Let's debunk the "Trump didn't tell his followers to riot" argument.

Feel free to provide links that prove your case. No vacuous claims, you'll need actual evidence.

 

So you are denying all the left wing violence and riots and occupations and attacks on government buildings these last two years? You are denying the attack on the White House?

 

I asked you to provide evidence of the following:

Dems and MSM have been aiding and abetting the anarchy and insurrection the leftwing has been putting us through for two years.

Now provide it.

 

Because he genuinely thought he could start a civil war and win. Such is his delusion and desperation combined.

 

I HAVE over and over and I gave no obligation to keep repeating myself. Then Dems even called it "The Summer of Love".

 

You are using weather underground , SDS, etc? Like I told you, they were not motivated by a president. They were REACTING to the war in viet nam.

A president motivating people to insurrection, that's the issue. There IS NO COMPARISON HISTORICALLY, IN THE MODERN ERA.

So, you are giving a false comparison, and besides, that was 55 years ago.

 

I realize it took you a long time to research that, but it is less common than you think. Responding to fires is a small percentage of their calls. Getting back to politicians telling their followers "We have to fight", is it still bad if they have a D by their name?

 

Do if they have a D by their name and say "We need to fight" it is not a call to violence?

 

Hahaha! Why does pretzel logic require a word salad explanation?

An OP like this requires bread crumbs to follow.

 

Let's debunk the "Trump didn't tell his followers to riot" argument.
This is a very long row to hoe for rational people.

 

Ah yes. When people won't entertain your arguments there is always insult to fall back on.

 

What nonsense! Did you not understand the point? Common or not, the fact is that Trump used it to incite insurrection. Are you not aware that the use and effect of words and expressions depends highly on the context?

Jeez!

Look... the use of strawman arguments like yours only happens in two scenarios. One is when one has been proven wrong but refuse to admit it. The other is when you know from the start you are wrong, but feel some.. urge... to defend some idolized figure. The latter is most common in religion, but lately has also been widely used by Trumpers.

Or both...

 

Well... I found it very easy. As demonstrated by the lack of counterarguments.

 

No one needs to "entertain" any of my arguments, Trump's own words, actions and repercussions are far better arguments characterizing his disastrous presidency than anything I can say. And those who support and especially defend this lunacy also speak for themselves.

 

In understood the point you tried to make with your invalid example. When someone moves the goal post to false firefighter examples, it usually means they refuse to see hypocrisy. I can easily defend my position using simple logic, combined with examples of elected officials with Ds by their names, telling their followers "we must fight".

 

I always speak for myself.

 

President Trump never called on anyone to "storm congress".

 

I gave you a counterargument (that you're fundamentally mistaken about what our "free speech" rights entail in this country) and you never addressed it or responded to it. I suppose your strategy is to ignore counterarguments and then pretend they don't exist? Not likely to work when everyone can read the words on the page.

 

Are you out of your freakin...?

"False firefighter examples"? Have you ever paid attention to any of the debates in the last... 100 years or so, in which freedom of speech is brought up in SCOTUS?

This cannot be explained by ignorance. It would be too much. It has to be loyalty to "The Leader" at the most extreme levels.

 

I have no idea what counterargument you are referring to. But the IP addresses it the "free speech" argument. There are limitations to ALL constitutional rights. And falsely screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater is exactly the same as Trump falsely screaming "voter fraud!" to a crowd full of far right terrorists.

 

The court decision that included that bit about not being able to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (Schenck v. United States) was overturned decades ago. Let's start there.

Even Don Lemon understands this (and he understands precious little): https://twitter.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1348844799114190850

 

Yes that's what I said, thanks for confirming.

 

Who the hell cares!!

Are Trump supporters just acting? Or is it possible, that the really don't understand the reference?

 

I understand the reference just fine. Like Don Lemon, I understand that it's wrong. That decision was overturned decades ago. You can, in fact, shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And President Trump's free speech rights extend to telling a crowd to "be strong". Neither of those things are illegal.

 

Ok. You have just demonstrated that you did not understand the reference. And it's amazing that you don't, being such a common reference in every single decision involving free speech in the last 100 years.

No case, not this one, not the case that partially overturned it, not the many many cases in which the phrase has been used... NONE involved anybody actually shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's a metaphor! A metaphor that obviously went way over your head.