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

I did no such thing. I said a President's words hold great import.

I also said these people stated they were doing this action for Trump, which means they were following what Trump said, which meant Trump was leading them. And as the leader, it falls on him.

The baseball game shooter never named Bernie, and had been a life long Democrat. He might have been radicalized by left ideology, but he had no leader.

 

It was the totality of the speech, situation, rhetoric, build up for weeks, everything. It was the climax of months of grooming of the situation for this last ditch effort to change the outcome of the election by any means necessary, an avalanche of items so great even multiple Republicans were on board with the responsibility laid at Trump's feet. More, even, if they weren't afraid of political consequences.

The Jason Smith thing was a reference to someone being a leader of a group and being responsible for the direct consequences. Trump being president protected him from immediate criminal liability, but this could easily change now, as a private citizen, and as McConnell all but spelled out yesterday.

 

Seems like a pretty easy standard.

If you're the President of the United States, and a mass of your followers storm the Capital during a session confirming your loss, because you say you won, and your victory was stolen... then you're responsible for their actions.

That's the standard.

 

Other than this being completely irrelevant to the point made, it's good to get you on record as saying if a person votes Democrat, then you don't respect their opinion. You know, the whole blue/red "teams" bullshit argument-avoiding statement you always pull.

Of course, in this instance, there are numerous Republicans who are in agreement with this very, very obvious position and so it's crossed political boundaries, which probably confuses you since you can't pull out the simplistic critique you always fall back upon instead of actually addressing the point.

 

I don't care enough to go back and look it up.

Bernie was absolutely the baseball game shooter's leader. There were a number of quotes and posts out there making it clear. If I remember correctly, he at one point said that Hillary was basically a republican and should concede the nomination to Bernie. He volunteered for Bernie's campaign. Bernie was absolutely his leader.

 

No I just tire of your insults and calling people [uck fay]ing idiots if they don't agree with you. Seems more likely someone is a [uck fay]ing idiot to me if they vote down party line for 3 decades regardless of who the candidate is. Rep or dem.

 

He didn't say if a person votes democrat, he doesn't respect their opinion. You're making that up. He was pointing to you voting down the ticket for a party for 2 decades. That you voted down those tickets democrat, specifically, has nothing to do with it.

 

Except I said I voted a mixture of Dem candidates and 3rd party candidates. There's absolutely not reason to vote a mixture if the party and candidates don't align with one's views. The Republicans put forth candidates in elections who advocate issues I like more than the Democratic candidate, then I'll consider them. As far as the insults, that's how this board has been since day one, calling things, or people, idiotic if they are idiotic.

 

There is nothing to look up, a President's words are exceedingly important, to the point of uniqueness. That doesn't discount another person's words, but it does create a unique situation. You have to look at the office, not the person. The President of the United States is the leader of the free world, and the commander in chief of millions. Millions in structured leadership who hold the concept of leadership as an identity, not a philosophy. The President of the United States holds the power of life and death both in this country and abroad. The actions and words of the President can lead to war, on a scale that is untold. They can lead to escalation with foreign powers, or invasion of foreign countries.

This is not just some shmuck who thinks they are leader because get to pick the batting order on their church softball team.

They are held, and should be held, to an infinitely higher standard than anything most people can comprehend.

Bernie did not lead this person. I doubt Bernie was the only campaign this person volunteered for. He also acted alone, rather than with a group. Which means, if Bernie was the leader... he was kind of a piss poor one, given that nobody else was following the lead.

 

A point he mysteriously doesn't make towards in regards to Republicans. And, yes, it does matter to him. If you would stop pretending you are some kind of arbiter while you defend every conservative/Republican, you would see. Still, the greater point was the point's irrelevance.

 

Mysterious to [uck fay]ing idiots who don't read where I said "Rep or dem".

 

You calling Trump my boy is still funny to me. I'm arguing that no one should be held responsible for the actions of their followers unless they are specifically directing those actions. My stance doesn't defend Trump alone.

How many times do you think Bernie has used the word "fight" in his speeches? Tweets? Debates?

Telling someone to go somewhere doesn't equal violence. Did Trump specify how they were to stop that process (other than when he said "peacefully protest?"). Telling someone to be strong, not weak, doesn't equal violence. "Something" is incredibly vague. You think "something" meant attack the Capitol because you want to believe Trump incited a riot. I think "something" meant protest peacefully because, well, that's what Trump said they should do. That's the thing about vague language - it doesn't really mean anything because it's vague.

Bernie demonizes the right, Trump, and the 1% in a similar way to how Trump demonizes his opposition. When you convince people who are unstable, desperate, or not in the right state of mind that the other side is "evil" or the "enemy" they do crazy shit like shooting up a Congressional baseball game or storming the Capitol. I think the incidents are pretty similar, to be honest. But I don't hold either man responsible for the actions those other people took because neither man called for those actions, specifically.

Hell, there's even a case to be made about the similarities with Obama's rhetoric with police officers.

Sure thing, guy.

 

If you can't link to where unimane said that, you should admit you were mistaken to unimane and turn around and accuse smiff of making that up. Now, can you link where unimane said that?

 

Mysterious to [uck fay]ing idiots who don't say this to actual, specific Republican posters while pretending a generic "Rep or Dem" is the same thing.

But, again, the dividing line on this issue isn't your usual redundancy to "teams" since those lines have been crossed here.

 

It’s a political standard. And it was enough to get 7 members of his own party to vote to convict. Until the last impeachment when Mitt voted to convict, there had never been a member of the president’s party vote to convict.

It doesn’t help when the people there said both the day of and after the fact that they were there because the president said to do it.

 

He's your guy because you always, always defend him in light of criticism while pretending it isn't because you are an actual supporter, which is a completely obvious item. Because you come up with convoluted argumentative silliness, like the comparison here to Sanders, in order to defend him. I mean, is your argument there just happened to, coincidentally, be hundreds, thousands, of unstable, not in the right state of mind, people at the January 6th rally? Wow, what a terrible coincidence for totally innocent Trump. The Obama link attempt is just, well, even dumber, if possible.

What I have discovered in this event, and, indeed, in the Trump years, is the difficulty in explaining an obvious item to one who is unwilling to accept the obvious. The fact you are willing to not only give Trump a pass for the obviousness of his culpability, but also to come up with a completely strained equivalence with Sanders, makes this one of those situations.

The event at the capitol wasn't about random crazies. It was a mob, which is very different. It was a mob which had been fed the lies of Trump for months, who were told to organize for this day, to act, to go specifically after certain folks, especially his own VP, where to go to do this, the dangers of not taking action immediately and one which, after they started, Trump showed an absolute indifference to stopping. Absolutely none of this was done by Sanders, nor any other politician, on either side. It's not even in remotely the same ball park, which is why there aren't [uck fay]ing thousands of people ready to attack government buildings on the words of encouragement, or even a wink-wink, from Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, AOC, etc.

 

Again, I said dem or rep, so you lied or chose to ignore, now deflect. It's what you do. And don't ever talk about someone else being redundant, you [uck fay]ing idiot.

 

As I said, you never make this point towards an actual Rep/conservative, just a generic "Rep or Dem" to cover yourself, but try to "teams" Float, IP or myself all the time. Never, ever doing this to the conservatives on the board. To be clear, I don't want you to do this to Republicans/conservatives, I just want you to stop doing it at all and make relevant points to the conversation, rather than make the posts like the one above here. You know, where you accuse me of lying because you can't seem to [uck fay]ing understand the point I'm making.

Of course, half the problem is me where I follow you to these dumbass tangents, trying to impress upon the irrelevancy of your habitual [itch bay]ing on this narrative. I guess I'm hoping it will sink in your mindset, at some point, as to the foolishness of always reducing the argument to a "you only see this in red/blue teams", especially as an opening salvo, but those efforts don't seem to be bearing any fruit, yet.

Stop doing your redundancy to "teams" is great way to bottom line it. Yeah, I [uck fay]ing said it. Deal.

 

The conservatives on this board seem to be usually fair and the vast majority called out Trump for being an idiot and also seemed ready to move on. Some have also mentioned they voted across party lines in the past. And they aren't redundant [uck fay]ing idiots either, which is a bonus.

 

Uhh....

Unless you are talking about the voting straight down the ticket part, in which case:

Unless you're going to harp on the "third party on some occasions" part, which would be pretty weak. A democrat who doesn't remember voting for a republican fits pretty closely to what ssmiff was identifying.