POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

I haven't seen it, but Maxine Waters is a certifiable old bat and in the same vein as Trump, just in the left arm instead of the right arm.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/19/politics/maxine-waters-derek-chauvin-trial/index.html

To reiterate my position on these sorts of things, I don't think we should be holding Person A accountable for the actions of Person B unless Person A directed the actions taken by Person B. Telling people they need to get more confrontational, in a city that has already been experiencing riots, seems pretty damn close to directing the actions Person B may end up taking.

And I think the bigger issue is this new approach of justifying and promoting criminal behavior as a response to a verdict not going the way someone wants. And then you have someone dropping a severed pigs head at the house of a defense witness. Everyone should be in favor of a fair trial and verdict rendered by a jury of one's peers, yet here we are. Not good.

 

I don't think hers is the same as Trump's, especially since his was a culmination of many things and the rhetoric was more inflammatory to a known threat to do something which did occur. Plus, the whole plot was created by Trump, pushed by him and his surrogates and fanned by him at every turn, culminating with his speech just prior to the insurrection. It's not the same and the charlatans pushing this Waters condemnation are, largely, the same shitheads who found themselves in hot water over January 6th, looking to redirect attention. Marjorie Taylor Greene can get [uck fay]ed. She has plenty of shit of her own to answer before she throws stones.

However, Waters is reeeeeeeeeeeally pushing it here and not in any way good. I mean, I know the idea she has of "in the streets" is going to be protest, but she should have some awareness this thing is about to pop if he's found not guilty. So, no, I don't think she's instigating, necessarily, as Trump was with him being the focal point and reason for the unrest. This thing is volatile without her and she's not going to make much difference. But, she's not doing much to, at the minimum, help diffuse the situation, either, or redirect anger, which is her responsibility as a leader. She should know better, too. It was her district which was part of the '92 LA Riot. She knows how bad it can get.

She can be a Black Panther-like revolutionary or work within the system. She can't do both, pandering for her own benefit. So, is it her fault if things go bad in Minnesota? No, people aren't listening to her, really. Is what she saying and doing ok? No, I don't think so. It's irresponsible.

 

She's pushed it way too far, even if unintentionally, given the context of the mood.

 

"A fair trial" is the hard part here. Cops are convicted at a much lower rate than the general populace. As a result, there are some legitimate takes that it isn't a fair trial. It's an unbalanced, uneven, trial, often done only after a lot of outcry. Until those things are seemingly more even, that is going to be a legitimate take. Witness intimidation shouldn't occur, but it does.

Justifying and promoting criminal behavior as a response to something is not a new approach. Boston Tea Party, again. Criminal behavior, as a result of a verdict by a government body. Not new.

Person B and Person A should both have accountability. Person B is likely to be criminal. Person A can be criminal, if directing, but otherwise, it should be court of public opinion. The major difference between these two, while Maxine Waters still being in the wrong, and just looking at the difference is that people haven't been storming the Capital over voter fraud for the last 5-6 years.

Maxine Waters is throwing gasoline on an existing fire that has been burning for half a decade. Trump started the fire.

 

I read everything that you typed. You seem to be much more focused on the situation rather than the language itself, which I don't really understand. Incitement is based on language. Waters is calling for people who are already rioting to be "more confrontational." All it takes is one person listening to her to take that action, and you have incitement, by definition.

That you stop at irresponsible for Waters and keep going beyond that for Trump seems to be a bit of a double standard.

 

How will you determine if a rioter riots more riotously?

Something can't be a double standard if the context is different. The thing you don't really understand is the part where he discussed context. Now, I am with you. She's way out of line and is exposed to some culpability. But isn't "the same" as January 6th, for the reasons already pointed out. Doesn't mean she is free and clear. But it isn't the same.

 

There are a number of reasons that cops are convicted at a much lower rate than the general populace. "Unfair trials" is probably one of them. But even so, it's a weak position, at best, to state that a specific trial is unfair because other trials in the past have been unfair, without citing any other reasons or evidence for why this specific trial is unfair.

One could very easily make the case that this trial, in particular, has been extremely biased towards the prosecution.

Maxine Waters isn't the only person to make these sorts of comments in these sorts of situations in the past 5-6 years either.

 

I understand the context. I don't think it matters as much as the language because incitement is based in language. And, while her language goes beyond Trump's language, Uni stops at irresponsible for her and takes it further for Trump.

 

Correct. Maxine Waters isn't the only person. In fact, I bet you can't pinpoint a person as the single most significant cause the last 5-6 years. But we can, with the Capital. Because it was clearly pimped by the President of the United States. On Twitter. On Fox. At Rally's. In phone calls. By his associates and his lawyers. Which is why we conclude Trump started the fire. So, who started the other fire? There ya go.

Sure, here's the unfair bit: the prosecution works with the defendant, and the defendant's co-workers. That's a conflict of interest every single time there is a trial. So there you go, this one will be unfair just like the previous will be unfair, because the system has a conflict of interest. Whether that conflict is able to be overcome or not, is indeterminable.

 

Because, as IP said, context matters, as always. The events of the Chauvin trial and protest happen regardless of the words of Waters. I would even argue her words aren't as bad as Trump's, but then we're merely parsing words of two people saying shit they shouldn't. But, context matters because the words of Trump were part of a entire movement based upon words of this type and the movement would not exist outside of these words. If Trump were spewing his words from Twitter and not influencing people, then this is different than his pointed incitement, which he knew had an effect as he was saying them.

There's no pass given to Waters. She was irresponsible. But, the question was, is this same as Trump. No, it is not as bad as his. His was a months long, concentrated, layer building effort which culminated in the speech at the edge of the National Mall, not existing in a vacuum, and built entirely on his endless, incessant grievances and provocations. Waters' speech is missing a significant number of those factors. I realize the conservative crew is looking for that moment of equivalency in order to put January 6th in the rear view, but it doesn't work in this case. But, again, it doesn't absolve Waters simply because she wasn't as bad as Trump. She's an asshole for saying it.

 

Waters is insane and there should be more opposition from inside the Dem party against the crazy shit she says sometimes

Waters also doesn’t lead the party and doesn’t have its members bending over backwards to defend her so they don’t lose the “Maxine Waters” block of voters

 

People have looped in more than just the President for the Capitol riots. AOC was calling for other elected officials to step down over Twitter. And again, Trump's language doesn't match that of Waters, in specificity. And I'm not sure where this obsession with "starting the fire" is coming from. Incitement just means provoking or urging unlawful behavior. You don't have to be the first person to do it. It's incitement whether you're the first, the 5th, or the 420th.

When you say "the prosecution," who, in particular, are you referring to? From my understanding, Jerry Blackwell isn't your run of the mill district attorney, and he would, thus, not necessarily "work with" the defendant and the defendant's coworkers in the same way that a run of the mill district attorney would. He was specifically chosen to lead the prosecution in this case, was he not?

And honestly, it's slightly comical to see you point out the conflict of interest for a case like this, in which so many of this man's co-workers have already testified against him. By all accounts, the dude sounds like a complete [Penis], and nobody has seemed to hesitant to toss him under the bus.

 

Trump also didn't call for anyone to get violent, break into the Capitol, or anything else specific. He also mentioned peacefully protesting.

 

She's just playing to her base.

... Who is Maxine Water's base?

 

"If you don't fight like hell you aren't going to have a country anymore."

"We are going to the Capitol."

"You'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong."

 

So AOC made some twitter comments, and now you take that to be the equivalent of the case made against Trump? I guess if you're gullible enough, sure. But I'm not, so I'm not going to put those on the same level. But thanks for bringing it out here, I guess?

Starting the fire makes all the difference, especially in something seen as inevitable. On election day, I did not see any way in hell that anyone would be rioting at the Capital. Didn't see it. Did you? Doubtful, but, I'll trust you: did you? I absolutely see riots based on verdict (even a guilty verdict) as possible, way, way before Maxine Waters even said anything. And that's why it matters.

Prosecution is the entirety of the system. The attorney general did jury selection. Jurors... are kind of important in jury trials. It's hard to say that there isn't bias, when the system has conflicts.

It isn't comical, it is factual. Whether his peers testify against him or not is irrelevant to the existence of the conflict. Being overly negative is also a conflict. It can cause people to dislike the speaker more so than the person they are speaking against.

 

I’m not relitigating the Jan 6 riots, you made up your mind on that as the rioters were still in the building. I’m telling you one of the reasons why Maxine Waters ≠ Donald Trump.

 

But nowhere in there did he specifically say “break shit.”

Come on man, Donald Trump has less culpability than Fred Durst

 

If both people had said the same stuff, then yeah, the context matters. But they didn't. You're welcome to argue that her words aren't as bad as Trump's, and you'd be dead wrong. I think there can certainly be degrees of bad. You already applied that thought when you stopped at just "irresponsible" for Waters and her comments.

How do you know that no one heard Waters's speech and then decided to do something that they will eventually do? Seems like quite the assumption. It only takes one person acting, motivated by Waters and her language, for the incitement requirements to be fulfilled.

Hell, you want context? You, Float, and IP all keep pointing at the fact that these riots have been ongoing, therefore Waters can't be held responsible for incitement. The woman is seeing violence and pushing for more. But that's not as bad as Trump, who hadn't seen any violence and didn't push for anything specifically violent? Laughable.