4 ms·

Trump explicitly asked his people to be peaceful in his fight metaphor which is more than you could say for many others.

dwringer 4y ago
OTOH he also said he'd march with them to the Capitol, which presumably would have served as a form of leadership and given him some potential authority to further discourage violence. Instead, he (at best) decided to blow the whole thing off and leave the angry mob to its own devices for a few hours.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  I fully agree he should have gone to the Capitol. That was reckless of him. I also believe he should have said something early than he did. I don't think he blew it off as I don't think he had any intention of going there with the crowd. While he used the words "we" and "let's" I think that was referring to the crowd and it was just the way Trump talks and he did not mean to imply he would go with them. I don't think that matters. He did not tell them to go into the Capitol and he told them to be peaceful. I don't think you have thought through the outcome of this. It seems like you are saying that a person giving a speech to a crowd is responsible when some people in that crowd along with others not listening to the speech do something bad an hour later. Especially when some people claim they thought they were allowed to do that bad thing because some police opened some doors for them.
epakai 4y ago
He just said be peaceful once while repeatedly suggesting our election had been stolen and encouraging a large crowd to fight back. Meanwhile explicit efforts were being made to prevent the election certification. The subtext is readily apparent and its rather disgusting when people try to weasel in his token use of "peacefully". To believe that was his intent you have to think Trump was incompetently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  A weasel peaceful is still more than any democrat politician managed during BLM riots and Lightfoot now. So, still one step behind many who are still on Twitter
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  I would fine with the criticism of Trump if I felt there was consistency. The problem is there are plenty of politicians and other prominent people have done the same thing. Violence happened in those incidents as well. Almost nobody is advocating for them to be punished or to be held to the same standard. When Trump does it then it is the worst thing in the world. If we decide inflammatory language is not acceptable then fine, but nobody cares when their side does it. Just to be clear, I am not saying you specifically are not consistent. I do not know what you believe, but until we have the same standards that we as a society agree to I will defend anybody's right to say questionable things so long as they do not call for violence or other crimes. Bernie Sanders said that Republicans were killing Americans by going after a health care bill. One of his supporters (who also worked on Bernie's campaign) shot a Republican representative. That was inflammatory language and yet nobody holds Bernie to the same standard as they hold Trump to. To use your argument: To believe Bernie's language was not meant to incite violence you have to think Bernie was competently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.
  - spacemanmatt 4y ago
    Discrediting valid criticism because you don't feel consistency? Hmmm, I'm gonna call that right out.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      It is not valid criticism if you are only critical of an person because you are on the other team.
      - spacemanmatt 4y ago

dwringer 4y ago

OTOH he also said he'd march with them to the Capitol, which presumably would have served as a form of leadership and given him some potential authority to further discourage violence. Instead, he (at best) decided to blow the whole thing off and leave the angry mob to its own devices for a few hours.

_-david-_ 4y ago
I fully agree he should have gone to the Capitol. That was reckless of him. I also believe he should have said something early than he did. I don't think he blew it off as I don't think he had any intention of going there with the crowd. While he used the words "we" and "let's" I think that was referring to the crowd and it was just the way Trump talks and he did not mean to imply he would go with them. I don't think that matters. He did not tell them to go into the Capitol and he told them to be peaceful. I don't think you have thought through the outcome of this. It seems like you are saying that a person giving a speech to a crowd is responsible when some people in that crowd along with others not listening to the speech do something bad an hour later. Especially when some people claim they thought they were allowed to do that bad thing because some police opened some doors for them.

epakai 4y ago

He just said be peaceful once while repeatedly suggesting our election had been stolen and encouraging a large crowd to fight back. Meanwhile explicit efforts were being made to prevent the election certification. The subtext is readily apparent and its rather disgusting when people try to weasel in his token use of "peacefully". To believe that was his intent you have to think Trump was incompetently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.

cloutchaser 4y ago
A weasel peaceful is still more than any democrat politician managed during BLM riots and Lightfoot now. So, still one step behind many who are still on Twitter
_-david-_ 4y ago
I would fine with the criticism of Trump if I felt there was consistency. The problem is there are plenty of politicians and other prominent people have done the same thing. Violence happened in those incidents as well. Almost nobody is advocating for them to be punished or to be held to the same standard. When Trump does it then it is the worst thing in the world. If we decide inflammatory language is not acceptable then fine, but nobody cares when their side does it. Just to be clear, I am not saying you specifically are not consistent. I do not know what you believe, but until we have the same standards that we as a society agree to I will defend anybody's right to say questionable things so long as they do not call for violence or other crimes. Bernie Sanders said that Republicans were killing Americans by going after a health care bill. One of his supporters (who also worked on Bernie's campaign) shot a Republican representative. That was inflammatory language and yet nobody holds Bernie to the same standard as they hold Trump to. To use your argument: To believe Bernie's language was not meant to incite violence you have to think Bernie was competently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.
- spacemanmatt 4y ago
  Discrediting valid criticism because you don't feel consistency? Hmmm, I'm gonna call that right out.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    It is not valid criticism if you are only critical of an person because you are on the other team.
    - spacemanmatt 4y ago