(07-16-2024, 04:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2024, 04:10 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]You are inferring meaning from words that do not say what you say they are saying and also indicting the many for the actions of the few. 2500 people did not try to harm government officials that day. Not even close. Many never entered the building, many strolled in looked around and strolled out, some were making light of the situation by making a photo op out of it. That doesn't excuse anyone who actually did partake in the violence and vandalism of that day, but those are individual crimes that deserve individual punishment. You are allowed to protest in this country. Following your logic, the many are guilty of the actions of a few and the organizer is also guilty of the actions of the few, which makes protesting anything a very dangerous and unwise proposition. Congrats on snuffing those dissenting voices out my authoritarian comrade, Mike.
Also, congrats again on, as always, avoiding the bulk of the post you're quoting. I don't know why I bothered.
OK, let's say that of the 2500 who entered the building (which is a crime, trespassing) only 500 went on to commit any other crime. Is 500 a small enough number that Trump shouldn't have to apologize for people misunderstanding his words as an immediate call to violence?
I'll try to avoid insulting you in the future now that I know you don't think it's funny. I don't think I insult people any more quickly than anyone else on this board does but I'll try to remember it matters to you.
The numbers I saw didn't indicate 2500 people were charged with entering the building. I believe it was less than half of that.
You don't apologize for things you never said. You also don't have to apologize for someone else's misunderstanding although there are times when it might be a good idea. You should clarify if your words upon examination are unclear, but Trump's final remarks that day seemed pretty clear to me. At any rate, apologizing for someone misunderstanding you is a choice you make given the situation. In politics, it's not smart if you intend on having a career moving forward. As soon as you apologize for something publicly as a politician where your level of responsibility isn't already clear or perhaps is open to interpretation, you're effectively admitting guilt and taking responsibility and all the media criticism that comes with it. He didn't say what you infer he did, why on earth would he apologize and effectively self end his political career?
You and I and you and many others have gone in circles over this event and your interpretation of his words and actions. It's a dead end conversation. Was Trump's plan that day ill-advised? Yes. Was he right to question the result of a relatively close election with multiple rather suspicious anomalies and questionable left wing court decisions in swing states that further opened the door for potential fraud in the days and weeks leading up to election day with a #resist campaign being championed by the left for his entire term? Also yes. Should he have dropped it before January 6th? Also yes. Everything else you're suggesting? No.
(07-16-2024, 10:49 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2024, 04:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK, let's say that of the 2500 who entered the building (which is a crime, trespassing) only 500 went on to commit any other crime. Is 500 a small enough number that Trump shouldn't have to apologize for people misunderstanding his words as an immediate call to violence?
I'll try to avoid insulting you in the future now that I know you don't think it's funny. I don't think I insult people any more quickly than anyone else on this board does but I'll try to remember it matters to you.
The numbers I saw didn't indicate 2500 people were charged with entering the building. I believe it was less than half of that.
You don't apologize for things you never said. You also don't have to apologize for someone else's misunderstanding although there are times when it might be a good idea. You should clarify if your words upon examination are unclear, but Trump's final remarks that day seemed pretty clear to me. At any rate, apologizing for someone misunderstanding you is a choice you make given the situation. In politics, it's not smart if you intend on having a career moving forward. As soon as you apologize for something publicly as a politician where your level of responsibility isn't already clear or perhaps is open to interpretation, you're effectively admitting guilt and taking responsibility and all the media criticism that comes with it. He didn't say what you infer he did, why on earth would he apologize and effectively self end his political career?
You and I and you and many others have gone in circles over this event and your interpretation of his words and actions. It's a dead end conversation. Was Trump's plan that day ill-advised? Yes. Was he right to question the result of a relatively close election with multiple rather suspicious anomalies and questionable left wing court decisions in swing states that further opened the door for potential fraud in the days and weeks leading up to election day with a #resist campaign being championed by the left for his entire term? Also yes. Should he have dropped it before January 6th? Also yes. Everything else you're suggesting? No.
OK.
Maybe you don't have to apologize for people misunderstanding you.
But you should probably stop calling them heroes, right?
Why would he call them heroes if he didn't want them to do the things they did in the first place?
And why did he wait five hours before telling them to go home if he didn't want them inside the building?
Because those two things really make it look like they did exactly what he wanted them to do. And that he has no regrets.
(07-16-2024, 04:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2024, 04:10 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]You are inferring meaning from words that do not say what you say they are saying and also indicting the many for the actions of the few. 2500 people did not try to harm government officials that day. Not even close. Many never entered the building, many strolled in looked around and strolled out, some were making light of the situation by making a photo op out of it. That doesn't excuse anyone who actually did partake in the violence and vandalism of that day, but those are individual crimes that deserve individual punishment. You are allowed to protest in this country. Following your logic, the many are guilty of the actions of a few and the organizer is also guilty of the actions of the few, which makes protesting anything a very dangerous and unwise proposition. Congrats on snuffing those dissenting voices out my authoritarian comrade, Mike.
Also, congrats again on, as always, avoiding the bulk of the post you're quoting. I don't know why I bothered.
OK, let's say that of the 2500 who entered the building (which is a crime, trespassing) only 500 went on to commit any other crime. Is 500 a small enough number that Trump shouldn't have to apologize for people misunderstanding his words as an immediate call to violence?
I'll try to avoid insulting you in the future now that I know you don't think it's funny. I don't think I insult people any more quickly than anyone else on this board does but I'll try to remember it matters to you.
We don't have to "say." We know the stats. I've listed them in a different thread you were mucking up with your stoicism. You clearly didn't take the time to learn anything then, and that's why you're still wrong.
(07-17-2024, 11:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (07-16-2024, 04:48 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK, let's say that of the 2500 who entered the building (which is a crime, trespassing) only 500 went on to commit any other crime. Is 500 a small enough number that Trump shouldn't have to apologize for people misunderstanding his words as an immediate call to violence?
I'll try to avoid insulting you in the future now that I know you don't think it's funny. I don't think I insult people any more quickly than anyone else on this board does but I'll try to remember it matters to you.
We don't have to "say." We know the stats. I've listed them in a different thread you were mucking up with your stoicism. You clearly didn't take the time to learn anything then, and that's why you're still wrong.
The numbers aren't important. When I asked, "is 500 a small enough number" you're supposed to realize that tying it to a number at all is ridiculous.
More than one person was violent that day.
Trump is, today, calling the people who were violent that day heroes.
I conclude therefore that Trump wanted violence that day.
How can you conclude otherwise?
Create a soft target and hope for the best.....this day hope was a good plan ?
ps, to nudge the behavior you want plant people in the crowd to encourage a direction. Lenin, 1914 ? gotta find that again.
(07-18-2024, 07:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-17-2024, 11:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]We don't have to "say." We know the stats. I've listed them in a different thread you were mucking up with your stoicism. You clearly didn't take the time to learn anything then, and that's why you're still wrong.
The numbers aren't important. When I asked, "is 500 a small enough number" you're supposed to realize that tying it to a number at all is ridiculous.
More than one person was violent that day.
Trump is, today, calling the people who were violent that day heroes.
I conclude therefore that Trump wanted violence that day.
How can you conclude otherwise?
The numbers are important. That's why we keep pointing it out. 1 guy shot Trump. The rhetoric of Biden has been violent, using words like fight and enemy and bullseye and threat. Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for that. Why? Because he didn't make a call to actual violence. Did Biden want violence towards Trump?
(07-18-2024, 07:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-17-2024, 11:32 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]We don't have to "say." We know the stats. I've listed them in a different thread you were mucking up with your stoicism. You clearly didn't take the time to learn anything then, and that's why you're still wrong.
The numbers aren't important. When I asked, "is 500 a small enough number" you're supposed to realize that tying it to a number at all is ridiculous.
More than one person was violent that day.
Trump is, today, calling the people who were violent that day heroes.
I conclude therefore that Trump wanted violence that day.
How can you conclude otherwise?
What you've also ignored multiple times when brought up is that your argument/logic also severely hinders if not destroys the right to organize, assemble and protest anything. You can look down on the people that participated there. You can charge certain individuals with the crimes they individually committed that day. You cannot tie responsibility for anyone else's actions that day to someone involved in organizing the event without specific and clear evidence that the organizer's intentions were for people to get violent and for them to vandalize the premises and assault officers.
I'm not in Trump's mind. I'm not here to claim what his true intentions were, only he knows that. I'm just here to say you are climbing over the right to protest anything in an effort to get Trump which is likely guided by your existing dislike of him prior to Jan. 6th. You're trampling the 1st amendment here. His actions and words weren't evidence enough to convict him or even charge him. You may not have liked his speech or his apparent delay in reacting afterwards and you're welcome to personally disqualify him if you like, but none of that suggests beyond the shadow of a doubt what you say it does.
(07-19-2024, 12:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2024, 07:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The numbers aren't important. When I asked, "is 500 a small enough number" you're supposed to realize that tying it to a number at all is ridiculous.
More than one person was violent that day.
Trump is, today, calling the people who were violent that day heroes.
I conclude therefore that Trump wanted violence that day.
How can you conclude otherwise?
The numbers are important. That's why we keep pointing it out. 1 guy shot Trump. The rhetoric of Biden has been violent, using words like fight and enemy and bullseye and threat. Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for that. Why? Because he didn't make a call to actual violence. Did Biden want violence towards Trump?
Biden did not want violence towards Trump.
Biden is not calling the shooter a hero or anything close to that.
Trump is calling the Jan 6 people who fought cops and threatened harm to members of Congress heroes, though.
(07-19-2024, 12:46 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2024, 12:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]The numbers are important. That's why we keep pointing it out. 1 guy shot Trump. The rhetoric of Biden has been violent, using words like fight and enemy and bullseye and threat. Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for that. Why? Because he didn't make a call to actual violence. Did Biden want violence towards Trump?
Biden did not want violence towards Trump.
Biden is not calling the shooter a hero or anything close to that.
Trump is calling the Jan 6 people who fought cops and threatened harm to members of Congress heroes, though.
Biden clearly used Dog Whistle phrasing indicating that he was calling for violence against Trump.
(07-19-2024, 12:45 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (07-18-2024, 07:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The numbers aren't important. When I asked, "is 500 a small enough number" you're supposed to realize that tying it to a number at all is ridiculous.
More than one person was violent that day.
Trump is, today, calling the people who were violent that day heroes.
I conclude therefore that Trump wanted violence that day.
How can you conclude otherwise?
What you've also ignored multiple times when brought up is that your argument/logic also severely hinders if not destroys the right to organize, assemble and protest anything. You can look down on the people that participated there. You can charge certain individuals with the crimes they individually committed that day. You cannot tie responsibility for anyone else's actions that day to someone involved in organizing the event without specific and clear evidence that the organizer's intentions were for people to get violent and for them to vandalize the premises and assault officers.
I'm not in Trump's mind. I'm not here to claim what his true intentions were, only he knows that. I'm just here to say you are climbing over the right to protest anything in an effort to get Trump which is likely guided by your existing dislike of him prior to Jan. 6th. You're trampling the 1st amendment here. His actions and words weren't evidence enough to convict him. You may not have liked his speech or his apparent delay in reacting afterwards and you're welcome to personally disqualify him if you like, but none of that suggests beyond the shadow of a doubt what you say it does.
We agree about the bolded part.
I hold that such evidence is already in the public record.
Legally you don't have to be fully in someone's mind to draw conclusions about their intentions or mens rea. Because we know it is not possible to be in fully in someone else's mind.
I do agree that cases like this push against the first amendment. That's why the evidence of intent to cause harm should be strong, and in this case, it is.
He still calls them heroes.
(07-19-2024, 12:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-19-2024, 12:45 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]What you've also ignored multiple times when brought up is that your argument/logic also severely hinders if not destroys the right to organize, assemble and protest anything. You can look down on the people that participated there. You can charge certain individuals with the crimes they individually committed that day. You cannot tie responsibility for anyone else's actions that day to someone involved in organizing the event without specific and clear evidence that the organizer's intentions were for people to get violent and for them to vandalize the premises and assault officers.
I'm not in Trump's mind. I'm not here to claim what his true intentions were, only he knows that. I'm just here to say you are climbing over the right to protest anything in an effort to get Trump which is likely guided by your existing dislike of him prior to Jan. 6th. You're trampling the 1st amendment here. His actions and words weren't evidence enough to convict him. You may not have liked his speech or his apparent delay in reacting afterwards and you're welcome to personally disqualify him if you like, but none of that suggests beyond the shadow of a doubt what you say it does.
We agree about the bolded part.
I hold that such evidence is already in the public record.
Legally you don't have to be fully in someone's mind to draw conclusions about their intentions or mens rea. Because we know it is not possible to be in fully in someone else's mind.
I do agree that cases like this push against the first amendment. That's why the evidence of intent to cause harm should be strong, and in this case, it is.
He still calls them heroes.
You're applying to the comment that his intention was that it was in reference to all of them when it may not be and probably isn't. There are reports of people being overprosecuted for their actions on that day. Perhaps he is talking about people that may have received unfair penalties and/or the majority that did not engage in violence that day. Who he pardons or whose sentences he commutes should he regain the white house will reveal the answer to that.
![[Image: StYt7.jpg]](https://s10.gifyu.com/images/StYt7.jpg)