I'm basically surprised that you even have to ask this question. The video clips are widely available on the internet. Anyone who understands public speaking and rhetoric can hear and understand exactly what President Trump said.
My opinion is that President Trump clearly incited a violence prone riot.
Why not watch the videos and hear and see for yourself?
It's a more subtle sort of trolling than most, but what they're asking for is proof that Trump said during his speech, "Right, everyone here go to the Capitol, kick the shit out of the cops and force your way through the crowd barriers. Then head up the steps and figure out some way to break into the Capitol. Once you're inside, do whatever the hell you want, but make sure the Electoral College vote tally is stopped. If you can, get hold of the certificates from the states, and destroy them."
Of course, he said no such thing. And in what passes for the minds of Trump cultists, that proves he didn't instigate what happened. For them, every lie Trump has told about elections in the USA since 2015 is the truth. His constant, evidence-free ranting about the results of the last election is all the proof they need that he was robbed of the presidency. The fact that he didn't immediately get on Fox and start Tweeting that the violence had to stop and he wanted the mob to back off is completely insignificant.
A large chunk of the American public clearly wants to believe - in spite of all evidence to the contrary - that Trump is a good man who always tells the truth and has their best interests at heart. Such people haven't a clue about the tricks authoritarian populists use to rile up crowds. If they did, they would never have supported Trump in the first place, since they would have been able to see that he has always been an ignorant, narcissistic, manipulative asshole who uses people for his own ends.
So we just went through the 2020 riots that claimed 30+ lives, children included, livelihoods utterly destroyed, reports of women raped in the CHAZ but due to cops not being able to get in could not do anything about it, and some poor dude was burned to a crisp in a property that was burned down. The democrat leaders and blue check marks continued to not only condone the unrest that resulted in such heinous acts but also told them to continue with the unrest that resulted in those crimes.
Nick Sandman, a kid that smiled while wearing a Maga hat had celebrities and all the blue check marks literally telling people not only to dox the kid but to physically harm the kid, nothing happened to them.
Kathy Griffin literally held a fake decapitated Trump head, a clear message, and nothing happened to her.
Let's not forget the fuckin' ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT in the early days who barely got any fucking punishment at all, and you're going to try and claim the wild shit about Trump's side being the fucked ones?
You won't do or say fuck all about that but I'm supposed to sit here and believe this bullshit idea that Trump called for what happened at Capitol Hill instead of simply alluding to protesting there? You literally have to pull that shit out of thin-air to make such assersions, meanwhile we have documented proof of Democrats ACTUALLY doing the shit you're claiming Trump did which cause far more suffering.
He said no such thing because he didn't want them to do such a thing.
Also, "evidence-free". Just stfu. There's no way that at this point you haven't seen the evidence brought forward to question the legitimacy of the vote count, which means you're blatantly lying.
Then you go on about some fuckin' spiel about authoritarianism from the position of supporting the establishment. My dude, right now they're doing everything they can to ensure that platforms can't be used for people with different opinions from the establishment, they're right now booting people off of platforms and trying to destroy the platforms those booted people flock to in order to still have any ability to take part in the dialogue. You're not the fuckin' good guys in this and the fact your dumbass can watch all this shit happen, watch the establishment that YOU support crack down on people to ensure they can't take part on the online dialogue so that THEY have control over the dialogue is fuckin' astounding.
So please shut the fuck up, my dude. I can deal with shitheads like you being wrong but to be so fuckin' pompous in the process, to think you're the underdog fighting for good while doing fucking EVERYTHING to fuck people over from the position of the establishment is astounding.
Don't think I won't notice you not responding to this either, shithead.
Haha. Wow. Boojum made a similar point to the one I made with you: You're not going to accept anything less than, "This is Trump. Make sure the cameras are rolling as I unquestionably incite an attack. I am encouraging you to break the law. I am committing impeachable offenses. I repeat, I am inciting an attack on the Capitol. I, Donald Trump, am the one inciting an attack."
To be honest, even then you'd probably claim it was CGI because you're a brainwashed cultist.
You're right. He's probably not going to respond because he's above you and likely long realized you're too stupid to actually be persuaded, which renders debates with you mere arguments. I'm getting pretty close to it myself. As you're unfazed by facts, the only real reason to engage with you is to fact-check your various false claims for the benefit of other potential readers.
Noticing a trend now. I've irked you. I like arguing and debating, this is a passtime for me, demonstrating why you're braindead is just a bonus.
Boojum made similar points to you which is why Boojum also dropped any attempt at responding to defend his position after I responded. It's why your replies are becoming more frequent yet has far less actual arguments in them because you're too prideful without the capability to justify that pride, which is why you can't demonstrate why I'm wrong and somehow think just saying I'm wrong is a step-up.
Yup. I'm not going to accept anything that any reasonable person can refute. Trump stated to do actions that run counter to violence and Rudy referenced a "trial by combat" in regards to legal battles. The reason why you're too much of a dumb dumb to realize that context matters and that you can't just claim someone's intent based on another party's later actions is because counter to what you think of me, it is actually you that is in a cult, which is why I can rationalize and refute your arguments AND call you a cultist while you can only do the latter with the pitiful cries of, "What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?! :'(". Language matters, shithead.
Nah, not CGI. I can explain it and I did, you're just too low-tier to realize I can watch the source of the quotes you're referencing and then explain that here where you have to either shut up and realize you're stupid or foolishly try to deny what I can literally link you to right here.
Ah, I getcha. He's not going to respond because he's better. How convenient. Almost as convenient as how you are trying so hard to argue the point here while trying to explain you don't have to argue the point so that you can just say "I'm right, you're wrong, Lalalalalalalalala". "It's not that I can't defend my position, it's that I'm better!"...Man, you weren't told to stfu enough as a kid, were you?
Please do feel free to not respond to me, like you did after I demonstrated that simply being able to link studies doesn't mean you know how to use them properly, ya dumbfuck. Haha. Anyway, feel free to ignore me. I didn't come to you looking to flex, it is you that came to me. You were so eager to pop in and tell me what's what, and now I've got you in a state of not even forming an argument and just trying to tell me I'm wrong. You came to me, and it looks like I've slapped you the fuck away from me.
Don't come back. It doesn't change, I can and will continue to demonstrate why you're a dumbfuck every single time you reply to me so do yourself the favor and don't respond to me, like you alluded to possibly doing.
Your frustration in dealing with my inured points is understandable, so naturally how appealing the thought of no longer having to is as transparent as it is.
You strike me as someone who could be punched and shout, "And don't come back or I'll headbutt your fist again! I totally kicked your ass!"
No matter how often your false assertions of having demonstrated something, they will never manifest so as to constitute reality.
Quite to the contrary, a great deal of your statements are demonstrably either a red herring, straw man, or ad hominem. The rest are just silly.
"Yup."
So your position is indeed that it's not possible to incite violence without directly specifying that it's what you're doing? One can't instill an emotion in someone else and indirectly manipulate them? If that's really your position then we can't really go any further regarding that point but it's clear to any reasonable person that it's just foolish and naive, abundantly so. You repeatedly claim we haven't defended our position but our position has been made clear and is defended by this sort of thing having been recorded in history: One can indirectly instigate a riot and it appears to us that it's what Trump did.
"What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?!"
I'll take it. Absolutely. If you don't think it's possible to less directly instigate things then frankly you're insanely naive.
As for CGI, I said that's what you'd claim /if/ Trump had directly asked for violence. Pay attention.
Since you brought up the studies here, I'll go ahead and respond to our other thread here and keep this all in one place. You claim I don't know how to use the studies I cited. Well, I do, but frankly even if I didn't, candidates more likely to know how to than either of us would be the scientists who conducted the studies and the researchers thereof, and I think their conclusion was rather clear, wasn't it? Tended to be the headline, huh? Stressing the minute consolation prizes for conservatives, which do exist, doesn't detract from the primary takeaway of the studies, which was, no matter how little you like it, that the higher a child's IQ is the more likely they are to lean left later in life. If you can't see that plain as day then you're in denial or it's in fact /you/ who can't use the studies. I've literally never seen anyone even attempt to pretend it's not the takeaway as if the sky wasn't blue, only to attempt to rationalize the reasons for the disparity in a less damaging way.
Again, yes, it's thought to primarily relate to social conservatism much more than economic conservatism, and no, that wasn't a detail I attempted to obscure as I presented this to you precisely /because/ you are socially conservative. None of this was ever about economics. I know tons of intelligent fiscal conservatives but have only met two highly intelligent social conservatives in my entire life. They're a horrible type of person as they can't even blame their behavior on their ignorance like most Trump supporters can.
1. You're the one contemplating not responding, not me. Nice try.
2. I guess you must be right. I must be a weakling unable to fight, I mean I couldn't possibly be not only smarter but stronger than you, that would just be absurd. Also, "Headbutt your face"? As opposed to headbutting their leg or something? Have you even been in a fight before with those Jackie Chan moves?
3. Blah, blah, blah, more vagaries about how I'm wrong without actually explaining how, blah, blah.
4. Again, blah blah, red herring, ad hom, no specific points of mine you're ascribing such fallacies to, blah, blah.
5. If someone has worked you up to do a very specific, non-criminal act and you then oppose what that person told you to do to then engage in criminal acts, then no, you cannot pin incitement to violence on such a person. Trump told them to do a specific thing and they deviated from that instruction.
6. Look up the definition of the word incitement. Yes, he has to specifically provoke them into unlawful behaviour. If you cannot quote him doing such then you cannot claim as such. You don't get to claim a fictional scenario is reality.
7. CGI. Omg. Why are you this dense to not realize?
8. Nope. I've responded to your studies in-full on the other thread. Go there and reply. You don't get to just ignore my entire response to your studies and then bring the topic back up as if you don't have rebuttals already waiting for you, which you ignored. Address my arguments there, I'm not typing a rebuttal up again for you to ignore just so you can bring the topic up later on and pretend the rebuttals you can't address don't already exist. They're waiting for you.
9. You had no idea who I was or my beliefs, you still don't. So for you to claim you brought those studies up specifically to apply them to me, a person who's views you don't even know, and claim that was the original purpose for you sharing those studies when we can just go back to the conversation to demonstrate how much bullshittery you're talking demonstrates that you're the lone fish in the barrel, bouncing about the place finding some way out of the dumbfuck barrel you landed yourself in.
Question.
Since you believe "working people up" is the same as inciting violence do you believe that any and all calls for protest towards sensitive topics that would evoke negative emotions from the listener as incitement to violence"? If not, why not?
What did Trump say to incite his supporters to storm Capitol?
← View full post
I'm basically surprised that you even have to ask this question. The video clips are widely available on the internet. Anyone who understands public speaking and rhetoric can hear and understand exactly what President Trump said.
My opinion is that President Trump clearly incited a violence prone riot.
Why not watch the videos and hear and see for yourself?
--
Boojum
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
I strongly suspect that the OP is trolling.
It's a more subtle sort of trolling than most, but what they're asking for is proof that Trump said during his speech, "Right, everyone here go to the Capitol, kick the shit out of the cops and force your way through the crowd barriers. Then head up the steps and figure out some way to break into the Capitol. Once you're inside, do whatever the hell you want, but make sure the Electoral College vote tally is stopped. If you can, get hold of the certificates from the states, and destroy them."
Of course, he said no such thing. And in what passes for the minds of Trump cultists, that proves he didn't instigate what happened. For them, every lie Trump has told about elections in the USA since 2015 is the truth. His constant, evidence-free ranting about the results of the last election is all the proof they need that he was robbed of the presidency. The fact that he didn't immediately get on Fox and start Tweeting that the violence had to stop and he wanted the mob to back off is completely insignificant.
A large chunk of the American public clearly wants to believe - in spite of all evidence to the contrary - that Trump is a good man who always tells the truth and has their best interests at heart. Such people haven't a clue about the tricks authoritarian populists use to rile up crowds. If they did, they would never have supported Trump in the first place, since they would have been able to see that he has always been an ignorant, narcissistic, manipulative asshole who uses people for his own ends.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
You're astounding, Boojum.
So we just went through the 2020 riots that claimed 30+ lives, children included, livelihoods utterly destroyed, reports of women raped in the CHAZ but due to cops not being able to get in could not do anything about it, and some poor dude was burned to a crisp in a property that was burned down. The democrat leaders and blue check marks continued to not only condone the unrest that resulted in such heinous acts but also told them to continue with the unrest that resulted in those crimes.
Nick Sandman, a kid that smiled while wearing a Maga hat had celebrities and all the blue check marks literally telling people not only to dox the kid but to physically harm the kid, nothing happened to them.
Kathy Griffin literally held a fake decapitated Trump head, a clear message, and nothing happened to her.
Let's not forget the fuckin' ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT in the early days who barely got any fucking punishment at all, and you're going to try and claim the wild shit about Trump's side being the fucked ones?
You won't do or say fuck all about that but I'm supposed to sit here and believe this bullshit idea that Trump called for what happened at Capitol Hill instead of simply alluding to protesting there? You literally have to pull that shit out of thin-air to make such assersions, meanwhile we have documented proof of Democrats ACTUALLY doing the shit you're claiming Trump did which cause far more suffering.
He said no such thing because he didn't want them to do such a thing.
Also, "evidence-free". Just stfu. There's no way that at this point you haven't seen the evidence brought forward to question the legitimacy of the vote count, which means you're blatantly lying.
Then you go on about some fuckin' spiel about authoritarianism from the position of supporting the establishment. My dude, right now they're doing everything they can to ensure that platforms can't be used for people with different opinions from the establishment, they're right now booting people off of platforms and trying to destroy the platforms those booted people flock to in order to still have any ability to take part in the dialogue. You're not the fuckin' good guys in this and the fact your dumbass can watch all this shit happen, watch the establishment that YOU support crack down on people to ensure they can't take part on the online dialogue so that THEY have control over the dialogue is fuckin' astounding.
So please shut the fuck up, my dude. I can deal with shitheads like you being wrong but to be so fuckin' pompous in the process, to think you're the underdog fighting for good while doing fucking EVERYTHING to fuck people over from the position of the establishment is astounding.
Don't think I won't notice you not responding to this either, shithead.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
SmokeEverything
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Haha. Wow. Boojum made a similar point to the one I made with you: You're not going to accept anything less than, "This is Trump. Make sure the cameras are rolling as I unquestionably incite an attack. I am encouraging you to break the law. I am committing impeachable offenses. I repeat, I am inciting an attack on the Capitol. I, Donald Trump, am the one inciting an attack."
To be honest, even then you'd probably claim it was CGI because you're a brainwashed cultist.
You're right. He's probably not going to respond because he's above you and likely long realized you're too stupid to actually be persuaded, which renders debates with you mere arguments. I'm getting pretty close to it myself. As you're unfazed by facts, the only real reason to engage with you is to fact-check your various false claims for the benefit of other potential readers.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Noticing a trend now. I've irked you. I like arguing and debating, this is a passtime for me, demonstrating why you're braindead is just a bonus.
Boojum made similar points to you which is why Boojum also dropped any attempt at responding to defend his position after I responded. It's why your replies are becoming more frequent yet has far less actual arguments in them because you're too prideful without the capability to justify that pride, which is why you can't demonstrate why I'm wrong and somehow think just saying I'm wrong is a step-up.
Yup. I'm not going to accept anything that any reasonable person can refute. Trump stated to do actions that run counter to violence and Rudy referenced a "trial by combat" in regards to legal battles. The reason why you're too much of a dumb dumb to realize that context matters and that you can't just claim someone's intent based on another party's later actions is because counter to what you think of me, it is actually you that is in a cult, which is why I can rationalize and refute your arguments AND call you a cultist while you can only do the latter with the pitiful cries of, "What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?! :'(". Language matters, shithead.
Nah, not CGI. I can explain it and I did, you're just too low-tier to realize I can watch the source of the quotes you're referencing and then explain that here where you have to either shut up and realize you're stupid or foolishly try to deny what I can literally link you to right here.
Ah, I getcha. He's not going to respond because he's better. How convenient. Almost as convenient as how you are trying so hard to argue the point here while trying to explain you don't have to argue the point so that you can just say "I'm right, you're wrong, Lalalalalalalalala". "It's not that I can't defend my position, it's that I'm better!"...Man, you weren't told to stfu enough as a kid, were you?
Please do feel free to not respond to me, like you did after I demonstrated that simply being able to link studies doesn't mean you know how to use them properly, ya dumbfuck. Haha. Anyway, feel free to ignore me. I didn't come to you looking to flex, it is you that came to me. You were so eager to pop in and tell me what's what, and now I've got you in a state of not even forming an argument and just trying to tell me I'm wrong. You came to me, and it looks like I've slapped you the fuck away from me.
Don't come back. It doesn't change, I can and will continue to demonstrate why you're a dumbfuck every single time you reply to me so do yourself the favor and don't respond to me, like you alluded to possibly doing.
--
S0UNDS_WEIRD
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Your frustration in dealing with my inured points is understandable, so naturally how appealing the thought of no longer having to is as transparent as it is.
You strike me as someone who could be punched and shout, "And don't come back or I'll headbutt your fist again! I totally kicked your ass!"
No matter how often your false assertions of having demonstrated something, they will never manifest so as to constitute reality.
Quite to the contrary, a great deal of your statements are demonstrably either a red herring, straw man, or ad hominem. The rest are just silly.
"Yup."
So your position is indeed that it's not possible to incite violence without directly specifying that it's what you're doing? One can't instill an emotion in someone else and indirectly manipulate them? If that's really your position then we can't really go any further regarding that point but it's clear to any reasonable person that it's just foolish and naive, abundantly so. You repeatedly claim we haven't defended our position but our position has been made clear and is defended by this sort of thing having been recorded in history: One can indirectly instigate a riot and it appears to us that it's what Trump did.
"What do you mean he has to actually instruct people to violence for it to be incitement to violence?!"
I'll take it. Absolutely. If you don't think it's possible to less directly instigate things then frankly you're insanely naive.
As for CGI, I said that's what you'd claim /if/ Trump had directly asked for violence. Pay attention.
Since you brought up the studies here, I'll go ahead and respond to our other thread here and keep this all in one place. You claim I don't know how to use the studies I cited. Well, I do, but frankly even if I didn't, candidates more likely to know how to than either of us would be the scientists who conducted the studies and the researchers thereof, and I think their conclusion was rather clear, wasn't it? Tended to be the headline, huh? Stressing the minute consolation prizes for conservatives, which do exist, doesn't detract from the primary takeaway of the studies, which was, no matter how little you like it, that the higher a child's IQ is the more likely they are to lean left later in life. If you can't see that plain as day then you're in denial or it's in fact /you/ who can't use the studies. I've literally never seen anyone even attempt to pretend it's not the takeaway as if the sky wasn't blue, only to attempt to rationalize the reasons for the disparity in a less damaging way.
Again, yes, it's thought to primarily relate to social conservatism much more than economic conservatism, and no, that wasn't a detail I attempted to obscure as I presented this to you precisely /because/ you are socially conservative. None of this was ever about economics. I know tons of intelligent fiscal conservatives but have only met two highly intelligent social conservatives in my entire life. They're a horrible type of person as they can't even blame their behavior on their ignorance like most Trump supporters can.
--
[Old Memory]
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
See More Comments =>
1. You're the one contemplating not responding, not me. Nice try.
2. I guess you must be right. I must be a weakling unable to fight, I mean I couldn't possibly be not only smarter but stronger than you, that would just be absurd. Also, "Headbutt your face"? As opposed to headbutting their leg or something? Have you even been in a fight before with those Jackie Chan moves?
3. Blah, blah, blah, more vagaries about how I'm wrong without actually explaining how, blah, blah.
4. Again, blah blah, red herring, ad hom, no specific points of mine you're ascribing such fallacies to, blah, blah.
5. If someone has worked you up to do a very specific, non-criminal act and you then oppose what that person told you to do to then engage in criminal acts, then no, you cannot pin incitement to violence on such a person. Trump told them to do a specific thing and they deviated from that instruction.
6. Look up the definition of the word incitement. Yes, he has to specifically provoke them into unlawful behaviour. If you cannot quote him doing such then you cannot claim as such. You don't get to claim a fictional scenario is reality.
7. CGI. Omg. Why are you this dense to not realize?
8. Nope. I've responded to your studies in-full on the other thread. Go there and reply. You don't get to just ignore my entire response to your studies and then bring the topic back up as if you don't have rebuttals already waiting for you, which you ignored. Address my arguments there, I'm not typing a rebuttal up again for you to ignore just so you can bring the topic up later on and pretend the rebuttals you can't address don't already exist. They're waiting for you.
9. You had no idea who I was or my beliefs, you still don't. So for you to claim you brought those studies up specifically to apply them to me, a person who's views you don't even know, and claim that was the original purpose for you sharing those studies when we can just go back to the conversation to demonstrate how much bullshittery you're talking demonstrates that you're the lone fish in the barrel, bouncing about the place finding some way out of the dumbfuck barrel you landed yourself in.
Question.
Since you believe "working people up" is the same as inciting violence do you believe that any and all calls for protest towards sensitive topics that would evoke negative emotions from the listener as incitement to violence"? If not, why not?
Im just dropping by to say how really truly sad it is that people still think either political party exists to help them.