What do you call them then? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Yet.

Oh fuck right off. If it was a "leftie democrat" who stormed the Capitol you'd be crying bloody murder.

armed protests are being planned right now for inauguration day, based on the baseless claims of election fraud. bring out the national guard and this time treat the protestors like black people.

I'm glad Trump is gone, but the hypocrisy is rank. That definition of terrorist defines the BLM riots.

- Joe Biden says he wants to beat up the President.
- Cory Booker says he wants to punch the President.
- Robert De Niro says he wants to punch Trump in the face.
- Maxine Waters says get in Republicans faces in public places, "I will take Trump out Tonight."
- Jimmy Kimmel and other late night hosts joke about assassinating the President.
- Snoop Dog makes a video of assassinating the President.
- Johnny Depp talks about an actor assassinating the President.
- Kathy Griffin poses with a severed bloody head of the President.
- Tom Arnold says: “Don’t get too c.... traitor, they showed up for JFK too”
- Gaetz is threatened by someone who warned that he will blow the congressman’s head off.
- Scalise gets shot and almost killed.
- ANTIFA routinely attacks and now killed conservatives.
- Hollywood makes a movie about killing Trump supporters.
- Tucker Carlson has left wing activists at his home threatening to burn his house down with his wife & kids inside.
- Madonna talks about wanting to blow up the White House.
- McConnell is threatened by left wing activists at his home to be stabbed in the heart.
- Democrat Constitutional professor Jonathan Turley’s life is threatened for his opinion opposing impeachment.

Yet, the Socialist Democrats, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, TDIP, Media Matters, and the DNC say “Trump is inciting violence.”

Classic whataboutism. You have been brainwashed well.

Why do you use this word like it's some sort of insult? You do realize the country you live in in a Social Democracy right? Way more leftist than even the fringiest leftists of the Democratic Party of America. If you want to live in a Capitalist paradise you can move down south.

Imagine equating a movement that’s literal goal is to make “black lives matter” with one that associated itself with the tag lines “camp Auschwitz” and “6 million wasn’t enough”
Don’t pull a muscle reaching so hard.
Motives matter, and they matter a lot when dictating the validity of behaviour.

Trumpists literally trying to overthrow an elected government

Apologists: ...but but but BLM leftist antifa burned down a Panera Bread in Portland!!!

The difference here is nobody has taken action on these statements. Trumps statements resulted in action being taken which threatened peoples lives, American democracy, and resulted in the loss of lives of police officers.

Maybe I missed a news item, which of these resulted in an attack on the capitol? Are any of those people the president? Do you honestly have no issue with what happened in trumps name?

Honest question -- did Trump ever encourage his supporters to take any violent action on June 6?

As far as I can remember, he never said anything explicitly of that sort. He did encourage his supporters to surround the capital and even Capitol Hill. I also seem to recall him asking his supporters to respect the law enforcement officers because they are a law and order party. He did not condemn the protest/riot violence until it was rather late. He has repeatedly said that the election was stolen from him and his supporters.

Naturally, the media, tech giants, Democrats, and everyone hating Trump are doing their very best to paint Trump as the prime villain and instigator to incite violent and start an insurrection. They say Trump is condoning the violence.

Anyone with more time and inclination to read through his rambling rant can have a look

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/...endiary-speech

Not even Trump is dumb enough to explicitly call for violence, but this closing remark sounds remarkably like he wants them to intimidate the electoral college vote which is an incitement of insurrection (which is what we are all accusing him of). Insurrection = implies violence.

If you organize an event and people end up dying you are going to be in big trouble. This should be no different.

OK, so... Susan Lisa Rosenberg who fundraises and does administration for the BLM Organization is an actual convicted terrorist. As a member of May 19th Communist Organization she and her crew bombed the Senate at the US Capitol. She was pardoned by Clinton while serving her 58 year sentence. As Zedbra posted, there has been definitive violence and hate directed at the sitting President for years. That's identical behaviour to what you're condemning and yet you were cheering it on earlier in this thread. If right is right and wrong is wrong you look like a MASSIVE hypocrite.

While the people that went in to the Capitol last week are idiots they're no less "terrorists" than all those who took part in the rioting and looting across the US which cost the lives of scores more people and billions of dollars in property damage. That's your stance based on the above post, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. Let me know when any of them et al are actually charged with terrorism. I'll wait....

You first, because no I wouldn't. Don't ever put words in my mouth or assume I'm taking a side. Fucking clown.

https://s.abcnews.com/images/US/bomb..._13x16_992.jpg

Lets not forget the people who tried to kidnap the governor of Michigan.

Now CivicBlues, I am 100% trying to be rational and reasonable here, and I am not necessarily supporting or defending Trump.

I had a quick skim through the entire transcript, and unlike some (many?) of the members here on RS who absolutely hate Trump to his guts, I don't see anything that can be legitimately used as incitement for violence or insurrection. Trump is definitely stirring up the crowd's emotions -- that's what any rally and pep talk would do. He is literally telling them to march down Pennsylvania Ave and to the Capitol. He explicitly said the crowd needs to give "the weak Republicans" the pressure to cast electoral college votes to elect Trump back to the presidency.

But even with that last line I wrote, I'd hardly call that incitement for insurrection. IMO, it is more correct to say that Trump is egging the crowd to pressure those "weak Republicans" to become a "faithless elector", and that in itself is not a crime. I also do not see how that could be classified as "incitement of insurrection".

What the crowd-mob does is what the crowd-mob does. I would not disagree with anyone who suggests Trump knew / expected the crowd-mob to take on violent actions. Personally, prior to Jan 6, I was expecting the kind of small scale riots that we see all the time -- a bit of looting and vandalism, setting some cars and stuff on fire, fights with police / riot officers breaking out on some scale, etc. I was both surprised and not surprised by the storming of the Capitol. But again, I can't see anything that could legitimately and explicitly pin Trump into inciting the crowds for violent actions. In fact, Trump said the following during his speech:

The issue is -- how do you prove that Trump was intentionally inciting the crowd for insurrection if the thought is only happening in his head? Everyone can obviously accuse him of doing so, and the anti-Trump side is doing everything they can right now to make the world believe that.

Nixon had an impeachment against him in Watergate because there was concrete evidence of him conspiring to obstruction justice, abuse power, show contempt of Congress. At this point, I do not see the same level of incriminating evidence against Trump. In the future, if further investigation can concretely show that Trump has indeed planned or acted on inciting an insurrection, of course it would be unreasonable for me to disagree with it. But at this point, all I am seeing is a witch hunt against Trump.

One of the many things that blows my mind with "conservatives".

How does one not understand the basic definition of Socialism?

They also throw around hyperbolic words such a "radical" as well. My friend, someone like Nancy Pelosi would not fall under the definition of "radical, socialist Democrat" in any other western democracy in the world :lol

I truly feel our education system both here and to the south need to do a better job of educating people of what these basic words even mean in the first place.

Our European counterparts do not seem to have this basic lack of understanding of the very word itself.

Traum, let’s use an analogy here.
Let’s say I’m in a position of trust to someone. They believe everything I say.
“Hey man, that guy banged your wife” - I say to my best friend as I point to someone. Knowing full well that the person didn’t do such a thing
“Are you sure man?” - my friend says visibly angry.
“Yeah man you gotta do something about it. You gotta stand up and show him. He fucked your wife. I’ve never seen such disrespect for you. What are you gonna do, are you gonna stand up for yourself”
Friend goes and punches guy in the face. Now would you say that I provoked that reaction? Did I have a part in causing that violence, with my bold faced lie?

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/12/polit...ion/index.html

A five star thumbs up to the top U.S. general Mark Milley for making this statement to all military personnel to uphold the American Constitution and reject extremism. :thumbsup:

A reminder to all branches of the U.S. military to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Don't even think about going rogue to side with the rioters.

General Milley's statement:


As Service Members, we must embody the embody the values and ideals of the Nation. We support and defend the Constitution. Any act to disrupt the Constitutional process is not only against our traditions, values, and oath; it is against the law," the statement said.

In addition, the statement referenced the certification of the election by Congress and said, "President-elect Biden will be inaugurated and will become our 46th Commander in Chief."

Well said. Putting words in your mouth to fit their narrative is the ironic hypocrisy of the herd here. "So what you're saying is" "So you mean this", "whataboutism" lol. So much hate, the very thing they blame upon someone else, but labeling others blinds their hypocrisy. The problem isn't Trump, it's actually them; hence 200 pages of hate continues on. Whataboutthat.

People in here defend the actions of Black Lives Matter because they believe that the motivation behind the message was important. Being against racism. You are defending the actions of a group motivated by overturning a democratic election. Are you against racism? Or are you against democracy? It’s up to you what you want to argue for.

Westopher,

I appreciate the analogy, but I'd say that the highlighted part remains somewhat questionable.

Everyone on the anti-Trump side says Trump's claims of election fraud cannot be proven, and is thus fake news. I don't agree with that, because instead of calling it "cannot be proven", I think it is more appropriate to say that it has not been proven.

The best chance to conclusively prove or disprove whether any significant level of election fraud took place would have been a truth commission investigation or court hearing. The US courts had 2 chances to initiate that, but instead of hearing and evaluating the evidence in a proper cross examination, the judges have decided on procedural grounds that the evidence did not justify having the hearings.

My personal opinion on the court's decision to twice deny the court hearing is -- the court just does not want to entangle itself in this mess. There is no win for the court regardless of how the results came out. If the hearing found that there was election fraud, millions of votes could have been tossed out, and those who have casted these now-invalidated legitimate votes would have been super pissed. If the hearings found no election fraud, a portion of the Trump supporters would still be unsatisfied with the results. So for the court, they might as well just stay out of this mess altogether by not bothering with a hearing in the first place. People are still going to be pissed anyway. This is probably how the progressive judges were thinking when they voted down to hear the election fraud case.

Now suppose I were to go along with your analogy, assuming that the person didn't bang the guy's wife:

As a liar, I definitely played a part in causing the incident, and bear some responsibility for that. In Trump's case, I agree he absolutely stirred up the emotions of the crowd, and deserves to be condemned for it. In the analogy though, I can't say I have provoked the violence because I never made any material suggestions to use violence.

"You gotta do someting" does not equate "you gotta beat the guy up".

If I had said that -- "you gotta beat the guy up, man", then absolutely I deserved to be pinned for provoking that violence.

Even if I were to know that my friend is a hot head, and likely wouldn't be able to restrain himself from using violence, I'd question whether that knowledge is enough to constitute any criminal consequences in a legal setting. In a social setting or the court of opinions, it is certain enough to label me as the villain provoking the violence. To me, that is exactly what the entire anti-Trump side is working so hard to do, and they are trying to elevate it to a legal level with the impeachment theatrics.

Especially with the way Pelosi is pursuing so hard to get Trump impeached right now when there are only 8 days remaining in Trump's term, I'd say the anti-Trump side is hardly doing the right thing that would be good for the US' recovery from this presidential election farce. Trump has already agreed to an orderly transition of power, and IMO, that should have been more than enough of a win for the Democrats to back off. If either the Democrats or the Republicans care about healing and reconciliation of the country and of the American people, neither side should continue to pursue the inflammatory actions that they are doing now, because that would only further provoke the two sides.

So protests for "please stop killing me" = bad, protests to overthrow a democratic election = fine. And that's not hypocrisy? If that's not what your posts are intended to mean, feel free to clarify or be judged by your silence.

Who's on a no-fly list?

Should that not require the claim to be based on something more than "I don't like the result"?

The problem isn't the President of the United States who egged on an insurrection in an effort to stay in power. It's literally the people who are against him that are the problem.

Sure whatever you say buddy. Tolerance for intolerance is not a virtue.

You believe the entire court system in the US is just “choosing not to get involved” over believing that someone who has been caught in literally thousands of lies, is lying.