Critics excoriate Lori Lightfoot for 'call to arms' over Roe v. Wade: 'Incitement to insurrection'

Well said.

 

I’m not sure how you think she’s not calling for violence. You’re right however that she did not commit a crime. But to say she’s not calling for violence is false

 

Generally, calling for violence is a crime. Granted its usually presumed in the context of calling for offensive violence, which I assume is what people are trying to equate with what she said. But even if she had said 'arm yourself and take to the streets to fight for abortion', that would still not be a call to offensive violence. 'Fighting' can mean politically and it can be done peacefully, even with 'arms.'

'Go and assault the justices' would be an example of a call to violence and a crime. What she said to do can be and is commonly done peacefully and lawfully.

 

You’re clearly misquoting her. She literally said

"To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community – the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms, We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!"

it’s a “call to arms” and referenced fighting. Calling for arms during a fight is not speech, that is a call for violence

 

Congressman Steve scalise ring a bell?

A deranged left-wing nut bag opened fire on all the congressman on a ball field. You probably don't remember that though do you?

 

I wasn't quoting. Thats why I used ' ' instead of " ".

A call to arms is not a call to violence. Neither is a call to fight, and neither is a call to arm and fight. 'Armed' people 'fight' for their rights peacefully and lawfully all the time. Have you never seen a 2A march?

 

Logical Fallacy: Quoting out of context - when deliberately removing the second part, one could call it contextomy/quote mining.

Please, AJ - gimme a challenge here. You make it so easy to deconstruct your posts.

 

Is she being arrested and impeached yet?

 

No need to read further................

 

I see. So you haven't noticed that, lately, Fox News is all about stirring up emotions with click-bait articles and the video equivalent to that? And, they have to stretch the truth to get their viewerships' hearts pounding?

 

It may have escaped your notice but in Trump's case there was this little kerfuffle on and around the 6th of January that followed on from certain statements made by then President Trump. These statements in turn encouraged people to take a fairly specific course of action designed to a achieve a equally specific outcome. Leaving aside the question of whether Trump can or even should be held accountable his comments at that time.

In what parallel universe does this statement: "To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community – the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms," "We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!" constitute a call to take any specific illegal or unconstitutional action? What crime are her supporters being asked to commit. What act of violence against what target at what time?

You really need to chillax.

 

When are you two going to learn that shooting the messenger does not debunk the message?

LINK---> (1) Lori Lightfoot on Twitter: "To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms." / Twitter

 

Let's see here...she says that it is SCOTUS that's coming after them. Then she makes a "call to arms" (which has a very specific meaning). And then she says that they will fight to victory.

Any plain reading of what she said would view that as a threat of arms aimed towards SCOTUS Justices.

As for Trump, He called on people to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard. I see none of that in Lightfoots tweet.

 

If said separately I might agree with you. But they were said together.

 

She should be. But we all know that "there are rules for thee, but not for me" in effect.

 

Why don't you tell us what Trump said that was so much worse?

So your argument, it's not what you say but what happens after you say what you said that makes it whatever It is?

Don't forget to tell us what Trump said that's worse

 

Yeah?
THIS Thread is About Lightfoot...
Still haven't figured out how to move past "Whataboutism"?
In any event:
IF the people of Chicago don't like it, they are free to vote her out...
Besides, Lightfoot is probably one of those people who says stupid things like men have no say and abortion but then they turn around and say men can get pregnant

 

I'm tickled pink to see that you evidently remember every single one of my post.

So you are not up to the challenge of telling us what Trump said that was any worse than this are you?

Of course not because it would expose your double standards.

Glad to see we agree....

 

In common usage (at it has has been and is used quite widely in various speeches and presentations) the phase means to become involved and take action not physically attack someone or something. The context in whihc the phrase is used important. You are arbitrarily choosing to imply or impose a context that may not exist and is not supported by any overt actions. At least certainly not yet.

Where does she specifically refer to the Supreme Court Justices either singularly or collectively.

Trump called for lots of things in lots of tweets, interviews and press statements etc. Your basing your entire thesis on one, lone singular 'tweet'. Lets be clear every frustrated parent who has ever said 'sometimes I could strangle that kid' is NOT going to follow through with the claim! Nor is it grounds to charge them with a crime. If it was most of the country would be in jail. Your allegation lacks both justification and evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

Firstly I specifically noted I wasn't addressing charges against Trump but since you asked.....

Well, how often you say something in any given period of time, how many different ways you say it and in how many different situations can certainly be relevant but disregarding that point the CONTEXT around what someone says is what matters.

That's the job of the various ongoing inquiries & grand juries into Trump and the events of 6 January etc not me. I'll simply abide by whatever outcome (if any) ever makes it through the court system.

But regardless of that fact I'm not going to wade through every public statement he's ever made to try and justify why his conduct is so much 'worse'. I don't have to. That's because this thread is all about one specific tweet. I don't need to justify why anyone (including Trump) is somehow guilty of a crime because the tweet in question is so open to interpretation no-one could be convicted of a crime on the basis of its content. Not Trump, not Lightfoot, not anyone.

 

A call to arms by the gay community means holding up signs.
A call to arms by the T**** community means holding up semi-automatic rifles.
Do try to catch the nuances.

 

Lmao… you think a call to arms translates as more rainbow flags? That’s funny

 

I know, I know the right has a problem with semantics. It's OK, I understand.

 

Obviously the left has a problem with English. Apparently arms is a synonym for signs, and flags

 

That's a lot of words to tap dance around your double standards.

Anyone that can't find it out some condemnation for what she said is full of crap if they argue that Trump was inciting violence.