The process of incitement

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Did Cruz and Trump incite a riot? Rioters think so:

 

Trump:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/nyregion/protesters-blaming-trump-pardon.html?referringSource=articleShare

 

Ted Cruz:

 

[Grumps 3,704]

They should just have a poll and let the people decide whether Trump should be convicted. We don't need no stinkin' laws!

[TexasTiger 12,828]

35 minutes ago, Grumps said:

They should just have a poll and let the people decide whether Trump should be convicted. We don't need no stinkin' laws!

The point you fail to grasp is when folks say they are responding to encouragement to riot, that’s evidence the effort worked and was not mere rhetoric. 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

The point you fail to grasp is when folks say they are responding to encouragement to riot, that’s evidence the effort worked and was not mere rhetoric. 

The effort worked if it was in fact an effort by the POTUS. Why should I not think that it was a bunch of idiots who decided to do something stupid and illegal? In the video I posted there were dems saying that the protests should not stop when the protest were full of rioting and looting and destruction of property. How was this different from what Trump supposedly did? I realize you think I am just playing dumb, but I truly don't understand the difference.

[autigeremt 6,597]

If it takes this much to come up with it....then no. I listened to the speech just so I could give my own personal opinion and no I do not believe it was incitement. 

I've heard worse from those casting stones prior to rioting that led to burned out buildings, officers shot and killed and citizens losing their entire life's savings/work and I always fell back on the Freedom of Speech argument. 

It's almost like we can no longer accept peoples own decision making for face value. Sad. 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

16 minutes ago, Grumps said:

The effort worked if it was in fact an effort by the POTUS. Why should I not think that it was a bunch of idiots who decided to do something stupid and illegal? In the video I posted there were dems saying that the protests should not stop when the protest were full of rioting and looting and destruction of property. How was this different from what Trump supposedly did? I realize you think I am just playing dumb, but I truly don't understand the difference.

First, show me an elected Dem leader saying looting, violence or otherwise illegal protests should not stop. I didn’t see that in your clip— who? When?

If such exists, did they summon folks there to protest or riot and did significant numbers (or any) say they were responding to that call?

There’s ample evidence of Trump summoning this crowd to DC. Republicans funded it, including buses. Trump had Mo Brooks tell the crowd it was time to take names and kick ass. Rudy said it was time for “trial by combat.” Trump said Pence let them down and they needed to all march to the Capitol and he was right there with them. This is a highly abbreviated version. Several rioters have explicitly said they were there at the President’s direction— watch for that defense at trial. One reason they are shocked to be facing accountability is they thought they were only doing what the President asked. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

Well if we would only listen to the DNC we would magically be blessed with the ability to read minds. 

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

13 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

First, show me an elected Dem leader saying looting, violence or otherwise illegal protests should not stop.

Does the VP elect collecting money to pay the bail of looters and violence of the perps count?  I mean it’s not verbal, but it says volumes.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Does the VP elect collecting money to pay the bail of looters and violence of the perps count?  I mean it’s not verbal, but it says volumes.

Got a link?

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

14 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Got a link?

And nobody was arrested for protesting, only looting and rioting.

 

[TexasTiger 12,828]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And nobody was arrested for protesting, only looting and rioting.

 

Thanks. There’s a broad concern over cash bail for many arrests which this group addresses. Turns out, the group got a windfall. And while some protesters were arrested, your claim that this is evidence of her encouraging folks to continue violence is unfair. Cash bail keeps poor people in jail — many of the anarchist types engaged in some of the worst behavior have money to post bail. This fact check seems pretty balanced to me:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/%3foutputType=amp

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

28 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Thanks. There’s a broad concern over cash bail for many arrests which this group addresses. Turns out, the group got a windfall. And while some protesters were arrested, your claim that this is evidence of her encouraging folks to continue violence is unfair. Cash bail keeps poor people in jail — many of the anarchist types engaged in some of the worst behavior have money to post bail. This fact check seems pretty balanced to me:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/03/kamala-harris-tweeted-support-bail-fund-money-didnt-just-assist-protestors/%3foutputType=amp

The WaPo article did bring out something that I didn’t realize.  The donations for the bail for the protesters were really not needed, but the MFF was able to release violent criminals on bail for other than the protests.  At least two committed other crimes.  Raising money off of these type of emotional incidences seems shady to me.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The WaPo article did bring out something that I didn’t realize.  The donations for the bail for the protesters were really not needed, but the MFF was able to release violent criminals on bail for other than the protests.  At least two committed other crimes.  Raising money off of these type of emotional incidences seems shady to me.

It’s a bit easy to support causes with social media without doing much homework. That said, if we believe in innocent until proven guilty there’s a constitutional right to bails that aren’t excessive. Folks will be bailing out the violent rioters in DC who aren’t deemed flight risks. Folks committed to political violence are terrorists by definition and more likely to repeat— are you opposed to them getting bail?

[I_M4_AU 7,789]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

are you opposed to them getting bail?

Getting bail is fine, allowing bail for violent crimes is up to the judge. Allowing the DC rioters or BLM rioters bail (emotional type of crimes) should have a cooling off period, but it’s ultimately up to the judge.

[Grumps 3,704]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

First, show me an elected Dem leader saying looting, violence or otherwise illegal protests should not stop. I didn’t see that in your clip— who? When?

If such exists, did they summon folks there to protest or riot and did significant numbers (or any) say they were responding to that call?

There’s ample evidence of Trump summoning this crowd to DC. Republicans funded it, including buses. Trump had Mo Brooks tell the crowd it was time to take names and kick ass. Rudy said it was time for “trial by combat.” Trump said Pence let them down and they needed to all march to the Capitol and he was right there with them. This is a highly abbreviated version. Several rioters have explicitly said they were there at the President’s direction— watch for that defense at trial. One reason they are shocked to be facing accountability is they thought they were only doing what the President asked. 

The video shows dem leaders saying that the protests should not stop. What does that mean? Answer, it depends on whether you are a dem or a repub. In the protest over the summer there was a clear distinction made between the people who were protesting/rallying and the people who were rioting and looting. Is that correct? Are you saying that asking people to continue to protest is ok in that case because they were not asked to riot?

Absolutely Trump wanted people to come to support him at the rally, just like the dems wanted people to protest. For some reason, there is not allowed to be a distinction between the people who were there to support Trump and the people who broke into the Capitol building. I don't see how the same distinction does not apply as it did for the dems.

I will be interested to see if they go that route at the trial (of a private citizen). It is a very slippery slope to convict someone based on what somebody else thought they meant, which is different from what they actually said.

Either way, I am glad that Trump is gone. It should be obvious to you by now that I take things literally. You may be right about what Trump meant, but I don't know how to see it except by looking at what he said and did.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

13 hours ago, Grumps said:

The video shows dem leaders saying that the protests should not stop. What does that mean? Answer, it depends on whether you are a dem or a repub. In the protest over the summer there was a clear distinction made between the people who were protesting/rallying and the people who were rioting and looting. Is that correct? Are you saying that asking people to continue to protest is ok in that case because they were not asked to riot?

Absolutely Trump wanted people to come to support him at the rally, just like the dems wanted people to protest. For some reason, there is not allowed to be a distinction between the people who were there to support Trump and the people who broke into the Capitol building. I don't see how the same distinction does not apply as it did for the dems.

I will be interested to see if they go that route at the trial (of a private citizen). It is a very slippery slope to convict someone based on what somebody else thought they meant, which is different from what they actually said.

Either way, I am glad that Trump is gone. It should be obvious to you by now that I take things literally. You may be right about what Trump meant, but I don't know how to see it except by looking at what he said and did.

Frankly, if you still see no distinction, I can’t help you. Any logic, reason or facts offered by me won’t do it. In my experience you always end up where you start, which I have to conclude is where you’re content to be. I’ll just leave this tweet from one of my favorite Republican Congressmen.

[Grumps 3,704]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Frankly, if you still see no distinction, I can’t help you. Any logic, reason or facts offered by me won’t do it. In my experience you always end up where you start, which I have to include is where you’re content to be. I’ll just leave this tweet from one of my favorite Republican Congressmen.

You may be right about me. I personally don't think that I post nearly the same way as I used to, but you can see my posts in a much different way from how I can. And I can assure you, if I was content to be where I am then I would not be viewing this forum.

And I will add one other thing, and you can absolutely flame me for this one: I don't think that the Capitol building is the very foundation of our freedom and democracy.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

1 minute ago, Grumps said:

You may be right about me. I personally don't think that I post nearly the same way as I used to, but you can see my posts in a much different way from how I can. And I can assure you, if I was content to be where I am then I would not be viewing this forum.

Just curious— what change do you see?

[Grumps 3,704]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

Just curious— what change do you see?

I don't feel like I am hardly ever nasty anymore. I don't usually take things personally even if they are meant personally. I think this helps me to focus on what others are saying better than I used to because my feelings don't get in my way as much. But it may all be in my head.

I really do respect what you say when it seems like you are trying to be substantive. Much of our disagreement is based on my being much more literal that almost anyone on this board. I am trying to be better. Maybe I will succeed and maybe I won't.

[homersapien 11,361]

On 1/17/2021 at 10:52 PM, Grumps said:

The effort worked if it was in fact an effort by the POTUS. Why should I not think that it was a bunch of idiots who decided to do something stupid and illegal? In the video I posted there were dems saying that the protests should not stop when the protest were full of rioting and looting and destruction of property. How was this different from what Trump supposedly did? I realize you think I am just playing dumb, but I truly don't understand the difference.

You are conflating protest with rioting.  That's a propaganda sleight of hand.  Democrats supported the protests, not the rioting.  That may seem like a subtle difference to those who are inclined to conflate the legitimate protest with rioting that occurred in context with a small percentage of the protests, but it is a very important distinction.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has consistently promoted the lie that the election was stolen from him.  He even said before hand that the only way he could possible lose is that it would be stolen.  He still insists it was stolen.  Hell, a majority of Republicans still think it was stolen.

This "big lie" of a stolen election is exactly why we are where we are.  Trump could disarm this conflict by simply coming out and admitting that the election was legitimate and he lost fair and square.  Obviously he won't (can't) do that, because he only cares about himself, certainly not the country.

If you really don't understand that you are just "playing" dumb.

[autigeremt 6,597]

12 hours ago, Grumps said:

You may be right about me. I personally don't think that I post nearly the same way as I used to, but you can see my posts in a much different way from how I can. And I can assure you, if I was content to be where I am then I would not be viewing this forum.

And I will add one other thing, and you can absolutely flame me for this one: I don't think that the Capitol building is the very foundation of our freedom and democracy.

The institution is the foundation of our REPUBLIC but I contend that while I DO NOT SUPPORT the protest turned riot that happened at the Capitol I do think we are seeing the PTB take advantage of the incident 10 fold. 

Kash Kelley, the founder of the Streetlight Peace Movement, was at the earlier rally and went to the capitol trying to stop people from entering the building. He has since been arrested for inciting a riot and is in jail as we speak in Indianapolis. His crime? He's not a fan of the Democrat party or their leadership. 

[AUDub 11,147]

Welp, try again EMT. 

Kash Kelly is a MAGA. 

"His crime?" LOL EMT do some research. 

[autigeremt 6,597]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are conflating protest with rioting.  That's a propaganda sleight of hand.  Democrats supported the protests, not the rioting.  That may seem like a subtle difference to those who are inclined to conflate the legitimate protest with rioting that occurred in context with a small percentage of the protests, but it is a very important distinction.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has consistently promoted the lie that the election was stolen from him.  He even said before hand that the only way he could possible lose is that it would be stolen.  He still insists it was stolen.  Hell, a majority of Republicans still think it was stolen.

This "big lie" of a stolen election is exactly why we are where we are.  Trump could disarm this conflict by simply coming out and admitting that the election was legitimate and he lost fair and square.  Obviously he won't (can't) do that, because he only cares about himself, certainly not the country.

If you really don't understand that you are just "playing" dumb.

I can understand why many people see this election as "rigged". but explaining it makes no sense because you're not going to truly listen. Over 74 million people voted for orange (a record for a sitting president). Somehow 81 plus million (a record by far) came out to vote for a candidate who was basically walking dead with a running mate who dropped out early in the race for the same seat because she couldn't garner support from the very people who now see her as a goddess. Irregularities were dismissed left and right for what many see as "preservation" of the nation over law. 100 plus people signed sworn affidavits noting election fraud yet their accounts were washed away like sand on a seashore. 

Nothing dumb about that. 

[autigeremt 6,597]

Just now, AUDub said:

Welp, try again EMT. 

Kash Kelly is a MAGA. 

"His crime?" LOL EMT do some research. 

I have. I have gotten to know him and as I said he was no friend of the left. He did nothing wrong at the capitol. He doesn't deserve the treatment he is getting. 

[homersapien 11,361]

16 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You are conflating protest with rioting.  That's a propaganda sleight of hand.  Democrats supported the protests, not the rioting.  That may seem like a subtle difference to those who are inclined to conflate the legitimate protest with rioting that occurred in context with a small percentage of the protests, but it is a very important distinction.

On the other hand, Donald Trump has consistently promoted the lie that the election was stolen from him.  He even said before hand that the only way he could possible lose is that it would be stolen.  He still insists it was stolen.  Hell, a majority of Republicans still think it was stolen.

This "big lie" of a stolen election is exactly why we are where we are.  Trump could disarm this conflict by simply coming out and admitting that the election was legitimate and he lost fair and square.  Obviously he won't (can't) do that, because he only cares about himself, certainly not the country.

If you really don't understand that, you simply don't want to.