Double_R

There was no damage, no aggrieved party

Right, and the mob boss never told you he was going to come after your family. He did however express concern over the well being of their safety.

Your theory of coded language fails for this above many other reasons: It doesn't work when the addressed don't have the cipher.

You assert "it will be wild" must mean violence.

Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.

You agreed with it in this very thread.

I did not.

I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.

It is not irrelevant. It is evidence that the threat was not obvious, which goes to show that you're trying to rewrite history so that it appears obvious and inevitable that when Trump calls for a wild protest he must mean an attack. If it was so obvious, why is it that the entire left-tribe leadership failed to (in their erroneous view) 'protect democracy'?

I have said that he didn't call for violence, that he called for peace beforehand, that he didn't expect violence, and that violence was not part of his plan to save democracy.

I have not said that he didn't want violence. Everyone who is angry wants violence. It was clearly cathartic for him to see people were just as angry as he was.

It actually doesn't work when you realize Trump isn't losing to "uncommitted" within his own party.

Just a coincidence that these things were not crime until democrats got pissed at him

You're talking about Biden and his cult right?

How is that grand Biden campaign strategy going?

You're pointing to three words out of an hour long speech while also ignoring everything else he did and said over the prior two months.

He never told anyone to be violent. He did tell them to be peaceful.

Your assertion that telling them the election rigged is identical to calling for violence is rejected both on the face and due to double standards.

No I asked you "Why were they so unprepared". You gave a reason why they would not want to appear militarized, but that motivation doesn't outweigh the motivation of wanting to prevent a riot (if you assume they are honest).

Damned either way apparently. If he didn't offer you say its because he wanted an attack to succeed (somehow at something), if he did that proves he was expecting violence.

Well if I have a functioning brain with the most basic understanding of military matters I would know that you can't shove people out of a building unless you have similar numbers and if the hallways are all full it's impossible without people getting trampled to death.

There is also no point pretending you can instantly deploy more infantry. Even fast reaction aerial cavalry (chopper and osprey deployed) need to be on standby. Everything else but local police and whatever was there already would have taken hours. The metropolitan police went in at 2:24 PM. Shortly after there were people in full camo with combat helmets and M4s on the hill just forming a perimeter (so much for not appearing militarized). There was also a crowd control squad sitting over by the supreme court doing nothing.

So I would say fill the building with tear gas and wait for them to leave, but it wouldn't be my call because nobody on scene was actually under my command. If you're implying that words alone would have mattered

First rioter enters the building - 2:12 p.m

"Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!" - 2:38

That's 26 minutes. Not three hours. The reason the majority of people left is because congress left. Not Trump's tweet. Not tear gas. Not metro police.

Also, the most recent harvard/harris poll has Trump up 8 points EVEN IF TRUMP IS FOUND GUILTY of inciting the Jan 6 riot.

Why are you sad to admit what someone says in front of a camera doesn't represent actual negotiations? 

You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).

Never said nor implied this.

You did imply it. If "will be wild" isn't secret-speak for "violence" then it is irrelevant.

• It is therefore demonstrative of Trump's intent
  
• it was yet another indication to his followers that he was calling for violence
  

They said it at the Capitol genius.

Show me.

She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.

Another example of your unseriousness.

You drop the point.

Why would pointing out your double standards take away from my ability to prove my own standards?

Your arbitrary expectations for the ratio between urging peace and inflammatory (but not unequivocally violent) rhetoric are irrelevant.

but cannot provide a single example in any other scenario where your theory of communication makes any sense.

The theory of communication is that you don't get to pick the more obscure and contradictory interpretation because you need to GET TRUMP.

You know nothing about military solutions if you think that. The first step would be to bypass anyone you can't trust, get a platoon (personally by going to a base); have them ready, and then fire anyone who has ever shown a hint of questioning your orders or having any motivation to do so. Escort them to house arrest with your loyal soldiers.

The only option he had to steal the election was through the color of law, so he had to try this tactic of having his VP reject the electors.

That is the only option he planned for.

And he knew that violence on the 6th would have made that whole plot easier.

Why is that?

you're saying they cared about optics so they didn't want to militarize it like they did before (I bet whatever you're referring to is no more militarized than the capitol was on Jan 6).

That's a motivation not an explanation.

Here's a real question for you; Trump says he offered them 10,000 troops... Do you believe he did? Yes or No?

I think it's more likely than not that he mentioned something.

Even if that was true, it's one unreasonable plan vs another unreasonable plan.

It also ignores the fact that Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the violence which according to you he did not want and was taken by surprise. 

Well except for telling them to respect the police and go home.

Good luck walking into negotiations with foreign countries by being honest.

It’s entire purpose literally built on trust

Wrong. NATo is not weakened by a country being brow beat into contributing 2% of their GDP into their national defense. Nor is there any reason to distrust the United States if you do what you are told to do, and comply.

This is literally the same criticisms Trump would get for praising Kim Jung Un, because people are literally too stupid to know that threats only get you so much compliance and threats are much better if accompanied by a way to allow the leader to save face to his people, especially in asian or strong man culturess.

Right, never seen anything more exciting than a bunch of peaceful protesters making their voices heard.

I'll take that as acceptance of my answer.

Because we treat different things... Differently.

For instance black people are different than white people so we can treat them differently.

But/For Donald Trump's actions... There would have been no violence on January 6th.

It would have happened some other place and time. This is not a relevant difference.

You assume just as you assume without "it will be wild" there would be no violence at the capitol (or anywhere else).

I'll be able to do that just as soon as I can arrest them after pulling their text messages in a mass canvas, face them up against a jury of proud-boys, threaten them with ten years in prison, and imply that the only chance of lenience would be if they blame it all on Nancy Pelosi.

She did set a place: "all over the country", which fairly describes the place of the subsequent left-tribe violence.

If you actually believed in your position and thought you could defend it, you would have little use for attacking my "double standards".

Why is that?

What you call a false exculpatory is absolutely damning proof of this. If you want people to attack without telling them to attack it would be hard enough to get that message across much less sending mixed signals.

In Trump's mind there was still a chance to save democracy peacefully, and that was by congress rejecting electors. This fully explains why he organized a protest instead of trying to assemble loyalist from the military like anyone who wanted to use force to stay in power would have.

The right-tribe had not been violent before. Trump didn't expect it. Neither did the left-tribe. You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to ask the question: Why were they so unprepared?

Those are two opposing things. You cannot argue that Outcome A was a natural and permissible response and also that no one should have believed that Outcome A was the desired outcome.

Of course I can because there is temporal distance between them.

He is literally making moves to make NATO stronger by forcing them to contribute 2% of GDP 

Hypothetically, if Trump in 2020 asked the DOJ to assist in criminal investigations into Biden (let's for the moment forget Trump was impeached for doing that with Ukraine), would that make you dramatically support Biden less, or dramatically support Biden more?

said he would encourage Russia to attack our NATO...

This sounds like a partisan talking point and not an actual quote.

Your argument is basically that Trump supporters are cultists because they are wrong on a bunch of things. I could collect the same amount of things I believe to be ridiculous defenses of prominent Democrats and leftist ideals, but that doesn't suddenly make the people who believe those things "cultists." To understate: A real cult has a bit more going on than just incorrect beliefs.

Can you explain how Trump's "will be wild" comment was anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?

Yes

A wild event can be an exciting event:

Can you explain how "uprisings all the time" is anything other than an allusion to violence? Yes or No?

I have said repeatedly now that anyone who rioted or looted in the summer of 2020 should be locked the fuck up

But you have not said nancy pelosi or maxene waters should be held responsible.

She didn't say "should" and neither did Trump. She predicted violence and said you have to be ready for to throw a punch.

You speak as if we agree on what bad behavior is.

There is no point comparing moral frameworks until both are internally consistent. If one is not internally consistent it's clearly wrong regardless of any other frameworks.

That is why I always attack double standards first.

Now even if Trump had said "Go my minions, attack! Show no mercy!" That would make him responsible for the attack, but it would not make him morally responsible for the evils that result from the attack.

In order to know that you would have to know that no other necessary condition was a violation of rights. In this case the necessary condition of Jan 6 was the rigging of the election which was a violation of social contract. No cause that comes after that aggression can shift the blame.

If results = being praised by other so called experts then that means nothing.

You would know, but the lack of substance remains.

For instance when you ask an expert why they were wrong about something they give you the logical error or the bad data that they relied upon. When you ask a pseudo-expert they scoff and walk away.

I would say I'm an expert and recognizing the difference between experts and pseudo-experts.

My god dude. Pay attention.

This one particular point isn't even about incitement. Right now, we are talking about Trump's "will be wild" comments. Specifically, we are talking about whether those comments were an allusion to violence. That matters in this conversation because it demonstrates Trump's intent, which is an important element of whether he should be held responsible and to what degree.

Responsible for.... _______?

that "it will be wild" predicts violence and further that a prediction of violence is endorsement of violence and an endorsement of violence is incitement, and incitement of a riot is insurrection.

You can hardly enter a thread with this title, claim for pages that someone incited something and act surprised when someone assumes you're talking about inciting an insurrection.

It changes nothing. Left-tribe leaders have used violent rhetoric and predicted violence far more often, with more clarity, and with no "false exculpatories". If Trump is somehow morally or criminally responsible for the behavior of right-tribe rioters then so are left-tribe leaders.

If someone does something you think is unhealthy and they think is healthy, would you force therapy?

If someone does something you think is healthy, but they think is unhealthy, would you allow therapy?

Liberty says that if a homosexual wants to consult with someone to try and change sexual orientation (or anyone wants to consult with anyone to change anything about themselves) they have that right.

given that psychologists have proven themselves clueless again and again I would say we don't need to answer that question because there is no science to consider.

Also, context matters. When we're talking about gays/ trans people we're talking about people making choices for themselves.

No we aren't, unless you suggest they choose to be gay/trans, in which case you're backpedalling on the very basis of what you're saying in the first place.

Is [de-conversion therapy] wrong to insist on the l.g.b.t.?

Nope, I didn't say a pedo or animal luster acting on it (nor did I rule that out), I said the very lust in itself.

Pedos and animal fuckers especially come under this in a way you're alluding to being wrong.

The mind that's attracted to that is no different in helplessness to the mind attracted to one's own gender or that believes it's in a wrong body.

Your logic is to never impose on people a conversion they don't themselves innately want

if gays or trans people want it then what?

So your theory is that you can predict violence and that's not incitement but only when there is no date attached?

If there is a date attached, now it's incitement?

So how do you respond? By pointing out that the individual making the uprising claim was speaking to someone, just like Trump. Wow, good one.

You said:

[Double_R] That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.

That's a bit silly and I pointed that out.

It's the notion that you can throw "context" out like a pokemon card and then you don't have to find a defamatory statement that continues to simultaneously disgust and amuse me.

And I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point?

My point is clearly and repeatedly to apply the standards you imply to the big picture instead of the narrow targets you intend.

Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe.

Yet you don't consider them insurrectionists despite many meeting the definition you imply.

The fact that she used the word insist already refutes that we're talking about anyone who wants to go through it.

She (taking your word on gender) said 'insist' about LGBT. Not the therapy.

II don't want to be disrespectful but I stopped reading here because I provided an example and you just said "outlier" I could provide 10 more and you would say the same thing

I find it hard that this thing that has been all over the media you haven't seen because right-wing sites will actually show pictures from the books. All I can think of is that you are a partisan hack that only follows left wing sources. 

I think you re aware of he indoctrination taking place and being disingenuous when you claim to not notice that California is passing laws that allow teachers to socially transition children or noticed that youtube is getting millions of views from a song about how "Yes we are coming for your kids". https://youtu.be/ArOQF4kadHA?si=FwcFYnbNJfOG3Zwt

I am sure you have seen children shows that are now shifting to promote trans ideology. 

Different people have different values. You don't want your kid hearing that Jesus died on the cross for his sins in school and I don't want mine picking up a book in the school library where I have to explain an image he is swwing of 2 guys sucking each others cocks, or even descriptions of that. 

It doesn't matter if it is technically porn.

What matters is having some level of respect for other members of the community.

It's just a kind of tradition to address no one by by standing at a podium and talking to a camera transmitting to millions.

Pointing out your double standards is not whataboutism.

Your theory is that people who broke windows would also harm people.

Under that theory BLM riots contained tens of thousands of assassins

You can run, but you can't hide. The left-tribe is worse on violence.

That's why you lose every single point of comparison.

You can't utter a single principle that doesn't incriminate the left-tribe more, and I'm not even close to being tired of [strawmanning your position] so please try again.

While people have the individual right to make piss poor decisions, they DO NOT have the right to force those decisions onto EVERYONE!!!!

And that is exactly what the left is doing through the force of politics, laws, and public leftist intolerant violent rhetoric, doxing and threats (and violent actions, too). 

This applies to all people you change in ways you deem better that isn't how they naturally are. You have an assumption that no gays and lesbians etc want to be turned straight and also have an assumptions that all pedos and bestiality people do, this is my point.

And yet there are thousands of school administrators doing it everyday and then when conservatives make laws to prevent it, the left throws hissy fits. 

If it is rare, what is with the backlash against schools that choose not to have porn available for children?

I've also seen what many conservatives are calling porn. In some cases it's just a guy dressed up in drag.

There it is. You literally defending showing children porn by downplaying it as books about drag queens and not what it actually is in most cases.

How many isolayedincidents do you need to make it a pattern 

why attack laws that prevent teachers from showing kids porn if it isn't common or the intent of the left to do so?

Beyond that Don't talk to me until you watch ops documentary. It's ridiculous that I can listen to 10 hours of the lefts best arguments on a weekly basis but you refuse to watch a single 2 hour documentary 

De-conversion therapy is trying to fix the transgender regret.

The ones that insist on de-conversion therapy are the ones that are helping those that are seeking the help for the therapy.

Do you support those that transition as well as those that reverse the transition?

This is simply false, all job training and correction of prisoners comes to mind.

Pedos and animal fuckers especially come under this in a way you're alluding to being wrong.

If "will be wild" is an allusion to violence. "uprisings all the time" is 5X allusion to violence.

Your theory allows for incoherent people but you would not allow that people thought protesting would change the behavior of politicians because it was too irrational to think such a thing. Mmmm

They didn't beat up police for the sake of beating up police, they beat through police. Any police who got out the way had nothing to worry about.

It's no longer amusing to point out your obvious strawmen.

Great argument as to how Trump's "will be wild" comment was not a clear indication of violence.

It's a great argument about yardsticks. You decide how pearl clutchy you want to be, I'm just keeping you honest

I already rank those historians as the worst historians of this decade

And your theory on that is that they thought yelling at Congress or Pence would cause them to change their minds.

That is the theory of protests.

You have put forth a theory of motivation that requires there are no better explanations, and there are. I don't need to prove those other explanations for them to be better explanations than your zero evidence theory.

Is it wrong to insist on the l.g.b.t.?

Particularly to transgenders being that they regret the decisions made .

The point to sexualize them is about spreading Marxist ideology. Marxists are against the traditional family unit because it gets in the way of making the government the authority. The same reason for the anti religious impulse. 

Why do I know this? I was a Marxist. 

I watch bread tube and I never see these people criticize showing children porn.

Which is all irrelevant to the discission.

It is not if they believed it was possible and they did.

So out of control that they set things on fire, causing the demonstration to be fiery in a literal sense. Oh wait, they didn't set anything on fire, that was the left.... using fire bombs they made with premeditation, and then it was called fiery but mostly peaceful by left-tribe propagandists as the flames blazed high.

Yep, these sure are tangled knots I'm tying. I wonder if forty years from now historians will scour the internet and interview people and you'll be asked if you really believed what you were typing.

No Vice President is going to change their mind on whether they should certify the United States presidential election

What if that vice president was named Donald Trump? Steve Bannon? Kari Lake?

Right, 10 Trump supporters who managed to injure 140 Capitol police officers.

and murder half the population of the world with fire extinguishers as well as turning Nancy Pelosi into a newt (it got better).

but you have no right to indoctrinate my kids into your religion any more than I would someone else’s.

I literally posted a video of a principal saying outright that it is okay to show porn to 8 year olds.

IF congress rejected the electors and states choose new electors there would be genuine elections again.

Thus elections would no longer be rigged.

have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?

I've heard of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations.

Uh huh, and they needed to be violent to delay the counting?

I have a simpler theory: Pence sees giant crowd chanting, thinks he has no choice but to obey the people, and reject the electors.

If you really believe the people who beat up police officers

All 10 of them

We don't oppose sex Ed. I speak for all of us. We oppose grooming.

You said yourself that the conclusion to the totality of Trump's words/actions lead to the conclusion that he was calling for violence

I did not. You did make believe with me like you do for Trump.

Do you have any other defense of his speech then since we agree that it was contradictory for him to argue he wanted them to be peaceful

"we" I never agreed to that. I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.

That does not mean anyone who questions election validity has incited a rebellion. If it did then the democrats still started it (1860, 2000, 2016 take your pick)

and Trump is a very stable genius for knowing how to manipulate mobs but also a complete moron for thinking if you tie up Nancy Pelosi a new election will be organized. 

You can't be serious.

I am.

I've already made clear that anyone who was guilty of this should have been locked the fuck up.

But you don't think those who lied to them should be locked the fuck up. That is the double standard.

You're rewriting history because history proves you have double standards. "Illegitimate" does not mean "Russian tweets make us upset".

I understand what you are claiming. It's just a non-sequitur.

"If I don't think somebody is sending a clear and logical message then I get to make up a secret meaning and hold someone responsible for the secret meaning"

Still some people are insane (or pretend to be for political advantage). There was that guy with the zip ties, what was his plan? Tie up Pelosi till she agreed to a new secure election? If people wanted to hold congress hostage they wouldn't have left the guns behind.

The only general plan was to get to the gallery and scream at congress

This is significantly less absurd than the BLM rioters cleaning out electronics store "for racial justice". Still the insane media propaganda smirked and said "A riot is the language of the unheard."

You assume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_baseball_shooting

https://rollcall.com/2017/06/14/james-hodgkinson-had-been-frequent-critic-of-gop/

In a letter from July 2012, he describes MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” as his favorite TV program.

Guess what Maddow talked about constantly in 2017?

I do find it interesting that you're basically claiming democrat claims of illegitimate elections are irrelevant because they're obviously lying. Bold strategy

That's not what we mean when we say Biden didn't win the presidency. We mean the election was illegitimate, not that results weren't announced and treated as real by the people with guns. That is exactly what many left-tribers believed and exactly what the rhetoric https://gop.com/video/12-minutes-of-democrats-denying-election-results/ would lead them to believe.

If it is a logically absurd message, then it is not a message at all.

If it's not a message, it's not a message of violence.

If "They're stealing our elections" is the 99% that is the opposite of "peacefully" then democrats "our democracy is in danger" = 100% with no "peacefully".

And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd.

They attacked the white house instead.

Do you know what stochastic terrorism is?

A deep state concept meant to justify censorship.

Donald Trump is the greatest president.

Trump's superpower is that he is the only person not calling his supporters "deplorable" or "ultra MAGA extremists"

Of course it is. No means no. Everyone has to attend those seminars.

Or you could gaslight people into thinking no actually means yes and see how that goes for them.....

And yet no one attacked the US Capitol on January 6th 2017. How odd

No, the left-tribe violently protested other days, most recently over Joe's Gaza genocide.

You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Not all people that were violent on Jan 6 were even Trump supporters, and not all Trump supporters were violent, but don't let that stop you from being hypocritical about mislabeling groups and people in the most demagoguery partisan hack fashion....

And who decides what stories the mass media shows? You are right, it is not arbitrary. Very rich people pay a lot of money to manufacture outrage and to make sure the public isn't TOOupset about actual problems that they might be exposed to outside of that well constructed propaganda.

which btw includes a lot of right wingers pretending to be BLM rioters

Yep, just like those antifa/FBI infiltrators.

So either the left-tribe rioters are professional criminals and know how to hide from authorities or there was no witch hunt which was so draconian that non-violent 69 year olds got remanded.

I do defend violence against the government if it has a chance of working, but its your standards (or the lack thereof) that is being discussed.

The purported vice president Kamela Harris implied she would kill her political rivals in an elevator.

If you were honest you would admit you could also fill in like 30 people instead of just "Trump".

In both cases media personalities and politicians delivered the message and the people got angry because they believed it. In both cases the average believer would say they had good reasons to believe it besides hearing it from a politician.