If you say "We love you, you're special" to violent insurrectionists after the fact, I don't think you need anything more explicit than that.
That aside, a post-hoc statement can't be construed as a precipitory.
He's not being diplomatic, that's not a thing he does. He likes things that benefits him, and condemns all things that don't. It's amazing that people can still with a straight face make these kinds of excuses for him.
"I know your pain, I know your hurt"
"great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."
"These Anarchists, not protesters"
"Disgraceful. Never seen anything like it. Thugs."
"when the looting starts, the shooting starts"
"domestic acts of terror."
I'll leave it up to you to guess whom he's addressing in each quote.
I'm having difficulty understanding how your comment relates to mine. If you would like to debate the merits of Trump's persona, you'll have to find someone else. I'm absolutely not claiming that he is above criticism. However, that doesn't relate at all to the specifics of what I've said here.
RE: your edits
Yes, he also condemned the injustice surrounding police abuse. You are cherry picking, or perhaps viewing things through the lens of a partisan media.
I was responding to that. That's how it relates. I proved that he condoned the actions through a comparison.
Re your edit:
How is it cherry picking because I chose quotes relevant to my post?
In regards to the separate topic of the BLM protests, you could've presented quotes such as this:
"All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that for George and his family, justice will be served. He will not have died in vain. But we cannot allow the righteous cries and peaceful protesters to be drowned out by an angry mob. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities. And as their president, I will fight to keep them safe. I will fight to protect you. I am your president of law and order, and an ally of all peaceful protesters."
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-trump-mobilize-fe...
Instead you cherry picked to present a narrative that fits your argument.
What I haven't seen, and I would love to see "cherry picked" is the rhetoric I posted but reversed between the two groups. I'll make a bet and say that that's never happened.
Which brings us back around to; he's condoning the specific group storming the capitol, while fast and loose condemning every unruly edge case of the BLM movement.
Sounds consistent. Peaceful protest, yes. Violence, destruction of property, no.
Where are the "thugs", "terrorists", "anarchists", etc? He's never hesitated to use those terms before.
It took him a full two days to condemn the events in Charlottesville. And he didn't call it terrorism. Because it was "his" side.
"To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend’s racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered. As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence. It has no place in America."
"Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America."
"I would like to begin by addressing the heinous attack on the United States Capitol. Like all Americans, I am outraged by the violence, lawlessness and mayhem."
"The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy. To those who engaged in the acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay."
You've no issue quoting the prepared statement asking Capitol Building protesters to go home. Yet you take issue with a prepared statement about George Floyd. I'll agree that consistency is important here.
This flavor of hyperpartisanship is part of the problem. There's very little you can change about Trump's supporters. Even less if you take an extreme partisan approach. This only contributes to the toxicity.
https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remar...
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-concedes-e...
What I quoted wasn't the prepared statements. The prepared statements you quoted was long after he got massive pushback and moves to impeach him (again). Exactly his modus operandi.
> And now you want to turn the topic onto Charlottesville
I am establishing a pattern, yes.
> where he explicitly condemned the violence and extremists.
After multiple days and massive flack from all sides of the aisle.
> This flavor of hyperpartisanship is part of the problem. [...] Even less if you take an extreme partisan approach. This only contributes to the toxicity.
I agree, which is exactly why I've been writing these posts.
> There's very little you can change about Trump's supporters.
You could start by not choosing rhetoric based on politics, which is exactly what he's been doing for 4 (+) years. Ducks are ducks regardless of politics, but he treats them very differently.
>What I quoted wasn't the prepared statements.
Are you now cherry picking which statements are prepared and which aren't? Amazing. Choose your own meaning to extrapolate _and_ choose which statements are valid.
The language is very different and they're contradicting each other. And they're days apart, with one prepared and the other during the event.
I'm not invalidating anything, I'm comparing apples to apples.
Also you're ignoring the pattern I laid out.
But I'll say it clearer. His hot takes are always partisan. Any walkbacks and sensibility only come later, after clear consequences loom.
What I do see is mass hysteria surrounding his statements.
"I condemn in the strongest possible terms..."
But he didn't call them terrorists (in a quote I could find) in an off the cuff statement, so you're entitled to telepathically divine another meaning from the statement?
Take another angle. When Trump said, "There will be a peaceful transition to a new administration", some of his supporters imagined this meant he isn't leaving the Whitehouse.
For myself, I have no telepathic abilities. Nor do I believe that those who are passionate about their love or hate for the man have telepathic abilities.
What I observe is mass hysteria. From the left, this is buoyed by media spin. On the right, you have the Q types. Again this is buoyed by media dishonesty. If media institutions were less misleading, perhaps there would be more trust in establishment sources. Instead there is a vacuum where deranged conspiracies can mix in among perspectives the media would rather not cover.
> But he didn't call them terrorists (in a quote I could find) in an off the cuff statement, so you're entitled to telepathically divine another meaning from the statement?
Honestly, yes? He's never stopped himself from using the term earlier. So why isn't he now (or actually any time it's an extreme right/white nationalist terrorist)? This was clearly terrorism.
> Take another angle. When Trump said, "There will be a peaceful transition to a new administration", some of his supporters imagined that this meant that he isn't leaving the Whitehouse.
Funny example, seeing as that came after the capitol riots, and not say... when he lost the election. Which entirely proves my point.