> Some members of the mob were actively looking to kill the people who were 2nd and 3rd in line for the presidency. Let's not pretend that there was zero danger to democracy.
Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy?
What these people did was a serious crime and it should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but no it was never going to destroy the country or end democracy. This is hyperbole people are using to grab and consolidate power.
Democracy is not a single person that can be killed and taken over. It's all of us acting in concert to uphold those values. It doesn't end by this person or that person being killed, it ends by all of us collectively agreeing to give up the values that make it work. That's the real threat here.
>Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy?
I'm no historian, so was there ever a time the killing was instigated by a sitting politician who then was not punished? (Yes, the Senate has yet to decide, but chances are they won't vote for removal or banning from office).
Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy.
> Because politicians trying to have their political opponents harmed or killed is basically all one needs to have fake democracy.
I don't follow this logic. Assume for the sake of argument that politician A attempts to have politician B killed (also not a historian, but I feel there has to be at least one instance of this happening somewhere, at some point in US history). Based on this event, we now conclude that the entire democracy is fake? How? All of the votes for all other politicians are now invalid? The electoral process (largely out of the control of any single politician) just ... goes away? How do you figure? What's the cause and effect mechanism there?
Here are some questions based entirely on the procedural process of electing a president. We don't even have to get into any potential illegal actions by Trump.
The vice president presides over the counting of electoral college votes. Tradition says this role is largely ceremonial. Trump disagrees. What would a conservative Supreme Court, with 3 justices appointed by Trump, say about this?
What were to happen if the VP was murdered by a mob while the president is arguing in bad faith that he won the election and the VP is needed to certify the true winner?
Can the president pro tempore take the place of the VP in counting votes? We would likely be back in the Supreme Court to decide. What if they say only the VP can serve this role? Would Trump and Congress be able to agree on a new VP?
If no VP is in place, would the election end up in the House? Would they have time to vote before 1/20? Who would they vote for?
If we don't have a clear president by 1/20, the line of succession passes to the speaker of the House. What happens if she was murdered too? Would the House vote on a new speaker quick enough or would the line of succession go to the 4th person, the president pro tempore of the Senate?
Would this create perverse incentives for the the president pro tempore to reject EC votes if the Supreme Court decided in his favor several steps back in this hypothetical?
There are obviously a lot of hypotheticals there, but what they are meant to show is there are a lot of ways for this to go wrong and for the next president to be in doubt. Do you see how this is bad for a healthy democracy? Would you be confident that Trump would sit idly by and wait for this situation to play out without putting his fingers on the scale, inciting more violence, or potentially something even more drastic?
Don't forget that Alexander Hamilton was fatally shot in a duel with then Vice President Aaron Burr in 1804 [0].
> Few affairs of honor actually resulted in deaths, and the nation was outraged by the killing of a man as eminent as Alexander Hamilton. Charged with murder, Burr, still vice president, returned to Washington, D.C., where he finished his term immune from prosecution.
Can you point to a place where he specifically encouraged trespassing or violence in a way that is more egregious than the ways in which various Congresspeople encouraged violence in Kenosha or Minneapolis?
Disclaimer : I am not American, and could care less for your politics.
> Can you point to a place where he specifically encouraged trespassing or violence in a way that is more egregious than the ways in which various Congresspeople encouraged violence in Kenosha or Minneapolis?
This seems like a weird statement to me. Does it matter what other Congresspeople said or not said? I had a quick read of the speech you linked. Its clear that the whole speech is priming the crowd that their vote has been stolen, and that they need to go their and fight for their votes.
> Now, it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you, we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
> Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
> Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
> I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
This bit right here is clearly indicating that the people need to walk to the Capitol, to "confront" the egregious assault, to show strength, to "not going to be cheering so much for some of them". Granted yes, he also does state that they will be marching over "peacefully" and "patriotically" but spending paragraphs telling an audience that their votes are stolen, and they must fight those who stole their vote and then throwing in a few words about peacefully doesn't absolve you when that mob does basically what you said.
Near the end :
> And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
> So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give.
Again, clearly indicating that they need to go to the Capitol, to "fight like hell" and ensure that Republicans vote in a certain way. I think anyone reading between the lines can clearly see how a group of people who believe this man quite a bit would get an indication that they need to walk to and into the Capitol.
Hm. I don't think I was lecturing anyone. I saw a statement that wasn't logically sound based on my thinking i.e. that what Congresspeople said matters in this discussion.
and then I read the speech, and quoted exactly what was "inciting" or could be considered such.
I do not believe anyone has claimed that a single speech inspired insurrection. I do believe lots of people believe that messages over time led citizens to believe their gun rights, free speech rights and voting rights were threatened, and that they would need to fight to keep them.
That being said, the speech itself certainly didn't help.
> they rigged an election.
> They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before.
> All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats
> You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.
> We will not take it any more
> We will not let them silence your voices.
> Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen. They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way.
> we’re going to have somebody in there that should not be in there and our country will be destroyed
> some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House.
Guys are fighting, but it’s incredible
> Democrats attempted the most brazen and outrageous election theft. There’s never been anything like this.
> We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
> We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing
> Our country has been under siege for a long time
> You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
Probably a waste of my effort, but it's quite disingenuous to claim that not saying the word "trespass" in this speech after years of messaging that the Democrats are the enemy of Trump and Trump's followers proves it wasn't yet another piece of incitement. He absolutely encouraged "fighting." So either you believe he's a complete imbecile who does not understand what happens if you get a bunch of armed citizens to believe their favorite rights will be lost if they allow a fraudulent election of a Democratic President to come to fruition, or you understand that he was intentional with his language over time.
Your description of democracy is on the nose, but that's exactly why I think it's reasonable to be concerned. One of the critical values that makes democracy work is the peaceful transition of power, and if there'd been just a bit more violence, it would be impossible to maintain even a polite fiction that this transition was peaceful.
"Survived" is just a very low bar. I'm not scared of the US becoming Mad Max - I'm scared of something like the Troubles, where democratic institutions still exist but struggle to maintain the peace against large, powerful groups who don't consider them legitimate.
>the president asked his supporters to bring violence against his political opponents
This did not happen. Trump asked his supporters to march on the capitol, and then when shit got out of hand, he asked them to go home. Anything else regarding his words is a "reading between the lines" that's going to involve a lot of loaded, partisan-biased, and worst of all unfalsifiable claims.
Every single incident on that page involves a series of "protestors" who were forcibly ejected from a series of 2016 rallies after attempting to disrupt them, and in one case, involves a "protestor" getting removed by the secret service after trying to rush the stage.
Snopes is here holding up the president saying he'd punch someone who rushed onto the stage as "encouraging violence at his rallies", which is such a willfully disingenuous attempt at poisoning the well it calls the entire article into question.
That is not the same thing, not what we're talking about here, and it is not honest to equate them. People who disrupt rallies absolutely deserve to be removed from those rallies with appropriate force.
So what you're saying is: he called for violence against someone that disagrees with him politically. And the problem is, you apparently fall into the very category of: seeking truth isn't important, believing what you want is. Because you literally just fabricated a story to support Trump that's easily disproven by the very link you're commenting about.
Had you actually watched the videos: no, every single one of those people did not attempt to rush the stage, that happened exactly once. And in that occurrence he didn't even call for violence until the NEXT DAY, when a normal Presidential candidate would've had time to gather themselves and act like an adult... No, every single one was not arrested by secret service.
He spent MONTHS telling his supporters that the election was "stolen from them" and that they need to "fight like real patriots", but again, because you support him that's not a call for violence. Nevermind the end result: the violence he called for - you just don't agree that's what he wanted. Which of course is why he refused to condemn it while it was happening, and took a full day to say anything meaningful after every one of his political allies condemned him.
>So what you're saying is: he called for violence against someone that disagrees with him politically.
This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified.
Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here.
>Which of course is why he refused to condemn it while it was happening,
He literally told the people assembled there to go home.
>This is a lie by omission. He "called for violence" against people who attempted to physically disrupt his rallies, and I would go so far as to call the "violence" that ensued in all of those cases (forcible removal from the venue) justified.
You keep moving the goal posts to try to justify abhorrent behavior. First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting?
I'll be honest: it's pretty sad the lengths you're going to in order to justify actions that wouldn't be tolerated in a kindergarten classroom.
>Using this standard, I could accuse anyone against the Capitol "protestors" as "calling for violence against their political opponents", except we both know that characterization omits a great deal of critical context. So it is here.
No, you really couldn't without the same mental gymnastics you've been going through to ignore reality. The Capitol "protestors" physically assaulted badged police officers while breaking into a federal building. The protestors at Trump's rally paid for a ticket to enter a place they were lawfully allowed to be - peacefully spoke out in protest, and then left when they were told to. In the process they were assaulted.
The fact you'd try to equate the too shows a complete lack of honesty and integrity on your part.
>He literally told the people assembled there to go home.
Hours and HOURS after the damage had been done, and the police had the situation back under control, he issued a taped message telling the rioters that he loved them but they needed to go home.
At some point it's obvious you condone physical violence against people that have different political views than you do, and you should just own it. But you also should take a long, hard look at history. The founding fathers didn't agree with your point of view. The constitution doesn't agree with your point of view. The majority of Americans don't agree with your point of view. Our Democracy is founded on a peaceful transition of power, and intelligent thoughtful discourse on policy. Your violence has no place in America.
>First he didn't call for violence, until I provided proof he did. Then the violence was justified because "they rushed the stage" - which they didn't. Now it's OK to advocate assault because someone is peacefully protesting?
You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were *IN ONE CASE* regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see.
The fact that you have to lie to make your point means that this conversation is over. I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home. Trump DID NOT tell any of those assembled to storm the capitol, violently or otherwise, and to insist that he did is a further lie.
>You are outright lying about what I said. I said that the "violence" called for in the article linked wasn't any more than kicking disruptors out of a private event with force (something justified in that case), and the exact words I used were IN ONE CASE regarding the stage-rushing incident. It's up thread for all to see.
You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat.
It is literally never justified for a politician to ask his supporters to physically assault a peaceful protestor. Full stop. You can squirm, gyrate, and try to justify it, but it's not OK.
> I stand by my original point that the original march was legitimate, and that Trump told the crowd to go home.
You can stand by whatever you want. Trump released a pre-recorded video that "we love you, but go home" - 6 HOURS after the Capitol was stormed. HOURS. At that point it didn't matter, reinforcements had arrived and the building was already cleared. Furthermore, telling violent insurrectionists you "love them"??? Really?
>You edited your post after being called out, and that's now your scapegoat.
Again you lie, because HN won't let you edit a post more than 2 hours old. Those words were there when the post you reply to was originally made. Stop lying.
> That is not the same thing, not what we're talking about here, and it is not honest to equate them. People who disrupt rallies absolutely deserve to be removed from those rallies with appropriate force.
But saying that punching a peaceful rally attendee is "very, very appropriate" and the kind of action "we need a little bit more of" is not.
And asking police to be more violent when handling suspects is encouraging violence ("when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, I said, please don’t be too nice.")
On Greg Gianforte, the Montana Governer who assaulted a reporter ("Any guy who can do a body-slam ... he’s my guy.")
Then he joked about shooting immigrants:
> In his remarks, he asked, “How do you stop these people?” A woman at the rally reportedly yelled “shoot them” in response. Trump then joked, “That’s only in the Panhandle, you can get away with that statement.”
Then there's the pattern of statements by trump that predict violence against the groups the attacks are aimed at:
- Trump calls Covid the "Chinese virus" and plays up its origin to stoke anti-Chinese sentiment. A random Asian family is attacked in a Texas Walmart because they're "infecting people with the coronavirus".
- Trump attacks "the Squad" (congresswomen AOC and co), they see an uptick in racist attacks and threats
- Trump says "Liberate Michigan" and criticizes the governor for her coronavirus lockdown. Months later, a group of militia members is uncovered with a conspiracy to kidnap and kill her.
- "You also had some very fine people on both sides."
- "Stand back and stand by"
etc.
He has a pattern of tacitly encouraging violence and then making halfhearted condemnations when the violence actually happens. It's why when so many people commit violence, they think Trump is asking them to.
Do you realize that numerous times throughout history people have successfully killed the actual president and it didn't end democracy?
What these people did was a serious crime and it should absolutely be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but no it was never going to destroy the country or end democracy. This is hyperbole people are using to grab and consolidate power.
Democracy is not a single person that can be killed and taken over. It's all of us acting in concert to uphold those values. It doesn't end by this person or that person being killed, it ends by all of us collectively agreeing to give up the values that make it work. That's the real threat here.