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

Donald's got almost the entire Republican party marching to his beat. Even still, which is why we see all these states doing "voting reform."

Maxine Waters... I don't know who listens to her. Someone, I'm sure.

 

Again, I won't be claiming she incited anything, even if there is a riot. But aren't we pretty confident there will be riots, regardless of the outcome?

 

so you know waters did not and will not incite anything, since you believe riots will occur either way, and this whole line of conversation is a waste of time because you already know it doesn't compare to a guy claiming a country was taken away, an election was stolen, held a rally, told them they had to stand up and fight, and pointed them at the capitol during the election certifying precisely. you'd have to be a moron to think that is all coincidental

 

Fight is figurative language. Waters used it too, but we don't even need to mention it because of the other stuff she said. Heck, I just got a chance to watch the full video and saw for the first time the comment about "we've got to make sure that they know we mean business." It's very similar to the type of language Trump used, and, again, even goes beyond what Trump said, in my opinion.

Trump also mentioned protest peacefully. I know it doesn't fit your narrative, but he said it.

If no riots take place in Minnesota, then Waters is off the hook. And for the 1 millionth time, I don't think she's guilty of incitement, in the same way that I don't think Trump was. You're the one who thinks Trump was, so my point is that, if/when riots do take place, I hope you'll be holding Waters to the same standard.

I really do wish the original post had led to a more fruitful discussion about the deeper problems of what Waters said. "Guilty guilty guilty, and if we don't, we cannot go away... oh no, not manslaughter, no no no, this is guilty for murder. I don't know whether it's guilty in the first degree, but as far as I'm concerned it's first degree."

That's an elected official saying that shit. Actively undermining the judicial branch. And we've got people like Pelosi saying she shouldn't apologize.

 

If anyone participates in riots as a result of hearing what Maxine Waters said, then by your definition, which holds Trump accountable for incitement, Maxine Waters would abso[uck fay]inglutley be accountable for incitement as well.

You and I don't share the same definition, so no, I won't be holding Maxine Waters accountable for incitement, whether riots occur or not, because I believe that Person A should only be responsible for the actions of Person B when Person A specifically directs the actions of Person B.

Country taken away, election was stolen, held a rally, fight fight fight, march down to the Capitol and protest peacefully does not equal "storm the Capitol."

 

No. It's absurd when people say and parrot this; the judicial branch is the only branch of government that can actively undermine the other two. The only one. The idea that there are three, co-equal branches is not accurate. Judicial review makes it such that the judicial branch is the highest power. And that has been true for 200 some odd years.

And because of the need to maintain freedom of speech, while also maintaining judicial progress, juries on major crimes are sequestered, and limited in their information. Congress can't undermine the judiciary. But the judiciary can undermine Congress. They aren't equal branches.

 

People are extremely stupid.

 

no no. you just said there will be riots either way. you can't have it both ways.

 

Apparently only if they listen to her and then immediately go do it.

 

The concept of "fight is figurative language" ("Confront" could be considered the same, if this is the route.) as a sufficient understanding of why he shouldn't be accused of incitement is beyond ludicrous. Words don't exist in a vacuum and to reduce them as such is preposterous. You've done this so as to create a scenario in which the words can be deconstructed into a benign capacity, but it just doesn't work in this manner. The words have no meaning without context. What message were they used to convey? It's communication, so what was the idea being communicated? To strip this away or to downplay the effect of this is utterly foolish when analyzing the situation. I could say the exact same phrase in two different scenarios and have it mean two entirely different things.

But, yeah, had the original post been solely about the stupidity of Waters' statement, the consensus would have been pretty solid on this part. Eventually, Smmiff wouldn't be able to help himself and cry double standard of some sort, but the connection of this to Trump's comments is where her comments just don't match up and the focus of the discussion went towards.

You ask if I will hold Waters to the same standard of culpability as Trump if the people riot? No, even though this doesn't excuse Waters for saying something irresponsible. The potential protests or riots don't hinge one bit on Maxine Waters. This is way bigger than her and she couldn't stop it nor start it. Did the January 6th riots hinge on people attending the speech by Trump, inspired by his months long rhetoric? Absolutely. Anyone who can't see the clear line is either a fool or lying to themselves. I don't know how more overt it could be.

Otherwise, Waters isn't undermining the judicial branch, although Pelosi absolutely should encourage her to apologize. You are doing with Waters what you incorrectly say I'm doing with Trump, inflating her culpability and responsibility in the matter. What she said was bad enough in and of itself. It still isn't the same as what Trump did in DC on January 6th. Not by a long shot and it's disingenuous and counter factual to do so.

 

No, if they actually go do something which is inspired by her. Do you think the response of the people in Minnesota in any way hinges on the words of Maxine Waters? Was the situation in Minnesota in any way created by the rhetoric of Maxine Waters?

 

Sotuation was not. Hell if I know who listens to her. If someone were to listen to her (as in do what she says) and then were to immediately go do it then that might be incitement. My point was the immediate nature. I found it interesting that telling a group someone is evil amd they should be beaten isn’t incitement unless someone goes and immediately beat them.

 

I think that could be incitement, for sure. Is there an example of this, though? Does the group knowingly, by the speaker, act upon such instructions? The immediacy definitely makes it more evident and connected between rhetoric and action, though.

 

Perhaps I understood the legal narrative incorrectly after Jan 6 but I walked away from legal Twitter with the impression that if there is a delay between hearing it and acting on it then it isn’t incitement. Obviously there is room for interpretation there. Nanoseconds? Minutes? Hours? Days? Days doesn’t seem to fly.

 

It would be an interesting question. I'm not in any way versed on the legal specifics in regards to time, but I can't imagine it's too specific.

 

My understanding was that immediacy was required, for the legal definition. It had to be a clear connection in terms of timing.

 

"I'm sure smiff would cry double standard of some sort". Not necessary uni. Everybody reading this link knew you would rationalize Waters comments. Because she's a dem instead of a rep, and that's what you do every time.
Now I'll wait for a 2 page defensive response telling me I'm off topic and it boggles your mind how I could come to such a conclusion. Proceeed

 

Olympic level mental and verbal gymnastics to rationalize her comments in any way, as to not being threatening and inciting.

 

It can be those things, but still not hit the legal bar. TT seems to be talking about the legal bar, not the public court bar.

 

So sensitive. There 100% chance you would've done your "If she were a Republican...." bit, so the jab was warranted.

And, not a single person is rationalizing Waters' comments. Not one.

See? Not even two pages. Easy.