5 ms·

Why do you think they had an incentive to prevent it? The President was the one encouraging the insurrection!

by qppo 6y ago

tomcam 6y ago
By explicitly telling people to “be peaceful“?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ruanmed 6y ago
  Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting "bogus" proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted? P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.
  - jlawson 6y ago
    If "telling people that the election was a fraud" is equivalent to encouraging insurrection, you'd need to convict everyone who pushed the Trump/Russia narrative for years. So basically every leftist media entity and person and many of the politicians too. Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth. People are allowed to question election integrity.
    - rat87 6y ago
      except Trump did collude with Russia
      - TeeMassive 6y ago
        "The investigation did not find evidence that the TrumpCampaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign." "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated withthe TrumpCampaign acted as an agentofa foreign principal within themeaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the governmentof Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or atits direction,control, or request—during the relevant time period.1" https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - Renaud 6y ago
      >People are allowed to question election integrity. Of course they are but at what standard of evidence do they hold themselves to to accept that it might not be true in the end? You can question anything you want but there is a point where being a doubtless unwavering sceptic biased toward a particular cause will make you slip into cynicism and denial.
- akiselev 6y ago
  Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability. It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.
  - SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
    Even his mid event video was the same. A quick "you need to go home" sandwiched between minutes of babel about how he thinks they are doing the right thing and that he loves them.
  - TeeMassive 6y ago
    > Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability. I'm sorry to say it, but you're a textbook example of what a confirmation bias is. You ignore what doesn't fit your conclusion and fill the holes with what you the same conclusion. The proof that this is BS is simple, if it was "clear" he called for the storming of the Capitol, it would have been "clear" for everyone and more security measures would have been taken and news organization would were digging actively for this kind of stuff would have jumped on that story. But they didn't, because there was no call by Trump except in the head of those who want it to be true after the fact.
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      I keep coming up against this phenomenon when discussing online. People on both sides take license to interpret the words of Trump to mean whatever they want it to. Calling this confirmation bias is too generous. Trump's statements are simply a Rorschach test at this point. The content of his statements is immaterial to the conclusions drawn from them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25744023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25744023
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  In the context, the "be peaceful" is a dog whistle that screams "war and rioting", because it was padded with hundreds of "stole the election", "unfair", "fraud" and what not. God. I thought people on HN were reasonable. Even here you have idiots who take one single word out of a barrage of lies and disinformation (for months on end, encouraging violence) and hold it as some sort of beacon of morality and proof of innocence. It is people like you for whom those words are interspersed within speeches, so that you stay by the sidelines when holocausts and coups happen. Grow up.
- jonnyone 6y ago
  Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump "incited" a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.
  - jiofih 6y ago
    Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case? (non-US person here)
    - jonnyone 6y ago
      Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He's also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like "will not stand down" is obviously in reference to the "fight" for his "case" and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he "inciting" a riot then? I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.
      - Renaud 6y ago
        I think we can at least agree that despite his double-speak, the fact that he has been stirring his crowd to act on the 'steal' is not inconsequential. It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric. He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less. Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise. Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.

Why do you think they had an incentive to prevent it? The President was the one encouraging the insurrection!

by qppo 6y ago

Why do you think they had an incentive to prevent it? The President was the one encouraging the insurrection!

tomcam 6y ago

By explicitly telling people to “be peaceful“?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ruanmed 6y ago
Maybe be telling people for weeks that the election was a fraud (without providing proof, and presenting "bogus" proof), that he actually had won, and saying the result would not be accepted? P.S.: I'm not american and never have been to USA.
- jlawson 6y ago
  If "telling people that the election was a fraud" is equivalent to encouraging insurrection, you'd need to convict everyone who pushed the Trump/Russia narrative for years. So basically every leftist media entity and person and many of the politicians too. Hell, we can go back to 2000, butterfly ballots, Diebold voting machines, and so on and so forth. People are allowed to question election integrity.
  - rat87 6y ago
    except Trump did collude with Russia
    - TeeMassive 6y ago
      "The investigation did not find evidence that the TrumpCampaign recovered any such Clinton emails, or that these contacts were part of a coordinated effort between Russia and the Trump Campaign." "The investigation did not, however, yield evidence sufficient to sustain any charge that any individual affiliated withthe TrumpCampaign acted as an agentofa foreign principal within themeaning of FARA or, in terms of Section 951, subject to the direction or control of the governmentof Russia, or any official thereof. In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government—or atits direction,control, or request—during the relevant time period.1" https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - Renaud 6y ago
    >People are allowed to question election integrity. Of course they are but at what standard of evidence do they hold themselves to to accept that it might not be true in the end? You can question anything you want but there is a point where being a doubtless unwavering sceptic biased toward a particular cause will make you slip into cynicism and denial.
akiselev 6y ago
Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability. It's not fooling anyone but the brain dead and comatose.
- SulfurHexaFluri 6y ago
  Even his mid event video was the same. A quick "you need to go home" sandwiched between minutes of babel about how he thinks they are doing the right thing and that he loves them.
- TeeMassive 6y ago
  > Blurting out the words "be peaceful" during a half hour word salad about the evil Democrats stealing an election isn't "explicit", it's a pathetic attempt at doublespeak and plausible deniability. I'm sorry to say it, but you're a textbook example of what a confirmation bias is. You ignore what doesn't fit your conclusion and fill the holes with what you the same conclusion. The proof that this is BS is simple, if it was "clear" he called for the storming of the Capitol, it would have been "clear" for everyone and more security measures would have been taken and news organization would were digging actively for this kind of stuff would have jumped on that story. But they didn't, because there was no call by Trump except in the head of those who want it to be true after the fact.
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    I keep coming up against this phenomenon when discussing online. People on both sides take license to interpret the words of Trump to mean whatever they want it to. Calling this confirmation bias is too generous. Trump's statements are simply a Rorschach test at this point. The content of his statements is immaterial to the conclusions drawn from them. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25744023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25744023
kumarvvr 6y ago
In the context, the "be peaceful" is a dog whistle that screams "war and rioting", because it was padded with hundreds of "stole the election", "unfair", "fraud" and what not. God. I thought people on HN were reasonable. Even here you have idiots who take one single word out of a barrage of lies and disinformation (for months on end, encouraging violence) and hold it as some sort of beacon of morality and proof of innocence. It is people like you for whom those words are interspersed within speeches, so that you stay by the sidelines when holocausts and coups happen. Grow up.
jonnyone 6y ago
Too many people here are unable to distance themselves from their ideological contempt for Trump to be able analyze this with a clear mind. There is not much of a case that Trump "incited" a riot. The fact that this was planned for months only further cements that.
- jiofih 6y ago
  Check your own biases. He was telling a huge crowd that the election was stolen, he would show proof the same day (we are still waiting), and they “will not stand down”. What else is needed to make that case? (non-US person here)
  - jonnyone 6y ago
    Like it or not, Trump is allowed to dispute the results of the election. He's also allowed to do so openly and to a crowd. Language like "will not stand down" is obviously in reference to the "fight" for his "case" and falls in line exactly with the language he had been using at previous rallies and on Twitter. Was he "inciting" a riot then? I hate that I even have to say this, because it seems childishly unnecessary, but I am not a fan of Trump. But I feel there is enough to condemn him for without grasping for straws.
    - Renaud 6y ago
      I think we can at least agree that despite his double-speak, the fact that he has been stirring his crowd to act on the 'steal' is not inconsequential. It seems unlikely that he would not have been briefed on the plots that were being organised and the dangers of feeding this crowd that rhetoric. He has a large responsibility in inciting the level of denial that have led to his supporters to intimidate or threaten officials, many from his own party no less. Allowing this to go for weeks without disavowing or distancing himself publicly has only embolden a crowd that believed in the legitimacy of their actions because the president would not say otherwise. Maybe we can be generous and say that things got out of hand but that would only show some lack of responsible judgement on his part and I'm not sure it's not somehow even worse.