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

I addressed your claim directly. Trump did not say anything that a reasonable person would translate into "go commit violence". My position remains solid as you have failed to post a quote that says otherwise. That is why you had to resort to repeating your false claim in spite of being corrected several times. I do understand how an independent view can appear far right from your perspective.

 

This is another peculiarity of Trump supporters, the ability of self denial.

 

Since you are so concerned with "legalities" if the illegally cast ballots were thrown out Trump would be the winner. Funny how you only like legalities when they favor your opinion.

 

Yeah, where's the bit where he implores them to be peaceful? Come on, no one believes Trump incited anything, this is just the DNC getting one last kick at him on his way out of office.

 

Says the left!

 

I say again: he was not addressing reasonable people.

 

He was addressing the republicans which amounts to something over a hundred million people. The number who committed any kind of violence amounted to a dozen or two. That is about 0.00005%. In other words he was addressing an audience which was 0.99995% reasonable.

That audience was orders of magnitude purer than Ivory Soap which is only 99.7% pure.

 

READ!!

 

LOL! Judging a group? Tell us what you think about black people.

 

I did and your article is worthless, Trump said to his supporters to go legitimately protest in the same manner as thousands of other politicians in the last 4 years EXCEPT that he added the direct caveat that it was to be peaceful. Your TDS is making you see things which simply aren't there.

 

Says a Brit who voted conservative and owns a medium sized company. Not everyone who Thinks Trump is a corrupt cheating bxxxxrd is of the left.

 

Re-read excuses #1 and #2 on OP

Re-read excuse #3 on OP.

I don't usually respond to arguments I have already responded to but, as a courtesy to you, I pointed out the exact sections where your arguments had already been addressed.

So you think I made it up? You give me too much credit. Haven't they told you in wingnut media that Trump was impeached for this. And his own followers confirmed that they were there at his behest.

If you have anything to argue that was not already addressed on the OP, do let me know.

 

Why on earth would you think that just because you addressed something, that made it a closed issue?

 

Rebleating the same false statement does not make it valid. Painting an entire group with a broad stroke is what racists do. Since you couldn't quote him to support your position, now you are trying to portray the listeners as unreasonable.

How many listeners?
How many committed violence?

 

Perhaps all attempts you have heard so far fall into those 3 categories - but then folks may not have good arguments

While there is no doubt that any Authoritarian would take pride in such a speech - the only thing above that you would not hear from the mouth of any Football Coach is the "You are allowed to go by very different rules"

That is a bit weird - not sure what to make of it - if we can say this was specific incitement to violence.. seems rather greyish and unclear the position on the board .. certainly not defacto - on its own .. perhaps when combined with the other stuff ? - but I don't see how to do that in a coherent way .. perhaps you can help.

The rest is something you would hear from many a protest leader from the abortion movement - race movement- women's equality - you name it .. and those Feminazi's sure go by very different rules - yer not one of them are ya ? - Terrorists by the definition many have been touting.

My argument is that you don't have a solid case - that the precedent set would be really bad .. essentially branding all of the aforementioned groups "Terrorists"

And you don't want to do that do you ?

 

He was not addressing any "entire group".

God! The desperation of Trump supporters to defend "The Idol" is so notable!

 

Personally I am defending principles rather than Trump.

 

I am confident in my ability to defend my position. Thats why I don't need a disclaimer in my sig and don't need to resort to diversions to avoid a simple, direct question.

There is nothing Trump said that a reasonable person could translate into what you claim. The actions of those who committed violent acts are inconsistent with those of Trump supporters. That's why the thugs had the element of surprise.

These facts remain unchallenged. The dance of the dodger may not be graceful, but is entertaining nonetheless.

 

I think you were on the right track with your "football coach" analysis. But you didn't go far enough. It's all about the underlying reason. If the General in the front lines of a war says "We fight like hell", it means that they need to kill as many of the enemy as they can. Because that's the purpose of the war. If a football coach says the same thing, you wouldn't interpret that he's telling you to kill the players on the other team. The purpose of football is to score touchdowns and win the game. So what was the purpose of this event? If it was to change the results of the elections, it's a coup. More so if it was also to declare the person who lost the winner. Easy as that.

If you want, you can propose a different purpose. The problem is that Trump SAID that the purpose was to declare him the winner.

BTW, I don't need to make a case. The case is already made. Democrats, Republicans, ... even those who attended the rally, agree on what Trump was telling them to do. Agreement is non-partisan. Only a very small minority that would excuse Trump even if he shot some random person in the middle of 5th Avenue are now trying to find some form of excuse for him. And failing miserably.....

 

So you are saying that those who attacked the Capitol are not Trump supporters. The QAnon conspiracy theory.

I'm not wasting my time with QAnon conspiracy theories anymore.

Thanks anyway....

 

That is alot of verbiage but - nothing addressing my argument - which was the Bad precedent being set by labeling a wide variety of protest groups "Terrorists" - and associated Rule of Law issues that follow.

 

The forum has a quote feature so you can answer my question directly. (Or dodge it again)

 

That was your underlying argument? I have no idea who you're talking about that labeled a wide variety of protest groups "Terrorists"

I'm debating the topic on the OP.

 

This is the topic - the Protesters who marched on the Capital - were called Terrorists by Biden and many others.

Try to get on page ..

 

Quote please.