Comment by _fq4v | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _fq4v | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> They went straight from his rally to Capitol hill

They went straight from his rally, where he asked them to 'cheer on the brave congressmen' fighting for them.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2021/01/06/dc-protest...

I'm so done. If I cannot live in a country where a politician, of any background, cannot call on their supporters to protest, I will do like my parents did and emigrate.

I cannot believe this is going on in America. This is exactly why my parents left their country to come here. They thought people were free to talk and believe here, independent of the actions of others in their group. This is insanity at every level. I cannot believe I'm seeing Americans go along with it, and there's only one politician in the opposition party (Tulsi Gabbard) with any gumption to downright criticize it.

> IMO he should've been banned from Twitter on the spot after he retweeted a video of a gut shouting white power at a bunch of black people

Oh my goodness, this is such a farce. I remember that video, and you have to have super hearing to even decipher that. Without the transcript, I wouldn't even have heard it. He also took it down once people brought it up.

In conclusion, I am stunned. Throughout his entire term and his entire 2016 campaign, he has not once called for violence, and yet I hear continuously how evil he is. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris calls for an uprising, Maxine waters to confront people wherever they go and not leave them in peace, Pelosi denies there is any rioting at all and refuses to condemn it, etc, and I am to believe that Donald Trump told people to vandalize the US capitol. Unlike all the politicians I mentioned above, the moment Trump heard about the violent breakins, he immediately told people to go home. That puts him on a wholly different moral playing field than Harris and Biden who took many days or weeks to even acknowledge the violence over the summer. I cannot believe this. I thought political speech was allowed in America.

> I'm so done. If I cannot live in a country where a politician, of any background, cannot call on their supporters to protest

Calling on your supporters to protest is fine. Calling on your supporters to protest, with a pattern of all the protests becoming violent is less fine. At some point you become complicit in not enforcing the value of peace strongly enough. And when trump rewards violent people, and celebrates them, and encourages them, and then things turn violent, people see through the indirection.

And I'll note that the left doesn't have a pattern of a leader whose calls for protest reliably all turn violent. People protest outside Mitch mcconnell's house weekly, and they've never been violent. They don't give him peace, but they are peaceful. That's what democratic politicians encourage, and what they show they value, and so that's what happens.

> Unlike all the politicians I mentioned above, the moment Trump heard about the violent breakins,

Reports from wh sources indicate that he had to be forced to include statements like "stay peaceful" and "go home" in his tweets.

> all the protests becoming violent is less fine

Wich all protests are you referring to? IIRC most Trump rallies were overwhelmingly peaceful until now...

> Wich all protests are you referring to? IIRC most Trump rallies were overwhelmingly peaceful until now...

Rallies != protests. IN cases where the president has asked his supporters to confront other groups, be it the media, other politicians, etc. there is reliably violence.

But they called the rallies (the completely peaceful ones) dangerous white supremacist meetings. I am a brown man. They are none of those things. The hyperbole is astounding.

I don't believe I've seen the characterization of Trump's rallies as, specifically "dangerous white supremacist meetings". I have seen the characterzation of many of trump's followers as white supremacists though.

Can you cite an example (and preferably multiple, since you said "they") of the former, that his rallies are "dangerous white supremacist meetings", and not simply the latter?

If not, I think it's you who is engaging in hyperbole.

(I'll also note the difference in tone between Trump's address today from the Oval Office and his prior statements. Today, for the first time, he didn't speak out of both sides of his mouth when discussing violence from his supporters. He unequivocally denounced violence. The difference between "Stand back and stand by" and "Violence and vandalism have no place in our country and no place in our movement...no true supporter of mine could ever endorse political violence" is obvious. If his statements had been, from the beginning, that clear and unequivocal he would have faced far less criticism. I mean he clearly would have faced some, Biden faced criticism for repeated unequivocal denouncement of violence[0], from people to his right and left. I expect trump would have faced the same. But we probably wouldn't have had last Wednesday, and Trump probably wouldn't be facing down a second impeachment, nor enough upset Republican Senators that he might actually get convicted).

[0]: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-condemn-v...

> I will do like my parents did and emigrate.

Where to? Nearly every country in the western world is far less absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'd find them far more socialist than you'd like too.

> I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'd find them far more socialist than you'd like too.

I doubt it. I'm not a free market absolutist, and am really happy DoJ is going after monopolies.

Those people over the summer were't protesting for Kamala Harris or Biden, dude. Try again. Like, they aren't even comparable. Trump told these people to gather, on a lie, and fed them nonsense.

Bringing up BLM as a counterpoint to these terrorists is the weakest argument I've heard in a long time. Whataboutism to the max. Pathetic. There is exactly 0 connection to the two events, yet you people seem to keep bringing it up to distract from the right-wing terrorism you seem to support.

Also, the looters during BLM were not connected to the message - they were thugs looking to take advantage. Not the same of last week. But, you must have known that, right? Since it's pretty basic knowledge. Ignorance is bliss, I guess, right?

Hah, you've lost perspective mate..

Trump and friends talked about being defrauded ("stolen election!") for an hour, and then said "So we are going to--we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we are going to the Capitol, and we are going to try and give--the Democrats are hopeless, they are never voting for anything, not even one vote but we are going to try--give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're try--going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue." (and then he took a limo back home to the White House), does that not sound like "let's intimidate them!"? And considering his audience, he must've known that they're ready for violence.

As grandparent post said, Trump never asks anyone directly to avoid breaking the law (he did something similar with Comey, and on the "find me 11780 votes!" phone call).

But well, you seem to have lost perspective...

None of that is illegal

Reply on news.ycombinator.com