>the president asked his supporters to bring violence against his political opponents
This did not happen. Trump asked his supporters to march on the capitol, and then when shit got out of hand, he asked them to go home. Anything else regarding his words is a "reading between the lines" that's going to involve a lot of loaded, partisan-biased, and worst of all unfalsifiable claims.
Every single incident on that page involves a series of "protestors" who were forcibly ejected from a series of 2016 rallies after attempting to disrupt them, and in one case, involves a "protestor" getting removed by the secret service after trying to rush the stage.
Snopes is here holding up the president saying he'd punch someone who rushed onto the stage as "encouraging violence at his rallies", which is such a willfully disingenuous attempt at poisoning the well it calls the entire article into question.
That is not the same thing, not what we're talking about here, and it is not honest to equate them. People who disrupt rallies absolutely deserve to be removed from those rallies with appropriate force.
So what you're saying is: he called for violence against someone that disagrees with him politically. And the problem is, you apparently fall into the very category of: seeking truth isn't important, believing what you want is. Because you literally just fabricated a story to support Trump that's easily disproven by the very link you're commenting about.
Had you actually watched the videos: no, every single one of those people did not attempt to rush the stage, that happened exactly once. And in that occurrence he didn't even call for violence until the NEXT DAY, when a normal Presidential candidate would've had time to gather themselves and act like an adult... No, every single one was not arrested by secret service.
He spent MONTHS telling his supporters that the election was "stolen from them" and that they need to "fight like real patriots", but again, because you support him that's not a call for violence. Nevermind the end result: the violence he called for - you just don't agree that's what he wanted. Which of course is why he refused to condemn it while it was happening, and took a full day to say anything meaningful after every one of his political allies condemned him.
>So what you're saying is: he called for violence against someone that disagrees with him politically.
This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified.
Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here.
>Which of course is why he refused to condemn it while it was happening,
He literally told the people assembled there to go home.
>This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified.
You keep moving the goal posts to try to justify abhorrent behavior. First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting?
I'll be honest: it's pretty sad the lengths you're going to in order to justify actions that wouldn't be tolerated in a kindergarten classroom.
>Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here.
No, you really couldn't without the same mental gymnastics you've been going through to ignore reality. The Capitol "protestors" physically assaulted badged police officers while breaking into a federal building. The protestors at Trump's rally paid for a ticket to enter a place they were lawfully allowed to be - peacefully spoke out in protest, and then left when they were told to. In the process they were assaulted.
The fact you'd try to equate the too shows a complete lack of honesty and integrity on your part.
>He literally told the people assembled there to go home.
Hours and HOURS after the damage had been done, and the police had the situation back under control, he issued a taped message telling the rioters that he loved them but they needed to go home.
At some point it's obvious you condone physical violence against people that have different political views than you do, and you should just own it. But you also should take a long, hard look at history. The founding fathers didn't agree with your point of view. The constitution doesn't agree with your point of view. The majority of Americans don't agree with your point of view. Our Democracy is founded on a peaceful transition of power, and intelligent thoughtful discourse on policy. Your violence has no place in America.
>First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting?
You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were *IN ONE CASE* regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see.
The fact that you have to lie to make your point means that this conversation is over. I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home. Trump DID NOT tell any of those assembled to storm the capitol, violently or otherwise, and to insist that he did is a further lie.
>You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were IN ONE CASE regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see.
You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat.
It is literally never justified for a politician to ask his supporters to physically assault a peaceful protestor. Full stop. You can squirm, gyrate, and try to justify it, but it's not OK.
> I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home.
You can stand by whatever you want. Trump released a pre-recorded video that "we love you, but go home" - 6 HOURS after the Capitol was stormed. HOURS. At that point it didn't matter, reinforcements had arrived and the building was already cleared. Furthermore, telling violent insurrectionists you "love them"??? Really?
>You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat.
Again you lie, because HN won't let you edit a post more than 2 hours old. Those words were there when the post you reply to was originally made. Stop lying.
> That is not the same thing, not what we're talking about here, and it is not honest to equate them. People who disrupt rallies absolutely deserve to be removed from those rallies with appropriate force.
But saying that punching a peaceful rally attendee is "very, very appropriate" and the kind of action "we need a little bit more of" is not.
And asking police to be more violent when handling suspects is encouraging violence ("when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice.")
On Greg Gianforte, the Montana Governer who assaulted a reporter ("Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.")
Then he joked about shooting immigrants:
> In his remarks, he asked, “How do you stop these people?” A woman at the rally reportedly yelled “shoot them” in response. Trump then joked, “That’s only in the Panhandle, you can get away with that statement.”
Then there's the pattern of statements by trump that predict violence against the groups the attacks are aimed at:
- Trump calls Covid the "Chinese virus" and plays up its origin to stoke anti-Chinese sentiment. A random Asian family is attacked in a Texas Walmart because they're "infecting people with the coronavirus".
- Trump attacks "the Squad" (congresswomen AOC and co), they see an uptick in racist attacks and threats
- Trump says "Liberate Michigan" and criticizes the governor for her coronavirus lockdown. Months later, a group of militia members is uncovered with a conspiracy to kidnap and kill her.
- "You also had some very fine people on both sides."
- "Stand back and stand by"
etc.
He has a pattern of tacitly encouraging violence and then making halfhearted condemnations when the violence actually happens. It's why when so many people commit violence, they think Trump is asking them to.
