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

By itself, no, but there was soooo much more than simply the word "fight" for Trump's situation, you realize, right?

 

Sure you can, context matters

 

Pelosi said "maybe there will be more uprisings", and was given a pass. I dont want to argue with you guys about it. we will just agree to disagree, as imo, often it depends on who says something in regards to the reaction, based on politics and race quite often.

 

Nobody changed their minds based upon the arguments presented (i.e. not constitutional, they said fight, they supported riots, etc.). All had their minds made up before it began.

Hell, impartial Juror Cruz was photographed inside the defense meeting room strategizing with the defense.

 

That's not exactly what Pelosi said and, regardless, the context always matters. Tell me if I'm wrong, but weren't you one of the ones using the concept of context when talking about the "very fine people on both sides" debate? You are trying to throw away context in regards to the idea of "fight". They were used in very different ways in the examples you referenced above and it isn't a matter of "it depends on who says something", it's a matter of the actual language.

There's a very good reason the words did not lead to equal results in the utterings of Harris and other people and the one by Trump on January 6th. It was very clearly and easily definably different. I mean, it's not even a serious equivalency, really.

 

I think there were 2 Republican senators who changed their vote from the first Rand Paul vote on constitutionality. Seven Republicans voting to convict, which is very noteworthy considering only 1 member of the same party has ever voted to convict a presidential impeachment.

 

I can understand some Republicans wanting to convict simply due to potential backlash or labeling by the opponent. "Make them pay" comes to mind as well as being labeled as a white supremecist for the way one votes.

 

What? There were definitely more Republicans who were interested in convicting, but are afraid of the Trumpist band of the GOP. I don't know why senators in Louisiana, Utah, Alaska and Nebraska would be worried about a backlash for voting to convict. In fact, it might hurt them a bit. Burr and Toomey aren't running again, so a backlash means nothing to them.

Perhaps they just think he's guilty? And, look to Liz Cheney to see where the backlash is coming.

 

Yeah, the part where he told the crowd to march down to the Capitol and protest peacefully was pretty damning.

 

They were never going to convict him, which we all knew from the beginning. That's why my first comment on the entire thing was that it was a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Personally, I don't think he should have been impeached in the first place. He could have handled the situation better, but I think it's a very slippery slope to start holding politicians and other public figures accountable for the actions of their supporters without those figures specifically directing those actions. I don't hold Trump responsible for the actions of these people for the same reason I don't hold Bernie responsible for Congressional baseball shooting.

 

You are going to have to work really hard to do your usual shill for Trump on this one when even Mitch McConnell says Trump incited the crowd and seven Reps voted to convict. The Trump people have really latched on to the one line in the speech, while ignoring 99.5% of everything else. But, you're right, maybe the guy who told McCarthy about the rampaging crowd that "I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are" when he was asked to tell them to stand down just wanted them to sing songs and stuff.

Trump informed their anger for months on lies over the election, organized the event which was advertised as a "wild" time, knew who was coming, told them where to go, what would happen if they didn't stop what was happening at that moment, just for starters. Someone has to really be in the bag for Trump or a [uck fay]ing idiot to not find him culpable for inciting the crowd.

 

Bernie never told people to go to the baseball game and stop those politicians from stealing the country from them. That's a really ridiculous analogy.

 

I think it’s pretty easy to say “yeah he probably had something to do with it” but what is the standard of proof?

 

What exactly would you need, outside of what he did, him having a notarized statement of a written plan to invade the capitol? He set up an event, weeks in the making, where he riled up a crowd before, during and after a speech, sending them specifically to a place to specifically stop what was happening inside, telling them to "fight" (20 times), they had to be strong, not weak, the people inside were trying to steal their country and they had stop them, then the people did exactly what he wanted in marching down there, culminating in them storming the building, waving his flags and chanting his words, while he continued to harangue Pence and others while refusing to do anything as they continued.

If he were Jason Smith, not the president and just some political party leader, he would've been in jail that evening. It's the most obvious case of incitement I've ever seen. I don't know where people get the mental gymnastics trying to find some absolution for him in this.

 

I don’t “need” anything. I just wonder what the standard is. It’s pretty easy to make a circumstantial case at least.

 

OK, fair enough. I'm not sure circumstantial is the best descriptor, nor am I a legal expert, but I do think a reasonable standard doesn't necessarily include a person having to specifically say the violent action which occurred. He didn't need to say, word for word "Invade the capitol and physically stop the vote". If one sets off a rampaging mob as their leader and instigator with the directive to do something (to speak generally), you own the consequences.

 

Bernie told people that the government and the economy was rigged against them and demonized the "1%" and the people across the aisle who work to keep them in their positions of power.

The guy shot up a Republican baseball game, specifically, for a reason, dude. And he was an avid Bernie support and even volunteered for his campaign.

There is no question, whatsoever, what motivated/pushed that dude to shoot up that baseball game. Bernie's words "incited" him. But I don't think that means we should hold Bernie responsible for that guy's actions because Bernie didn't tell him to shoot anybody. Similarly, Trump never told anyone to raid the Capitol or do violence against anyone in it.

That you can't (won't) see the similarities isn't surprising.

 

I don't care how many times the guy used the word "fight," and you shouldn't either. Politicians and activists use that word all. the. time.

IIRC, Float told me it was the fact that he was the president that made this, and his language, specifically, a big deal in the first place. I believe he said so in response to my reference to other politicians using similar language. Your Jason Smith comment flies in the face of that.

 

That you make such a logical leap to find a whataboutism to clear your boy isn't surprising, as well. Did Bernie advocate anything other than voting to remedy the situation? Tell his followers to go specifically to the baseball field to stop a constitutional or lawful process or anything of the sort? Tell his followers to go to a specific place, be strong, not weak, and do something or they won't have a country anymore? No, because it wasn't anything like what Trump did, just like there's a difference between what that one whacko Trump supporter did in Texas a couple of years ago and a large mob set off directly to a place from a Trump speech, doing what he told them to do. It really couldn't be more obvious and the fact you are trying to find some strained similarities in order to exonerate Trump is about as unsurprising as any response.

 

Evidently, you are a "[uck fay]ing idiot" if you don't agree with the guy who admitted to voting Democrat for 2+ decades no matter who the candidate was