Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[TheDemonLord]

I have replied to you post. The context was clear.

Your point in the original post I quoted is still unclear. All you said about it was "It's not what you meant" .. What DID you mean by that post .. ??

Clearly you fucked up.

You sought clarification, I provided it.

No one else (either through apathy or comprehension) raised this, so....

[sugilite:Me]

It's the line where he directs the crowd to do something - it's the actually incitement to an action 'Go and protest this building', and in the call to action it is explicitly clear 'Peacefully and make your voices heard'.

Everything else is just a post-hoc justification or attempts and linguistic Gymnastics - there is zero ambiguity in that statement as to what the intent was.

The whataboutism is entirely relevant to my point of being different standards of behavior.

It's one rule if you taking part in an 'approved' Left Wing protest (Ignore lockdowns, secede from the US, Burn down buildings, assassinate people, etc.)
And another rule if you taking part in a 'Verboten' Right Wing Protest.

And hey - I'll settle for one standard - let both sides be judged by the same rules.

You seriously think the duck dynasty gang put as much effort into analyzing the presidents words as you do, or just hear it as he says it - deliberately knowing how his supporters will interpret what he has just told them to do?
So you think that attacking the halls of government while all the pollies are inside doing their thing is directly comparable to a BLM protest in Portsmouth?
Check out the video below of one of trumps most devout enablers and followers Nick Malvenay describe why this scenario was a bridge to far. He certainly knows Trump better than you ever will. Interesting that one of Trumps biggest butt kissers has a higher sense of decency than you. Your defend your own position at all costs stance is making you a fool good sir.

[TheDemonLord]

You seriously think the duck dynasty gang put as much effort into analyzing the presidents words as you do, or just hear it as he says it - deliberately knowing how his supporters will interpret what he has just told them to do?

What is there to analyze?

Even the 'Duck Dynasty gang' understands 'Peacefully'.

I've heard the speech, it's clear and unequivocal.

Unless there's something equally concrete that you can provide (and we both know that were such a statement in existence, it would be played on loop 24/7 on all the lefty news channels), then you have nothing.

So you think that attacking the halls of government while all the pollies are inside doing their thing is directly comparable to a BLM protest in Portsmouth?

No, I think the BLM protests were far worse because they were allowed to continue for multiple days/weeks, resulted in far more Damage in terms of a $ amount and a greater loss of life.

Plus I've read about the end-result of every Communist revolution.

And I again point to the fact that given the inferred level of firepower available to the 'Duck Dynasty Gang' (and as an example - I refer you to the Michigan 2A Rally) - this cannot be in any seriousness called an insurrection attempt.

Check out the video below of one of trumps most devout enablers and followers Nick Malvenay describe why this scenario was a bridge to far. He certainly knows Trump better than you ever will. Interesting that one of Trumps biggest butt kissers has a higher sense of decency than you. Your defend your own position at all costs stance is making you a fool good sir.

What is there to defend at all costs? This is 1984-esque double-speak, that when someone says peacefully, there's an assertion that the crowd understood it to mean violently.

As for the likes of the Republicans turning on Trump - You see someone decent who is following their principles. I see someone who is hoping that the Crocodile will eat them last.

[sugilite:Me]

What is there to analyze?

Even the 'Duck Dynasty gang' understands 'Peacefully'.

They demonstratively did not!

No, I think the BLM protests were far worse because they were allowed to continue for multiple days/weeks, resulted in far more Damage in terms of a $ amount and a greater loss of life.
And I again point to the fact that given the inferred level of firepower available to the 'Duck Dynasty Gang' (and as an example - I refer you to the Michigan 2A Rally) - this cannot be in any seriousness called an insurrection attempt.

You are clearly not factoring in how the pollies like to protect their own skin!
Both the dems and repubs used the BLM riots for their own political means. They take a different view when they are the ones directly effected. You can spout all your other stuff as much as you like - meanwhile in the real World.....

What is there to defend at all costs? This is 1984-esque double-speak, that when someone says peacefully, there's an assertion that the crowd understood it to mean violently.

As for the likes of the Republicans turning on Trump - You see someone decent who is following their principles. I see someone who is hoping that the Crocodile will eat them last.

Well, you summed it up better than I ever could in your reply! You see one instance of the word "peacefully" then cling onto it like it is the last life ring from the titanic, conveniently ignoring the tsunami of inflammatory speech framed all around it. And I NEVER attributed as being anyone decent. They know when their leader has gone to far, you just use it as a way to carry on your favorite pastime - arguing your own position.

Thank goodness Trump bought all those troops from overseas to protect the Capitol during Bidens inorgaration(sp). Trumps inorgiration(sp) didn't need that for some reason.

Despite the crying opposition bitches tuirning up en mass.


Just saying....

Because the losing dems know how to behave and accept loss - so no need for anti riot police. Your statement says more about the crazy duck dynasty right wing loonies than anything else.

It's the most relevant line, since it's the one that has a direct call to go do the specific action.

However - the usage of the word 'Fight' in American Political vernacular isn't anything new or anything that is unique to Trump. The left have been banging on about Fighting for their right to be heard, fighting for this country against trump, Fighting for their right to Paaaaaaaarty etc.

So as above to Nerrrd - Let them set the standards by which they want to judge Trump, but they had best be ready to judge themselves by the same rules, otherwise they might find that the populace does that for them....

Yet, many, many of Trumps closest allies have resigned their positions because Trump crossed a very, very serious line - but then they don't have your "defend your position at all costs" affliction I guess, well they likely do, just not as bad as yours!

[pritch]

Fiona Hill is a specialist in this field, she knows her onions. It's a long read but very good. Well worth the time.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...na-hill-457549

[Bonez]

Fiona Hill is a specialist in this field, she knows her onions. It's a long read but very good. Well worth the time.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...na-hill-457549

Corn field?

Fix your ignore function pritch.

Just saying...

[pritch]

Well, you summed it up better than I ever could in your reply! You see one instance of the word "peacefully" then cling onto it like it is the last life ring from the titanic,

Trump reportedly referred to fight or fighting over twenty times in his speech. Then there were the exhortations to be strong etc. His warm up acts including Jr and Rudy similarly used inflammatory language. "Trial by combat?" I'd be interested to hear the peaceful connotation of that. (Not really.)

In the catered marquee where Trump's hangers-on gathered to watch proceedings, Jr referred repeatedly to fight or fighting. Even Kimberly Guilfoyle chimed in urging fight.

Then there's the rather startling news that a number of the Trump supporting Republican politicians took groups of extremists on conducted tours of the Capitol building the day before the coup attempt. One is even accused of sending messages indicating the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi during the 'storming' of the Capitol.

Oh, and on social media the event was known as "the storm". Definitely peaceful.

[TheDemonLord]

They demonstratively did not!

Okay...

Jump off a Bridge.

Have you jumped yet?

No? Then you are agreeing that someone can say something, have a very clear and specific meaning and people do the very opposite of what was told to them.

Glad we cleared that up. Incidentally, that's kinda the point of Incitement - when someone tells a group to go do something, and they do that thing.

Not when they tell them to do one thing and they do the opposite.

You are clearly not factoring in how the pollies like to protect their own skin!
Both the dems and repubs used the BLM riots for their own political means. They take a different view when they are the ones directly effected. You can spout all your other stuff as much as you like - meanwhile in the real World.....

I agree about being used as useful idiots, but that doesn't negate the fact that these riots happened in Democrat controlled areas and resulted in a greater loss of life an destruction of Property. I hold that to be worse.

Especially when we compare what a serious insurrection could have looked like (Michigan 2A protest) - that being 10,000 heavily armed citizens making an implicit threat of violence towards the Government.

Even funnier - if you listen to some of the people who were involved in the riot - the Florida Man who stole the Lecturn? Hasn't voted since 2006 and has also attended BLM protests. Another said he was in the Oregan room where a bunch of people were smoking Weed - they really sound like your typical Redneck republicans - who are well known for loving the Devil's Cabbage....

Well, you summed it up better than I ever could in your reply! You see one instance of the word "peacefully" then cling onto it like it is the last life ring from the titanic, conveniently ignoring the tsunami of inflammatory speech framed all around it.

Because it's the part where he tells the crowd to go and do something. It's literally the most important part of the speech for the accusation and the fact that in the literal same breath he says to do so peacefully.

It's not like he's all "Lets go to the Capitol" and then 5 minutes of additional talking and then tacks on an addendum at the end, muttering under his breath " oh and uh... Do it peacefully", it's in the very same sentence.

You say there is all this inflammatory speech - Show me a line that directly contradicts his peaceful statement and is outside of the usual bounds of rhetoric used in American Political discourse.

I simply fall back on - if such a statement existed, it would be played nonstop on every news channel.

Because the losing dems know how to behave and accept loss

Oh, Fuck right off.

They've been acting like petulant children since Saint Hillary was beaten. They did not and have not accepted the loss since 2016.

Yet, many, many of Trumps closest allies have resigned their positions because Trump crossed a very, very serious line - but then they don't have your "defend your position at all costs" affliction I guess, well they likely do, just not as bad as yours!

I see people who are trying to shift with a changing of the winds - but as I said, all they will achieve is being eaten last.

[TheDemonLord]

Trump reportedly referred to fight or fighting over twenty times in his speech. Then there were the exhortations to be strong etc. His warm up acts including Jr and Rudy similarly used inflammatory language. "Trial by combat?" I'd be interested to hear the peaceful connotation of that. (Not really.)

Nothing we haven't heard from Politicians on every side of the aisle.

Let's go with some of Joe's quotes:

I beat the hell out of everybody

I'm ready to fight

One reason you need old hands is the old hands know where the old bodies might be buried.

If we take the same interpretation that you need to have with Trump's speech and apply it to Joe - well that's admitting to Serial Killing and being an accessory after the fact.

Then there's the rather startling news that a number of the Trump supporting Republican politicians took groups of extremists on conducted tours of the Capitol building the day before the coup attempt. One is even accused of sending messages indicating the whereabouts of Nancy Pelosi during the 'storming' of the Capitol.

Oh, and on social media the event was known as "the storm". Definitely peaceful.

What Extremists?

I'll grant you the calling of them Extremists on account of their decision to riot, but we both know that isn't what you meant. So, what about their Political views or statements are Extremist.

Even the Q-Shaman (the Dude with the Tatts and the Bull horn hat thing) - whilst I think he's as loopy as a roller-coaster - Doesn't talk like a Hardline ideological extremist, more like someone who's dropped one or more tabs of acid and is enjoying 5 minutes of fame.

[nerrrd]

Well I've now tried to read the whole Rally speech, but must confess that I had to skim some parts, it's over 10,000 words.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to weigh the other 9,978 or so against the 22 that comprises the 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' bit.

Having said that, I couldn't see any explicit calls for violence. But while we're cherry-picking, there's a lot of this kind of thing:

Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about.

There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen.

We want to go back, and we want to get this right, because we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there, and our country will be destroyed. And we’re not going to stand for that.

Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.

You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen.

I would argue he's also 'calling for action' in each of these quotes. So again, I think there's a case to answer.

[sugilite:Me]

Okay...


Oh, Fuck right off.

They've been acting like petulant children since Saint Hillary was beaten. They did not and have not accepted the loss since 2016.

Holy shit man, you are so far gone you took the Bonez bait! Not even Bonez took the Bonez bait
Anyways, you really are too far gone on this latest Trumpsaster, it would be irresponsible of me to indulge your condition further.

[TheDemonLord]

Well I've now tried to read the whole Rally speech, but must confess that I had to skim some parts, it's over 10,000 words.

So I don't think it's unreasonable to weigh the other 9,978 or so against the 22 that comprises the 'peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard' bit.

Having said that, I couldn't see any explicit calls for violence. But while we're cherry-picking, there's a lot of this kind of thing:

You have an Explicit call for peaceful and (by your own admission) no explicit call for violence.

And you wonder why people like me might say that some of the fiery rhetoric is being uncharitably interpreted by people with a clear Axe to grind

I would argue he's also 'calling for action' in each of these quotes. So again, I think there's a case to answer.

Definitely - he's calling for Peaceful protest

[TheDemonLord]

Holy shit man, you are so far gone you took the Bonez bait! Not even Bonez took the Bonez bait
Anyways, you really are too far gone on this latest Trumpsaster, it would be irresponsible of me to indulge your condition further.

Double standards piss me off.

I see a very very very very clear one here.

And Statements like that are going to get a swift and blunt reaction. Perhaps if the Democracts had been lilly white for the last 4 years, Maybe they would have a leg to stand on.

[nerrrd]

You have an Explicit call for peaceful and (by your own admission) no explicit call for violence.

And you wonder why people like me might say that some of the fiery rhetoric is being uncharitably interpreted by people with a clear Axe to grind

I think it's how it was interpreted by the rioters which might be the crux of the matter.

Definitely - he's calling for Peaceful protest

He might have mentioned that more than once then.

[TheDemonLord]

I think it's how it was interpreted by the rioters which might be the crux of the matter.

And how does one determine that? By observing them rioting? If that's the standard of proof then anyone who ever says anything publicly and has one or more people do something illegal that can be linked to what they said is liable - not exactly an ideal situation, wouldn't you agree?

What's really interesting is when you read or listen to some of the interviews had with people who rioted - one repeated sentiment was (paraphrased) 'If they can do this in Portland, then why can't we do it here?'

To be clear, Rioting is bad, no one should riot - It seems clear though that it wasn't Trump's words that spurned them to riot, but the actions of Democrat state governors...

Should they be liable if their actions have a causal link to the decision to protest?

He might have mentioned that more than once then.

He mentioned it when it was relevant, at the point he invoked them to go somewhere and do something. In subsequent statements he's reiterated the peaceful part of it.