Author Topic: More incitement?  (Read 296 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
More incitement?
« on: September 17, 2022, 02:24:47 PM »
Quote
Hewitt asked Trump what he meant by “problems.”

“I think they’d have big problems. Big problems. I just don’t think they’d stand for it. They will not sit still and stand for this ultimate of hoaxes,” Trump said.

It’s not the first time Republicans have hinted at potential civil unrest if the DOJ indicts Trump. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines last month when he said there would be “riots in the street” if “there is a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information.” Graham’s comments were slammed as “irresponsible” and “shameful.” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, without naming the South Carolina senator, said these comments from “extreme Republicans” were “dangerous.”

Hewitt appeared to see Trump’s comments as a nod toward potential unrest, asking the former president how he would respond when the “legacy media” accuses him of inciting violence.

“That’s not inciting. I’m just saying what my opinion is,” Trump said. “I don’t think the people of this country would stand for it.”

Is it incitement? What would happen if a Democrat said that BLM riots were likely if another cop murders somebody? Would it be a warning, or encouragement. I'm a little on the fence about this. I think it is all in their tone, less than the words. They're not saying "I'm worried people might react this way." They're saying "the people would be justified to react this way". At least that's the way it feels to me. I'm sure we could find some Democrats using parallel language with respect to riots, but it isn't Chuck Schumer or other Senators, AFAIK.

Grant

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #1 on: September 17, 2022, 04:07:40 PM »

Is it incitement? What would happen if a Democrat said that BLM riots were likely if another cop murders somebody? Would it be a warning, or encouragement. I'm a little on the fence about this. I think it is all in their tone, less than the words. They're not saying "I'm worried people might react this way." They're saying "the people would be justified to react this way". At least that's the way it feels to me. I'm sure we could find some Democrats using parallel language with respect to riots, but it isn't Chuck Schumer or other Senators, AFAIK.

I dunno.  I know that given that MAGA is basically His Highnoss The Great Declassifier's followers, and given his sway over them, the responsible thing to do is to say that rioting SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.  That rioting would be WRONG.  A believer in the justice system and the rule of law should communicate this to their followers and that rioting is illegal. 

BLM isn't really attached to a particular politician so not sure if any of them would make a difference. Though it would help if Democrat politicians actually did instead of sympathizing.  Part of the crux of BLM is that the justice system does NOT work, and that the rule of law is a farce and part of a systemically racist system, so I'm not sure if I expect them to be anything but they are.

I think the way MAGA looks at it, is that if BLM can do wrong, they should be able to do wrong as well.  It's a good argument that selective execution of the law encourages criminal activity.  Nevertheless, it does not absolve a person from criminal activity.  At least not in my eyes.  I bet a good lawyer might be able to make a case and get somebody off. 

Now, my take is that Lord L'Orange Defender of Amurica is indeed not a responsible individual.  That he really doesn't believe in the justice system, or really any concept of justice that I would recognize as such (though he's not alone in this).  Given this, and given his statement, I am not really as struck by the concept of incitement as I am of a clear threat against the Department of Justice.  The statement, "If you prosecute me, my followers would riot", seems to me to be a clear threat against the government. 

I think the threat is serious.  I see enough people already crapping themselves, who are far from MAGA on the right.  They might be called Conservative Nationalists, but they're a bit mellow compared to some. They don't love Trump.  They love what he represented in their eyes.  Some kind of RETURN to goodness and greatness and common sense and justice.  But they are more scared of the country being "torn apart" then they are of what happens when you let a thug who has a mob dictate justice to the people. 

I mean, I think the incitement is still to come.  This is just the threat section.


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2022, 04:51:21 PM »
This is Trump walking into a store and saying "Wouldn't it terrible if something bad happened?" and then "accidentally" knocking off a small but valuable item off a shelf.

If Trump thought of American first, he would be telling his followers he will fight this in the court and that any type of rioting is wrong and counterproductive. But he will not. Because Trump only thinks of himself first.

If he comes out and tells his followers that rioting is bad, I will take back what I just said.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2022, 06:11:05 PM »
Is it incitement? What would happen if a Democrat said that BLM riots were likely if another cop murders somebody? Would it be a warning, or encouragement. I'm a little on the fence about this. I think it is all in their tone, less than the words. They're not saying "I'm worried people might react this way." They're saying "the people would be justified to react this way". At least that's the way it feels to me. I'm sure we could find some Democrats using parallel language with respect to riots, but it isn't Chuck Schumer or other Senators, AFAIK.

Look back in 2020, plenty of quotes from Democrats that could easily be construed as "cheering on the rioters" while that was going on. More than a few memes were made to that effect as well, IIRC.

And while the meme's themselves seem to be out of context, the Kamala Harris one gets probably very close to what Graham was getting at.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/

Quote
The exchange between Harris and Colbert — which took place on June 17, a few weeks after George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis — referred to protests, not riots. The word "riot" is not even mentioned in the 30-second exchange.

"I know there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States, I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks," Colbert said.

"That's right," Harris replied. "But they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop, and this is a movement, I'm telling you."

"They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she added. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day."

"Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up — and they should not. And we should not," she concluded.

Okay, she said protests, not riots.

But let's be realistic here. We're all familiar with Anti-Fa and their modus operandi and stated mission objective where it concerns "fascists" which they happen to define as anyone who supported Trump in 2020. Never mind the whack-jobs who still do.

Do you honestly think that if widespread pro-Trump protests break out across the country, the Anti-Fa isn't going to do everything they can to turn them violent? Presto, "riots in the streets."
« Last Edit: September 17, 2022, 06:21:39 PM by TheDeamon »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2022, 06:25:58 PM »
But let's be realistic here. We're all familiar with Anti-Fa and their modus operandi and stated mission objective where it concerns "fascists" which they happen to define as anyone who supported Trump in 2020. Never mind the whack-jobs who still do.

Do you honestly think that if widespread pro-Trump protests break out across the country, the Anti-Fa isn't going to do everything they can to turn them violent? Presto, "riots in the streets."

And before someone wants to quip that the pro-Trump people shouldn't be taking to the streets then if they know a riot is likely to result.

MLK might have some words to say to you about that. Remember many his peaceful protests were declared riots and dispersed, sometime turning into low-scale ones as people tried to defend themselves from police. Only this time it won't be police(at the onset), it'll be Anti-Fa with their red hammer and sickle on proud display.

And just think, Biden recently gave a creepy speech intended to call those same Trump supporters enemies of America. Nothing bad could possibly come from Anti-Fa and those adjacent to it as a result of that.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2022, 06:34:25 PM by TheDeamon »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2022, 06:40:59 PM »
"They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop," she added. "They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day."

--------------------

With one caveat there. They will stop if Democrats win. And they did.

Unarmed black men are still being killed by police and yet blink and you miss it on the news stories and no riots because BL don't M anymore when Dems are in office. It was all optics all along. And politics. And encouraging massive protests and riots during a pandemic lockdown worked. The Democrats' terrorism, literally "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" which is exactly what we saw, won. Mission accomplished. Now everyone go on about your business even though everything is worse than before.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2022, 06:56:33 PM »
As I bother to go further on that link:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/01/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-protests-arent-going-stop/5678687002/

This time Nancy Pelosi in June of 2018 responding to Paul Ryan suggesting passing legislation to change the Child Separation policy.
Quote
"This is an act of the administration. They have been planning this for a while," Pelosi said, according to a video provided by C-SPAN.

Near the end of a lengthy response, Pelosi expressed surprise that there weren't uprisings in the street.

"When we had a had a hearing on a subject related to this asylum seeker, refugees, etc., the (National) Association of Evangelicals testified that refugees and asylum ... they called it the crown jewel of America's humanitarianism," she said. "And in order to do away with that crown jewel, they're doing away with children being with their moms.

"This is ... I just don't even know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be," Pelosi continued.

And this could become particularly relevent if the office of the Attorney General decides to "October Surprise" Trump with formal charges just before the November election day arrives.

I think they'll instead pay lipservice instead and try to "not-so-slow build" their case until after the election, then either quietly drop it, or press charges after.

But right now all the very high profile investigatory activity happening right now stinks to high heaven. They sat on this for over a year and now they decide to push on it? Just before an election? Why couldn't they slow walk it and go "full court press" on the matter after the election was over?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2022, 08:11:44 PM »
Quote
Why couldn't they slow walk it and go "full court press" on the matter after the election was over?
Trump would very much like everyone to move very slowly, so the House has a chance to change hands.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2022, 08:23:45 PM »
Quote
Why couldn't they slow walk it and go "full court press" on the matter after the election was over?
Trump would very much like everyone to move very slowly, so the House has a chance to change hands.

Still becomes a matter of why this wasn't being pushed harder, much earlier on then. Blaming the courts only goes so far, they can make arguments about the need to expedite it to avoid the appearance of what is now going on.

They're interfering in the election process in a manner which in theory should work to benefit the Democrats almost exclusively, at least if they gambled correctly. Enough people aren't going to like the optics that they're in a damned if they, damned if they don't scenario now. There is going to be blowback experienced by the Democrats from this come November.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2022, 08:26:16 PM »
I am reasonably confident that bad actors would accuse the Democrats of acting to maximize political gain no matter the speed at which all the various cases Trump has worked so hard to delay actually progressed.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2022, 08:29:27 PM »
I was going to say Trump is the one who is delaying things.  Telling his supporters to claim Executive Privilege when they are not allowed to claim that, since Trump is no longer the Executive. Then dragging it out through all of the courts.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2022, 02:12:16 PM »
Incitement huh?

Quote from: Joe Biden
“Donald Trump and the Maga Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic” . . . “MAGA Republicans pose a clear and present danger” . . .“It’s in our hands, yours and mine, to stop the assault on American democracy”

And, marching orders in hand:

Quote
Forty-one-year-old Shannon Brandt said he was afraid 18-year-old Cayler Ellingson was “part of a Republican extremist group and that he was afraid they were ‘coming to get him.'”

So he allegedly killed Ellingson with his car.

Brandt has admitted to it already. I know a few of you are ecstatic to see one more MAGA taken out, probably think it's a good start and should be legal. Believe me, I see you.


DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2022, 03:38:11 PM »
So we all know that Lambert is a special case. What's the over/under on Crunch? He really just appears to be a determined troll, in my eyes.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2022, 03:46:42 PM »
So we all know that Lambert is a special case. What's the over/under on Crunch? He really just appears to be a determined troll, in my eyes.

Has been for 20 years under various user names.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2022, 03:51:24 PM »
Words have power and our leaders should be more careful in how they say things
This is not a right or left thing its a leadership thing.
And if the argument is just going to be about which tribe criminally incites its base more often, better or worse... were missing the problem.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2022, 03:57:28 PM »
Words have power and our leaders should be more careful in how they say things
This is not a right or left thing its a leadership thing.
And if the argument is just going to be about which tribe criminally incites its base more often, better or worse... were missing the problem.

This case is drunk guy gets in argument. Says he's afraid of the 18 year old and hits him with car. They may have been arguing over politics but there is no real connection to anything democratic leaders said that motivated him.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2022, 04:04:40 PM »
I do not remember many Democratic leaders telling people to go out into the streets and riot.  Of course Trump is not saying that, yet. But he sure is not calming things down.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2022, 04:19:19 PM »
Words have power and our leaders should be more careful in how they say things
This is not a right or left thing its a leadership thing.
And if the argument is just going to be about which tribe criminally incites its base more often, better or worse... were missing the problem.

This case is drunk guy gets in argument. Says he's afraid of the 18 year old and hits him with car. They may have been arguing over politics but there is no real connection to anything democratic leaders said that motivated him.

????

Drunk guy who gets into a argument and runs over guy with there car goes to jail.  That he says he's was afraid due to something the leader he supports said is not relevant to that.
He might want to question why support of such leader lead him into fear and landed him in jail and his fear and method was justified.  He should have enough time to reflect in jail.

Did the leader incite him to get drunk and use his car as a weapon.... much more difficult legal case to be made and has nothing to do with the Leader being right or left. More likely the leader is a *censored*ty person that does not deserve to lead. 

But that is not a question that those who follow such *censored*s will ask themselves. Easier to pretend   
« Last Edit: September 21, 2022, 04:22:46 PM by rightleft22 »

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2022, 04:32:59 PM »
The 'argument' that the Dem leadership incite to violence as much or more then the Rep Or that the Rep leadership incite to violence as much or more then the Dem's only demonstrates one thing
The person making the argument knows that incitement is  happening and is wrong. If they are not holding the leaders they support accountable they are are wrong.

I have heard many voices that support Biden speak out about Biden's statements.  I have heard very few of those that support Trump speak out. Its still safe to speak out against Biden and still 'be a Dem, less safe to speak out against Trump and still be seen as a Rep.  And that speaks volumes

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2022, 09:43:59 PM »
Well, I never was a Republican even if I identify as Conservative. Have not voted in a Republican Primary election since they decided to require party registration to do so in my state starting in 2012. More power to them, it's meant more 3rd party votes for me in the General Election because they keep selecting poorly in the primary.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: More incitement?
« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2022, 11:31:08 PM »
Biden is pretty hardcore pro police. You only have to look at his record. There was a reason us pro-Bernie peeps kept up the fight.