It goes both way. If we assume intent behind a given action that has occurred, then we apply some form of competence to the person in their ability to turn intent into action. If an action is unintentional then there is some level of incompetence in play. The bigger the outcome and the more obvious we view the action is, the bigger the incompetence from a successful defense of non-intent.

A weasel peaceful is still more than any democrat politician managed during BLM riots and Lightfoot now.

So, still one step behind many who are still on Twitter

I would fine with the criticism of Trump if I felt there was consistency. The problem is there are plenty of politicians and other prominent people have done the same thing. Violence happened in those incidents as well. Almost nobody is advocating for them to be punished or to be held to the same standard. When Trump does it then it is the worst thing in the world. If we decide inflammatory language is not acceptable then fine, but nobody cares when their side does it.

Just to be clear, I am not saying you specifically are not consistent. I do not know what you believe, but until we have the same standards that we as a society agree to I will defend anybody's right to say questionable things so long as they do not call for violence or other crimes.

Bernie Sanders said that Republicans were killing Americans by going after a health care bill. One of his supporters (who also worked on Bernie's campaign) shot a Republican representative. That was inflammatory language and yet nobody holds Bernie to the same standard as they hold Trump to. To use your argument: To believe Bernie's language was not meant to incite violence you have to think Bernie was competently unaware of the effects of his actions, or that he knew the potential outcome and encouraged it. Both are damning.

I fully agree he should have gone to the Capitol. That was reckless of him. I also believe he should have said something early than he did. I don't think he blew it off as I don't think he had any intention of going there with the crowd. While he used the words "we" and "let's" I think that was referring to the crowd and it was just the way Trump talks and he did not mean to imply he would go with them.

I don't think that matters. He did not tell them to go into the Capitol and he told them to be peaceful. I don't think you have thought through the outcome of this. It seems like you are saying that a person giving a speech to a crowd is responsible when some people in that crowd along with others not listening to the speech do something bad an hour later. Especially when some people claim they thought they were allowed to do that bad thing because some police opened some doors for them.