You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Current Events Thread
I just want to point out the he didn't actually have to say exactly "go wreck the capitol building" to cause incitement. He implied things that given the circumstances he should not have said. We need to stop pretending Trump is brainless when it suits us. He knew what he was saying and doing.
Impeachment is a much lower standard than a criminal conviction also.
Right...that's the biggest problem...good post...
Did Trump say, 'go overthrow the US government' or 'go interrupt the electoral vote counting by breaking into the capital'...no he didn't...
Because he's smart enough to be covert sometimes. Why was he even having a 'rally' that day? Why did it have to be where it was? it's like a row of dominos and all you have to do is touch the first one for them all to fall in line.
How many times do you have to imply? How many times do you have to elude? How many times do you have to encourage before it you call him out?
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
Here's the thing, it was obvious they were desperate to delay the process as was shown with that leaked email telling certain republicans to delay the electoral process as much as possible and specifically said one more day. Then what happens later at the rally happens.
I mean cmon people, a bit of common sense shows he wanted disruption. Ten of his own party just voted against him ffs.
This hunt for a damning quote is pie in the sky. He is not completely without thought.
Re: Current Events Thread
Here's my problem with the impeachment:
1. The attack of the capitol is totally unacceptable.
2. Trump's speech did not call for any violence and in-fact used several phrases that directly suggest the opposite.
3. Before being de-platformed Trump tweeted twice saying while he understood the anger and the frustration and while he also does't accept the election result there can not be violence and that his party stands for law and order and respecting authority etc.
4. It may be that the far right groups who staged the assault were motivated by Trumps claims of a phoney election despite his calls for peace. However, if this is the case, it should be noted that senior figures from the left claimed the previous election 2016 was hijacked for several years.
5. Likewise radicals from the left staged violent incidents in the preceding years - including things like violently capturing a city block, driving out police, and declaring it a seperate society. While some of the triggering incidents (floyd) are understandable, no political figures from the left have been held responsible for their ideology creating radicals when there have been crimes to the extent that we now seem to be suggesting figures on the right are responsible for the existence of right extremists. Additionally some on the left made statements that are questionable - such as the suggestion to confront trump cabinet members when they are seen in shops etc.
Looking at that wider context - and while I think there's a lot of regrettable things about Trump - I just don't get the logic of he can be fairly blamed for what happened at the capitol.
He's really only done the same tactics that the other side has been using, and there's no doubt to me that in another scenario we could easily see a similar incident based around the left.
What's really disturbing to me - is that despite the above - and despite actively calling for no violence - he's going to be impeached for inciting violence.
It's almost like we're all so outraged about this that what actually happened doesn't seem to matter anymore. I find it really disconcerting. I'm not even a Trump fan but the way this has all played out simply doesn't make sense.
Sorry, I disagree with a lot of these parts.
2)He didn't have to directly call for violence as IRISH has laid out better in his posts on this topic.
3) Maybe. But that one address he gave during the riots wasn't exactly calming
4)You're using "both sides do it", argument. People on the left can claim whatever they want to as long as it doesn't end up in violence and chaos etc. People on the right can claim that Obama isn't a US citizen as long as it doesn't end in the stuff that we saw on Wednesday. The fact that Democrats were salty about the 2016 election didn't result in a loss of life or chaos. Why should it matter as it pertains to this event what the Democrats (in this instance did or claimed)?
The rest of that stuff later on is just more of both sides do it.
And this is the part you miss: he's the President of the USA. His words have more meaning and value than some other lesser person. And he is supposed to be above this stuff.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
@monkey
4. It may be that the far right groups who staged the assault were motivated by Trumps claims of a phoney election
That thought alone should be enough for alarm bells imo.
Re: Current Events Thread
I skimmed through the speech again and I totally forgot how he labeled the media "the enemy of the people". I get that people don't trust the media (actual reporters who fact check and have multiple sources) but they do provide a valuable function and service in a government and democracy. See Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate or just a bunch of other ones that have revealed corruption or wrongdoing by people in power.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
he's the President of the USA. His words have more meaning and value than some other lesser person. And he is supposed to be above this stuff.
I feel a few are not understanding this and brushing it under the carpet also.
Re: Current Events Thread
I skimmed through the speech again and I totally forgot how he labeled the media "the enemy of the people". I get that people don't trust the media (actual reporters who fact check and have multiple sources) but they do provide a valuable function and service in a government and democracy. See Woodward and Bernstein on Watergate or just a bunch of other ones that have revealed corruption or wrongdoing by people in power.
Also...if you want to beat your chest about the constitution ...I think there's a reason that they have expressed rights in the constitution itself...the media is part of the check and balance.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
This too. He knew exactly what he was doing and saying and more importantly where and when.
Why was he even having a 'rally' that day? Why did it have to be where it was? it's like a row of dominos and all you have to do is touch the first one for them all to fall in line.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Current Events Thread
@monkey
4. It may be that the far right groups who staged the assault were motivated by Trumps claims of a phoney election
That thought alone should be enough for alarm bells imo.
But that's where I think we have to be careful as a society...if someone has a political position that isn't violent - and someone else is inspired by that position to engage in violence - is this grounds to silence the moderate speaker?
I think that's something that could be abused.
For example African American leaders often call for improved Civil Rights....now if some crazy person then goes and does some terrorism in the name of African American rights...we can't then start saying that peaceful civil rights campaigners are to blame for it.
To my mind trump has a right to question the mechanics of the 2020 election, just as pelosi has a right to question the mechanics of the 2016 election.
We can't start censoring all political ideas based on what might set off the extremists or we'd have to ban almost everything.
His speech called for voting and cheering on republicans voting for his cause in congress. That's not an unreasonable thing to ask for.
The same thing could happen and undermine any reasonable cause on the left too. I don't want this to set some crazy standard where peaceful people are held accountable for anything a crazy person does in their name.
- IRISH OS1R1S
- Rep: 59
Re: Current Events Thread
Yes but your coming from a point of view of he didn't incite. Me and it seems the majority disagree with this. So while you say censorship, I would argue its perfectly valid back because his words are causing divide, violence and death, not to mention undermining and embarrassing the country he represents.
He violated their rules he paid the price. Simples.
