5 ms·

You can not lump all lies together. There are different degrees. And most important a difference in who is telling the lie. Intent can not be separated either.

You can not lump all lies together. There are different degrees. And most important a difference in who is telling the lie. Intent can not be separated either. What do you mean you support the right to attack a republic? You want to attack our government? We have a means to make change in our country/government. It's called Democracy, activism, and yes through protected (non violence causing) speech. Directly trying to literally overthrow a free and fair election & government by the chief executive and Members who are sworn to uphold the law and constitution is explicitly sedition and their 'speech' that caused and incited this should not be and is not protected. Trump's lies directly caused this and his actions were (and still are) a threat to the very foundation of law that protects our speech. He WAS involved in violence and is 100% responsible for instigating it on multiple occasions. He directed his supporters to act multiple times during first election on through most important Jan 6 obviously. Congress was attacked. People with guns and weapons broke into the Capital. I do NOT support the rick to literally attack our Republic/country it's crazy that people support this. There was permanent injury and death to multiple people. It was violence. Many explicitly intended to kill members of Congress.

EricE 4y ago
>He WAS involved in violence Citation needed - and be specific with how he, personally, was "involved in violence".
- dillondoyle 4y ago
  Here are just a few. Beyond his words, there are huge amounts of convicts who told the police they acted bc Trump's words or even used Trump's words as an argument in court to attempt to show they weren't directly responsible/as culpable. Trump might not punch protestors in the face himself, but his words cause acts of violence. -- Also given the topic twitter lays out specific examples on their platform. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... -- The clearing of lafayette square Trump said 'bust some heads' and reports of some blatant attempts to order the military to intervene inappropriately the entire summer. Trump saying "Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. There won’t be so much of them because the courts agree with us," “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” “I’d like to punch him in the face.” to a protester. A funny gem: Wanted spikes on his wall that would 'pierce flesh' 'shoot migrants' build an 'alligator moat'. Like, you can't make that up in a movie it would be too outlandish. Dr evil type contraption that can be easily overcome lol BLM "“That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will. But that was a disgrace. … I felt badly for him, but it showed that he’s weak.”" Thugs pissing on and beating homeless people: “I think that would be a shame. I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that,” infamous "very fine people" (charlottesville) Lots of reports of his wanting to use the military during the summer with clear tone and political intent. some reports of nebulous rants about doing the same after he lost to try and hold onto power. "we’d like to get them out a lot faster, and when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody. Don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?" Gianforte body slam: “Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.” (wish we would have won that race Kathleen is great candidate...) Lots of campaign rally examples. “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!” “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this. A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast — but today, everybody’s politically correct,” Another video of Trump saying “Get him the hell out of here! Get him out of here! Throw him out!” to a BLM protestor while a member of the crowd physically beats protester
  - brigandish 4y ago
    They're all examples of words, not violence.
brigandish 4y ago
> What do you mean you support the right to attack a republic? You want to attack our government? Attack has a broad meaning and use, perhaps my hint as to the sense I was using was strong enough. I've seen it defined as violence and as words. I support words, not violence, if someone wishes to criticise any government then I would support their right to do that, even though that government's supporters would frame it as an attack. > He WAS involved in violence I didn't realise that. Did he use his bare hands or a weapon? How many people did attack? (not the words sense)
- jq-r 4y ago
  > I didn't realise that. Did he use his bare hands or a weapon? How many people did attack? (not the words sense) This is just like saying that Putin is not involved in war in Ukraine. He obviously is, and we have a name for this kind of involvement and it is called a "war criminal”. He didn't have to pull any gun triggers.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    If you think that speech used in the performance of your duties (and in this case, those duties include ordering military action), is comparable to other speech then I'm not sure what I can reasonably tell you as that is a mind-blowing comparison to put forward. Additionally, the claim is that Trump enacted violence. Putin has not enacted violence, he's ordered it. Of course Putin is involved, and he's legally involved, and even though he's not enacting violence he is on the hook for that violence (or should be). I don't know anyone who wants free speech, even proper absolutists, who would make this case (that ordering military action is covered by free speech). Do you know of one? Now, please tell me which violence Trump was either actually involved in by actually committing violence or by ordering violence, and by "ordering" I mean making an official, legally backed order in the course of his duties as president and commander in chief, because I'd really like to know or even better, knock these silly claims on the head. I won't hold my breath waiting.

EricE 4y ago

>He WAS involved in violence Citation needed - and be specific with how he, personally, was "involved in violence".

dillondoyle 4y ago
Here are just a few. Beyond his words, there are huge amounts of convicts who told the police they acted bc Trump's words or even used Trump's words as an argument in court to attempt to show they weren't directly responsible/as culpable. Trump might not punch protestors in the face himself, but his words cause acts of violence. -- Also given the topic twitter lays out specific examples on their platform. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... -- The clearing of lafayette square Trump said 'bust some heads' and reports of some blatant attempts to order the military to intervene inappropriately the entire summer. Trump saying "Seriously. Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. There won’t be so much of them because the courts agree with us," “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” “I’d like to punch him in the face.” to a protester. A funny gem: Wanted spikes on his wall that would 'pierce flesh' 'shoot migrants' build an 'alligator moat'. Like, you can't make that up in a movie it would be too outlandish. Dr evil type contraption that can be easily overcome lol BLM "“That will never happen with me. I don’t know if I’ll do the fighting myself or if other people will. But that was a disgrace. … I felt badly for him, but it showed that he’s weak.”" Thugs pissing on and beating homeless people: “I think that would be a shame. I will say, the people that are following me are very passionate. They love this country. They want this country to be great again. But they are very passionate. I will say that,” infamous "very fine people" (charlottesville) Lots of reports of his wanting to use the military during the summer with clear tone and political intent. some reports of nebulous rants about doing the same after he lost to try and hold onto power. "we’d like to get them out a lot faster, and when you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice. Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody. Don’t hit their head. I said, you can take the hand away, okay?" Gianforte body slam: “Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.” (wish we would have won that race Kathleen is great candidate...) Lots of campaign rally examples. “See, the first group, I was nice. ‘Oh, take your time.’ The second group, I was pretty nice. The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!” “You see, in the good old days, law enforcement acted a lot quicker than this. A lot quicker. In the good old days, they’d rip him out of that seat so fast — but today, everybody’s politically correct,” Another video of Trump saying “Get him the hell out of here! Get him out of here! Throw him out!” to a BLM protestor while a member of the crowd physically beats protester
- brigandish 4y ago
  They're all examples of words, not violence.

brigandish 4y ago

> What do you mean you support the right to attack a republic? You want to attack our government? Attack has a broad meaning and use, perhaps my hint as to the sense I was using was strong enough. I've seen it defined as violence and as words. I support words, not violence, if someone wishes to criticise any government then I would support their right to do that, even though that government's supporters would frame it as an attack. > He WAS involved in violence I didn't realise that. Did he use his bare hands or a weapon? How many people did attack? (not the words sense)

jq-r 4y ago
> I didn't realise that. Did he use his bare hands or a weapon? How many people did attack? (not the words sense) This is just like saying that Putin is not involved in war in Ukraine. He obviously is, and we have a name for this kind of involvement and it is called a "war criminal”. He didn't have to pull any gun triggers.
- brigandish 4y ago
  If you think that speech used in the performance of your duties (and in this case, those duties include ordering military action), is comparable to other speech then I'm not sure what I can reasonably tell you as that is a mind-blowing comparison to put forward. Additionally, the claim is that Trump enacted violence. Putin has not enacted violence, he's ordered it. Of course Putin is involved, and he's legally involved, and even though he's not enacting violence he is on the hook for that violence (or should be). I don't know anyone who wants free speech, even proper absolutists, who would make this case (that ordering military action is covered by free speech). Do you know of one? Now, please tell me which violence Trump was either actually involved in by actually committing violence or by ordering violence, and by "ordering" I mean making an official, legally backed order in the course of his duties as president and commander in chief, because I'd really like to know or even better, knock these silly claims on the head. I won't hold my breath waiting.