Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by kar5pt | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

kar5pt

[flagged]

View on HN

So you're complicit in the violence and deaths the BLM protests have caused?

Yes there is a difference

The violence was 99% the cops beating on people, so not really, no.

Did the cops destroy all burn all those building and destroy all those businesses? Not really, no.

Moving the goal post from violence to property damage?

Burning and looting are violent, just like murder.

no, they are categorically different

vi·o·lence /ˈvī(ə)ləns/

noun

    behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

if your definition places injuries to human beings in the same category as damage to things, then your definition is just an excuse to do violence on people

Damage to things damages people. This is hard for communists to understand, as they don't believe in private property.

You can't have freedom and liberty without the security of private property. Learn some history.

Private property is by definition a limit on freedom -- it's always a trade-off. Slave societies were always obsessed with protecting their freedoms.

You really should step away from the internet and actually talk to a regular conservative.

Yes there is.

There is a difference. Fascism is originally defined as national socialism by Mussolini. What Republicans do you see advocating for any such thing? Under actual Fascism, private ownership of businesses was allowed, but the government limited the profits they could make. Point me to where Republicans are trying to limit the amount of profits any company in the US can make.

If the comparison is totalitarian tendencies, you have a lot of effort to go through to frame this as a one sided problem as both sides exhibit such time to time.

The only thing conservatives and Fascists have in common is they are nationalist at this point, that's it. The constant throwing around of the Fascist label upon the right wing in this country is so disconnected from reality, as someone who loves history it makes me cringe to no end.

And nationalism isn't uniquely a right-wing thing at all. All communist governments embraced nationalism.

Why are you downvoted? How much motherland rhetoric did the soviets push? What about the CCP pushing for a "strong China" narrative. Venezuela was a very "venezuela first" ideology.

Yes, left wingers, socialists and communists are very nationalistic as well. That or are "the party" first... which just ends up being nationalism with an extra step.

The four states pillars of the Constitution of my home country, Bangladesh, are “nationalism, socialism, democracy, and secularism.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujibism

It seems quite bizarre to me to not have a level of nationalism. Obviously the purpose of American government is ensuring the prosperity of Americans. What else could it be? And how else can you get 330 million people—who don’t share an ethnicity, history, first language, etc.—to consent to common governance without encouraging a healthy level of nationalism?

Fascism is nationalism taken to the level of justifying war on others because of self-declared superiority. That’s beyond ordinary nationalism.

> a former politician who lead a mob to riot at the Capital.

Not a word you wrote is true.

Trump was a sitting President, and the riot started before the end of his speech. His tweets for peace were deleted by twitter. (Pelosi refused to pay for Capitol Hill security before the large rally.)

The only insurrection was the 8-months of city burning endorsed by the DNC. Why isn't Pelosi on trial yet?

Because she didn’t endorse a riot and neither did she endorse that cities should be burned.

It’s utterly breathtaking how much Trump lies. But in your worldview, he’s the victim.

Trump didn’t endorse a riot either. And at the time of his speech, the pro-Trump protests after the election had been peaceful, to many people’s surprise. (DC had geared up for violence after the election, with plywood covering the windows, and until November 6 nothing happened.)

I think Trump should have gotten impeached back in December for continuing to deny the legitimacy of the election after losing his legal challenges. But saying he incited the riot was an extremely tenuous charge.

Impeachment is a political finding, not a legal finding. It’s Congress that decides what qualifies as high crimes and misdemeanors.

What was Trump guilty of? You say not quite the legal definition of incitement. Well how about asking to find just enough votes in Georgia and threatening consequences for not doing so?

Did Trump tweet that the protestors should leave? Eventually. Surely the call with McCarthy suggests not only a significant delay in doing so, but also his state of mind regarding the riot.

As for whether he incited the riot to begin with — the most senior member of the Senate GOP disagrees with you: Trump incited the riots but should be acquitted for procedural reasons (you can’t impeach a former President).

The rioters clearly believed that they were doing what Trump wanted and following his desires if not his explicit orders - that impression didn't come from nowhere, it came from months of his encouragement and sympathy with with a deranged conspiracy theory provided by Trump himself. There are clearly implications in Trump's rhetoric that mere peaceful protest would not be enough:

    “We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. And to use a favorite term that all of you people really came up with, we will stop the steal. …

    “You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can’t let that happen. These are the facts that you won’t hear from the fake news media. It’s all part of the suppression effort. They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about it. …

    “We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

And there is also the content of his now deleted tweet after the fact where he appeared to justify the violence and praise those who committed it[0], and his phone call with House minority leader Kevin McCarthy on the 6th where Trump actually seemed to be smug about it[1].

And yes, in the deleted tweet he told people to "go home with love and peace," but that's hardly a condemnation of their actions.

[0]https://media-cdn.factba.se/realdonaldtrump-twitter/13469549...

[1]https://thehill.com/homenews/house/538714-trump-told-mccarth...

Maybe it doesn't rise to a strict legal definition of incitement, but the narrative being painted in his defense of there being no causal relationship between Trump and the riots, that he simply wanted law and order and peace, is clearly specious.

That was a more credible claim before the McCarthy phone call story broke, in which we learned that Trump actively resisted calls from the GOP to help end the riot and acknowledged that they were rioting in his name. And, even before we learned about that call, we knew that he tweeted criticism of VP Pence after the mob turned violent. Meanwhile, by dint of his office, he had a duty to stop the riot no matter its origin. His culpability looks pretty clear: he's a firefighter who stacked kindling next to a house, watched a fire get lit, threw some gasoline on it, and stood there cackling while it consumed the building. His best defense seems to be "it wasn't much gasoline, all things considered".

I hadn’t read about the McCarthy call. That certainly makes his state of mind seem worse, and now I agree with you that it’s impeachable vis-a-vis being a dereliction of duty. But maybe I’m caught up in the legal definition of “incitement” but I don’t think either the speech or failure to stop the rioting doesn’t qualify as incitement.

Yeah, we're definitely not going to resolve all of impeachment here (despite having a much stronger opinion about Trump's guilt than you do, I also think impeachment is a waste of time, and I'm not wild about the precedent of preemptively stripping someone's ability to run for office in the future, a move that penalizes Trump's voters as much as it does him). It's all complicated. I'm just saying the case against him is clearer than it given credit for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com