See for yourself:
https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telli...
Someone described this video as taking a log off the fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline which I think is a fair characterization.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/06/trump-releases-statement-telli...
Someone described this video as taking a log off the fire while simultaneously pouring gasoline which I think is a fair characterization.
If that's an incision of violence, then I'm sure you will apply such interpretations equally to other statements? Any time there's a riot, block the leaders of whatever party they riot on behalf of?
I get that you want to shoehorn in a TOS violation, but it's really not. But I also get that it's important for him to not have a platform right now. I'm just not into this Orwellian twist of rules/words/interpretations to try to justify the fact that we just aren't safe with him broadcasting his lies anymore.
When people say "i don't have a problem with what he said, because he said for people to go home" the analogy helps ground the idea that while he may have said go home, he also said things that would rile them up. Hence the taking a log off the fire while adding gasoline analogy. It's not obfuscation. Trump's message was the obfuscation.
- Asking for peace isn’t enough
- And. He really needs to stop believing his claim of fraud?
Wild. Am I crazy or is everyone else right now?
Trump’s base is upset that they lost the election. Nothing more.
... the way President Trump claimed without evidence the elections were run.
Two bedrocks of democracy are that elections are fair so that every vote is counted, and that the people's freedom of speech outweighs the government's freedom of speech, so that governments cannot pull the kind of manipulation and deception that President Trump has been doing so successfully.
Meaning is transmitted not just by the words you use. For example by being sarcastic you can make the words mean the opposite of what their plain meaning is.
Trump made clear how he felt, and his words did not reflect that.
It is the height of disingenuousness to claim it was a call for peace or a thoughtful resolution. It was an emotional call to arms with a fig leaf on it.
You have to acknowledge the feelings of the other individual before they'll listen. They see themselves as good, honorable people, so you address them as such. Once you have their attention in an agreeable manner (instead of an antagonistic manner), you can address the issue at hand.
Trump did precisely this. He empathized with them and their cause. After he had an agreeable mood somewhat established, he then appealed to consequences.
If he hadn't asked them to stop, congress' attempt to reconvene would have no doubt been interrupted as well. The fact that didn't happen goes a long way against the claim that it was a call to violence.
That’s not how people work. Imagine for a second that he did come out and say that he was wrong about the fraud claims (“we looked into it and didn’t find anything”) and conceded the election. Do you honestly believe not a single one of his supporters would fall in line? There are a few people who are too far gone, but it’s entirely disingenuous to suggest he has no power over this. Not holding rallies would help a lot too. No, this is all squarely at his feet.
The time to talk about their struggle was another. And that without going into the legitimacy of him disputing the election results or even the legitimacy of him leading a revolutionary movement at this point.
“Go to the capital and be strong so the legislators can’t steal our victory.”
*several hours later, after they’ve broken into the capital and terrorized the legislation
“Go home, but they did steal the election and you’re special and we love you.”
That was him approving of their actions. That was him saying what they did was what he wanted and he would happily see them go further. Not picking up on this pattern in the past 4 years doesn’t make you crazy, but it does mean you aren’t paying close attention.
At what point should a person stop believing their own claims?
What he should have done was strongly condemn the violence and call for the people to go home immediately and peacefully.
And nothing else. With no softening weasel words.
He would be able to keep believing his claims of election fraud uninterrupted. And continue to pursuing them, just after the violent insurrection was diffused, not during it.
It's important to note that the insurrection was any least partially incited by his claims of election fraud, so repeating them in that context was extremely dangerous.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inciting to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/violence an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws
I agree he should have strongly condemned those actions and asked them to leave immediately. But I also don't see any evidence that he incited violence. Alleging election fraud, or encouraging people to protest are not the same as inciting violence. I'm open to evidence of Trump inciting violence, but thus far no one has been able to provide it.
It's the nature of the things that you can always argue about whether a particular speech rises to the level of incitement. E.g., the words like "stir", "encourage", and "stimulate" from the definition are not black-and-white terms.
However, the actual sequence of events are a pretty strong argument for incitement. There's a simple and easy to follow implication of cause and effect here.
Also, remember, we're talking about his video after the violence broke out. If he didn't understand that his claims of election fraud before the riot would lead the riot, he must certainly have understood it during the riot.
I also think the actions taken by tech companies here reflects a double-standard. For example, why isn't AOC being blocked for supporting rioting? Why weren't Democrats called out for attacks on federal property in Portland, Seattle, and other cities? Look at https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/07/aocs-comms-director-ask... for an exploration of this.
To me, it just looks like big tech companies picking winners and losers in an ongoing political and cultural war, and are reacting to societal or political pressures in taking action rather than acting in any principled manner.
Here's the AOC quote being referenced:
> "The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable… that’s the point."
Where in this statement is there any incitement for rioting or violence?
Now let's take a look at Trump's actions on Wednesday[1]:
> "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough and we will not take it any more"
> "And we fight. We fight like hell and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
This is how Trump described the rioters:
> "These are the things that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."
Contrast this with Pence's response:
> "This attack on our Capitol will not be tolerated and those involved will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law"
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/how-trump-in-final-weeks-inc...
This is a thinly-veiled statement in support of protesters engaging in criminal activity to get their way politically. That is the dictionary definition of terrorism (which the capitol incident also qualifies for). I agree it isn't explicit in stating that. But Trump's statement doesn't explicitly call for criminal activity either.
His statements are not asking for violence but asking to challenge the results and fight for what you want politically. That's what every side does in every political confrontation. You COULD also read it as a thinly-veiled statement pushing for violence. But it is entirely subjective to label one that way but not the other. And therefore, big tech companies should hold BOTH AOC and Trump to the same exact standard, or neither.
All that aside, I agree Pence's statement is better and wish Trump was more forceful in condemning these acts and left the "explanations" out.
Well, this is the Internet, not a court of law. So you will not and cannot get what you’re looking for here.
IMO, Trump should face criminal courts of law, though I have little faith it will happen.
One clarification: Trump's accounts were not blocked for his speech or event before the riot. They were blocked for his response during the riot.
E.g. during the riot he tweeted, "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"
So there's a little at the end that is good. But he mostly expresses that the violent insurrection is justified, praises the perpetrators, and suggest that they are the victims. He posted a video with similar sentiments as well. This was while it was still on-going.