtful discourse on policy. Your violence has no place in America.

Karunamon 6y ago
>First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting? You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were *IN ONE CASE* regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see. The fact that you have to lie to make your point means that this conversation is over. I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home. Trump DID NOT tell any of those assembled to storm the capitol, violently or otherwise, and to insist that he did is a further lie.
- tw04 6y ago
  >You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were IN ONE CASE regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see. You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat. It is literally never justified for a politician to ask his supporters to physically assault a peaceful protestor. Full stop. You can squirm, gyrate, and try to justify it, but it's not OK. > I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home. You can stand by whatever you want. Trump released a pre-recorded video that "we love you, but go home" - 6 HOURS after the Capitol was stormed. HOURS. At that point it didn't matter, reinforcements had arrived and the building was already cleared. Furthermore, telling violent insurrectionists you "love them"??? Really?
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    >You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat. Again you lie, because HN won't let you edit a post more than 2 hours old. Those words were there when the post you reply to was originally made. Stop lying.