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

Specific violent action as defined by you because of the context in which it was said.

 

Lol probably not.

Again, I don't think Waters should be held accountable for incitement. I just think there's a better case for holding her accountable than there was for Trump, so I'm baffled (not really, for obvious reasons) that the people who were so sure Trump deserved to be charged with incitement aren't calling for similar action against Waters here.

 

He, specifically, wanted to overturn an election, the means was not specified, nor did I say it was specified. He didn't particularly care about the means as long as it got the result. "Born of straight hate" is an irrelevant consideration and some silly obfuscation of the discussion.

 

FFS, it’s why I made the Autozone crack. Because that actually is a specific violent action regardless of context

 

You know that there hasn't even been a verdict yet, right? There's nothing to even claim she incited yet.

 

Because you, as I noted you would, have meandered yourself into some absurdist logic where you worked your way back from the desired conclusion of Waters being more culpable. This through the idea where context is largely irrelevant and a strained parsing of the words "confrontation vs. fight". It's almost as if it is a sport for you to come up with something so illogical and ridiculous, then construct a pathway to make it fit.

In this alternate reality, Waters saying "confrontation" about a situation not of her doing and towards a crowd not of her making which hasn't done anything yet is more culpable than Trump saying "fight" in a situation of his doing and towards a crowd of his making which went straight from his speech to violently attempt to overthrow an election, specifically citing his words while doing so. It boggles the mind.

 

No it's not. You hate him, which is a fact, and asserted he wanted violence, which is absurd and saved for those who hate him so much they can't see straight

 

No, it doesn't mean shit. It means you don't want to discuss the issues in a pertinent manner. Either my point is correct or it is not. In fact, even if I do dislike him, I could still be right, making my personal opinion of the guy irrelevant. That isn't the case when examining my point on its merits, which is why it is the only question. It makes this "you just hate him" concept complete nonsense.

And, yes, he did spend months and months arguing something other than being peaceful. That leaves a lot of potential opportunities for something other than saying he wanted, specifically, armed insurrection. However, it was abundantly clear he was untroubled by any method which would retain his power and wasn't above advocating physical responses as problem solvers to situations during his presidency and campaign.

Perhaps you just can't see straight with your dislike of me and my politics, as well as your natural reflexive defense of Trump, to make a sound judgment on the matter, though. Hmm?

 

Circular logic.

 

I think it’s absurd to assume he gave a shit whether there was violence or no violence provided that the outcome was “Donald Trump gets what’s best for Donald Trump.”

 

Omg uni I disagree with you and made my point, twice. Deal with it. Your tennyesque defensive and attacking responses prove it even more

 

Fine. And I dont think he thought that far ahead or wanted the capital to be stormed and breached.

 

I’m not going to debate whether or not he wanted it, because I think it’s irrelevant precisely because he doesn’t think that far ahead. He’s both amazingly selfish and amazingly short-sighted, and it bit him in the ass.

Unfortunately, I am way too cynical to believe that the electorate is any less short-sighted so he’ll have a puncher’s chance if he wants to run again

 

That's not how demonstrations work, though. If you want to look at it from a cost perspective, 2,000 people yelling at each other are probably blocking a road. Enough people blocking roads, and now you have to add in traffic cops. Add in that and now you've got detours, excess gas use, shipping delays. And as the yelling confrontations increase, as the number of people that have to go out of their way to avoid it, or have to be a part of it (like law enforcement, EMS, and the like) the cost continues to go up, until there is a point at which it costs more than a single building burnt.

 

Trump wasn't charged with incitement. He was impeached. That's a political thing, that is more public opinion than anything else. I don't know that there is an impeachment process for Waters. She could probably be censured. And she very well might deserve it.

 

No, it doesn't. I've made the point, twice myself, about him looking to push his supporters to overturn the election by, essentially, any means necessary. You've somehow got that we are arguing he specifically called on people to attack the capitol and, absent this specific directive, our accusation is moot and only based on "hate". There's nothing defensive in my arguments, only a notation you won't argue the issue in a pertinent manner, meaning you've solely defined his culpability as being him specifically directing them to do exactly what they did. That is not the argument.

 

Ok. I don't find it generally relevant. So I'm not sure how it can be specifically relevant.

There are a lot of things that I don't want to happen, that if did happen, I'd be held accountable for them. Be not wanting them to happen doesn't have any bearing on it, though.

 

Goodness I hope not. He brings out the worst in both sides

 

Just a quick sidebar, does anyone even think Waters or Trump are anything but assholes who shouldn't be in government?

 

I'm just trying to imagine how sad of an existence someone must have to be getting their marching orders from either Maxine or Donald.