What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?
This question is sincere as I'm trying to find out myself. I'm a fairly active reader of news but have only seen outrage in mainstream news outlets about the DC protests and not specific claims of what Trump did or how the protests were more violent or dangerous than the months of BLM protests last year. The attached video by JP Sears seems to suggest that Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google have teamed up with Liberals to censor dissent and promote that Trump is dangerous via propaganda. In the video, he shows two tweets of Trump, shown below, that he says is what the fuss is all about - is that right?
Bonus question: Nancy Pelosi says that the protesters have chosen their "whiteness" (see " Is "whiteness" required for a healthy modern society?" ) over democracy. Is the support for "whiteness" the same as violence?
16
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
46 comments (26 - 46)
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.The closest I've seen to anything remotely resembling unruly behaviour was one time when he called for a large turn out where people would "get wild." I can see how this could have been interpreted by some as a call to action, but I don't think it was intended as an incitement, but rather as a rallying call.
There is a reductio ad absurdum to the allegation, especially when you consider Democrats' rhetoric all through 2020 were far more explicit agitations. If the standard they are setting for incitement is valid, then they themselves should all be expelled, including Kamala Harris, and anyone who makes any rallying cry as well.
brianberneker
Level 1
Jan 14, 2021
2
in today's society set up by the leftests anything is violence. This was a long game by them. the words themselves no. But you can't tell how someone is going to react your words.
BuffaloJayhawk
Level 6
Jan 14, 2021
2
As far as Pelosi, I've tried over the last year to really understand the progressive lefts termenology and ideology, and I've failed every time. So, I can only say how I personally perceive the word "whiteness", as far as what I've learned over the last year.
When "whiteness" is used by a politician, journalist, etc, it's weight is largely dependent on how dark the skin pigmentation is of the individual saying it. If the person using the term has a darker pigmentation, they tend to be better experts on "whiteness", because they have a lived life experience. Additionally, if the person has male or female genitals, the individuals who have female genitals and a darker skin pigmentation are placed at a higher value than the individuals that have male genitals of all skin pigmentations. If an individual with male genitals doesn't show an individual with female genitals adequate respect, it can be perceived as "mansplaining", or "toxic". These types of micro aggressions should be perfusly apologized for, and if it's an offense to an individual with female genitals and darker skin pigmentation, it can be considered a hate crime coming from any individual with lighter skin pigmentation.
When a politician speaks about "whiteness", it should be taken as gospel truth if they are Democrat, and racist if they are Republican. It's preferable if the Democratic politician has a darker skin pigmentation and female genitals, but as long as the individual with lighter skin pigmentation displays adequate humility, they may invoke the term as well. Currently, Biden is struggling with this, (after watching 2 hrs of his meeting with black civil rights leaders, he's not doing so hot in the comments. Very disrespectful, apparently.)
"Whiteness" is a broad term. It's often used to describe western civilization. The historical colonization of individuals with light skin pigmentations, (especially those with male genitals), to countries of individuals of darker skin pigmentations, are vastly more egregious crimes then the historical colonization of individuals with darker skin pigmentations to countries of individuals of lighter skin pigmentations, based on geographical area. Slavery and other human atrocities of the past are also more egregious if the individuals harmed were of a darker skin pigmentation, rather than a lighter skin pigmentation. The best guess as to why this is, that I can come up with, is because individuals with lighter skin pigmentations are usually the majority in western civilizations. I still haven't figured out yet why western civilizations, which have been shown to be more prosperous than communism, is viewed as a "whiteness" trait. Most of the time "whiteness" is used to reflect fallacies.
"Whiteness" is a very big offense. Unfortunately, it's an inherent trait, but individuals can repent for being born that way by becoming anti racist and placing those with a darker skin pigmentation above their own. Well, everyone besides those that don't believe individuals should be judged based on immutable characteristics, like myself. If I'm not "anti racist", I'm racist. Still not sure about the logic in that, but I digress.
I've reached the conclusion that "whiteness" is used to stir strong emotions to defends ones immutable characteristics, rather than the actual problem. While arguing over each others skin pigmentation and genitals, you're moving further away from the actual problem, as well as no closer to a sensible resolution.
Pelosi has stirred up the Democratic base, as well as other Democratic politicians have, for the entirety of the last 5 years, all in the effort to get rid of a president who they kept saying was illegitimate. Numerous times, various members of the Democratic party have used strong words and rhetoric to do so, especially during an election year. Republicans have used charged words and "fighting" rhetoric as well. It's not new to say "take the fight to the ballot box", or "So, and so is the true American", on both sides.
Political violence has been steadily growing in this country for years. Protests are so common now after a year of them non stop, it seems rather pointless. Now, even riots are becoming a "new normal". This most likely has to do with identity politics mixed with a highly contentious election year, "us v them" sensational MSM reports, lockdowns and unemployment resulting in record numbers of hours spent online scrolling through "doom feeds", and thinking half the country is literally trying to kill the other half.
I'm just saying, given "context", the attack on the Capitol most likely wasn't all Trumps doing. I, personally, don't think he's said anything to incite violence. The violence can't be implied unless there is a legitimate reason. Given how the Democrats talk about and treat Republicans, slandering them further by ridiculing a president they voted for, sounds more like an incitement to violence to me. Adding fuel to the fire by silencing their voices, destroying their alternative social media app, impeaching their president again, most likely will end well either.
I don't condone violence.
Besides, Trump's orange.
saramarylop3z
Level 7
Jan 13, 2021
3
Hmmm, people who put that much emphasis on skin color are clearly racist...
I'm working on an article that posits what if white people who prefer "whiteness" are considered the only white people... since those who don't prefer "whiteness" seem to be aligned with non-white groups (or not aligned with any). Since many Liberals promote the idea that race is a social construct, what if we run with it and redefine whites as I posit? This way, Whites are about a 35%-of-the-country minority group, and have a moral right to advocate for their issues in a way that Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asians do. Just an idea... good for a question-of-the-day?
@Admin this would give the communists what they want - they would run with that idea and use it as evidence of White Nazism. They would accuse White People of fomenting division and derision along racial lines. In short they would have ammunition to redirect their own racism - project their own evil ideologies upon Whites.
@Admin That sounds like quite the mental ride! Sounds really interesting.
N0DD:
"Trump's Orange", indeed he is and "Orangeism" carries very special connotations here in Scotland and Ireland, strongly associared with ethnicity, supremacy and racism. Donald John didn't lick it off the stones, as they say!
@N0DD Hmmmm. That sure gave me pause for thought. I had never tied "Orange Man Bad" with Northern Ireland. Now that you mention it I can remember my own granddad referring to the orange men openly parading in the Montreal St. Patrick's Day parade. Strange to me that you connect the two. Was there not considerable "orange" issues connected to the Black and Tan as well?
N0DD:
@toronto_Georgia wouldnt make too much of it, its more an angle than an outright "conspiracy theory" but Trumps family on his mothers side come from the Presbetyrian Wee Frees of the Outer Hebrides, same Church as the Paisleyites and DUP of Northern Ireland, the same DUP that supports Brexit,Trump, and funnelled money illegally into the Brexit campaign. Its a rabbit hole you probably don't want to go down but interesting nonetheless. Ireland and Scotland are in someways a microcosm of and closely bound to America.
N0DD:
@toronto_Georgia The Black & Tans were a British Force comprising a mixture of criminals and thugs demobbed after the First World War and sent to Ireland during tje War of Independence to terrorise the population and kill the Republican IRA and its supporters. They burned down towns and villages usually in reprisal and murdered civilians, this was back in 1919 to 1922. The American government at the time sent envoys to investigate British atrocities and there is no doubt that the American interest was significant in achieving Irish Idependence, this was also in the time of Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nations and the dismantling of Imperial power and exploitation. Orangeism relates to the identity of the Ulster Scots and their allegiance to William of Orange the Dutch Protestant king who was invited to take the English crown of catholic king James in the 17th century, the paradox is that William was supported by the Pope at the time because James was supported by France. The Ulster Scots along with the native Catholic Irish were then both persecuted by the English/Anglo Irish Protestant ascendancy leading many Ulster Scots to emigrate to America where they fought the English in the American War of Independence and the rest is history!
what a stupid bitch Pelosi is.
Lightman
Level 8
Jan 13, 2021
3
Not a lot of "heal the country" vibe in that one...
Sadly, she's not stupid at all...
@TheMiddleWay the country wasn't broken till Trump was elected and the Democrats, Pelosi and friends in particular couldn't accept that fact and since then have done everything they can to be obstructive and rid the country of Trump... Pelosi is an obsessive psychopath, no lie is too much for this woman.
She cares not one bit about the country and Unity she only cares that Trump is defeated. Look at her childish hatefulness when she ripped up Trump's speech. This woman is delusional and is the true clear and present danger to the country.
Trump isn't a Hawke, he isn't about to star a Nuclear war... but here we have Pelosi running another attempted "coup" so she can get her hands on the Nuclear codes... who would trust her with any power of that sort she'd be stupid enough to order a strike on trump she's so delusional.
BTW Cruz is much more rational than either Trump or Pelosi.
@TheMiddleWay As to the 60 odd cases, knowing how courts work I have long suspected that word behind closed doors was that to even try any of these cases would be to deep six their careers. Even Roberts at the Supreme Court was terrified to incite riots and refused to consider the case put before them. No, the old boys' network was at play throughout all these cases.
@Lightman The belief that there is pure good and pure evil and that the holder of the belief is on the side of the righteous is a way of hiding from reality. I makes one feel safe and secure but ignores what really is happening which eventually will make itself known often with unpleasant consequences.
Ted Cruz is a very capable and intelligent man who, while he can be rational, chooses to be irrational and dishonest in his attempt to climb the political ladder. I would have more respect for him if he were a stupid man and not really understand what he is doing.
@Pand0ro, @TheMiddleWay Oh no its being used as Democrats and their media mates use it... BTW a coup is correct its just not a military one.
@Pand0ro, @TheMiddleWay Since your electoral system is such a complete mess I'd be calling for another election.
N0DD:
You know if you want or need to put Trump & Pelosi in opposition for the sake of comparison the discriptions and criticism of Trump seem more nuanced and carry greater weight than a misogynistic epithet like "stupid bitch", though that could well be what Trump would say! I don't know anything about Pelosi but she strikes me as a remarkable woman certainly no less remarkable than Donald John.
quickly runs away from the angry native loading the poisoned dart gun
Start the plane! Start the plane!!!
@Lightman It isn't just one incident. He has been knowingly going along with the unfounded claims by Trump. I have been following Cruz for years. I have heard him speak on non-political subjects and he is quite knowledgeable and articulate. He knows and understands what he is doing. His ambition seems to override everything moral and rational. On Mayn3, 2016 Ted Cruz accused Trump of being a “pathological liar,” “utterly amoral,” “a narcissist at a level I don’t think this country’s ever seen” and “a serial philanderer.” “This man is a pathological liar, he doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies … in a pattern that is straight out of a psychology text book, he accuses everyone of lying,”
Did Trump straighten his life out or did Cruz throw his morals out the window?
@TheMiddleWay meh it's your system, I agree with you it seems to be an unnecessary step or perhaps one that allows unelected representatives the right to overthrow the will of the people by voting for the will of the party.
@TheMiddleWay, @Pand0ro I've heard Cruz speak too... he has been the voice of sanity through the election and all the last year... he still is.
as for us never agreeing, well you can choose to be wrong, I'm ok with that.
As for politicians look at Pelosi she's a nutjob and ambitious and a gaslighter and a liar and divisive and seeking only to further he political career etc, etc, etc... talk about having a blinkered view
@TheMiddleWay Hey politicians always use loaded words and your media is full of it. That isn't the issue for most informed people who follow politics... we know what they are saying and how correct it is.
Don't focus on the semantics.
@TheMiddleWayNot necessarily
But here the emotionally unbalanced are by far of the Progressive Left. By a country mile.
@TheMiddleWay People change over time... I never used to have much time for him, but I can see that he has changed over time. Hey he even looks good in the beard.
You want to compare sanities.... Cruz vs Pelosi... he won... hands down
Cruz vs AOC again... Cruz is the winner. Cruz vs Cuomo no contest.... the list goes on and on and on... honestly.
@TheMiddleWay Here's one for you MW... given a choice Trump or Cruz... who would you pick?
You already know which Democrat I'd have picked.
@TheMiddleWay No I'm giving you a real choice. One you should be capable of making. I can.
@TheMiddleWay Nah Cruz is immeasurably sane by comparison. Perhaps you should join the sane party.
@TheMiddleWay So come on MW be decisive pick one.
Deep state doesn’t like rich candidates who want to be President.
Prefer career politicians instead.
Remember Perot in 92 and 96?
Media and politicians treated him poorly.
Trump won and look how poorly he is being treated for several years now.
W. Was treated poorly for some less than stellar school work.
Senior Bush was called wimpy
The dems own the media for sure!
Pawlatour
Level 7
Jan 13, 2021
3
You must be a very limited reader of the news. Here's an example:
It both points out areas of the speech that could be interpreted as incendiary and parts of the speech which seems not to incite violence. As with most of Trump's speeches, he seems to be trying to cover his ass and let others do the dirty work. But on balance the speech does seemed aimed at inciting violence and not much aims at trying to ensure violence doesn't happen. When he claims falsely that a grave humanitarian injustice has just occurred and the country is about to be taken over by an evil administration who not only cheated, but whose sole purpose is to enslave people, then it really isn't enough to say to your people, BTW "protest peacefully." Moreover, he said in the speech he would never accept a Biden win, but when the protest failed and the Congress reconvened and rejected his claims, only then did he relent and agree to a peaceful transfer of power. The question is, "why didn't he tell the crowd of his intentions beforehand?" Did he let his followers down? You can't just fill your followers with rage and then tell them to act rationally. Life doesn't work that way.
TyKC
Level 7
Jan 13, 2021
2
It’s ok if they’re blm or antifa...
@TheMiddleWay Is this the same as claiming "dog whistles" to make speeches sound more threatening?
Totally off topic: I utterly loath the half-Windsor knot.
Carry on....
govols
Level 8
Jan 13, 2021
3
Me too. I have only ever tied a double-Windsor knot. For those who don't know how because they are still Barbarians, here is some help. 
@KeithThroop I prefer to remain a barbarian, thank you.
I once read that the Greeks called anybody who didn't speak Greek "barbari," because everything they said sounded like "barbarbarbar..."
We now have a new way of recognizing them.
You fancy people, I barely ever did even a half-windsor. I think my preferred knot is the 4 in hand.
How very elegant. I've never seen it. I'll have to look it up and learn how to never tie it. (I no longer wear ties even to weddings or funerals...)
Personal Fav:
The article states that
- prior to the joint session of Congress held on January 6, 2021, to count the votes of the electoral college, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were fraudulent and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by state or federal officials;
So he's being impeached for having an opinion?
- shortly before the joint session commenced, President Trump reiterated false claims to a crowd near the White House and willfully made statements to the crowd that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol;
I'd have to see the "statements ... that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action"
- members of the crowd, incited by President Trump, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol and engaged in other violent, destructive, and seditious acts, including the killing of a law enforcement officer;
How is Trump to blame for that? I seem to recall numerous members of Congress encouraging similar lawless actions among the Left.
- President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the presidential election, which included a threatening phone call to the Secretary of State of Georgia on January 2, 2021;
I don't think a phone call encouraging the GA SoS to do this or that constitutes a "effort to subvert and obstruct the certification of the presidential election"
President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government, threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of government;
Kind of a leap there, considering how weak the premises are on which it's based.
and by such conduct, President Trump warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold U.S. office.
[congress.gov]
The bar is certainly lowered for future impeachments. Maybe we'll impeach a POTUS every other term now.
ZuzecaSape
Level 7
Jan 16, 2021
1
N0DD:
So "incitement of violence" is not the main issue, that can be blamed on the crowd or elements of the crowd ie not the special ones that we love, who were given tours of the Capitol the day before!
@N0DD The House is certainly trying to make incitement to violence the issue. The US has a pretty high standard when it comes to incitement.
"to merit conviction, the violence advocated must be intended, likely and imminent."
[freespeechdebate.com]
Of course, for all our checks and balances, there's no check on impeachment. The Constitution states impeachment is intended to remove and punish a POTUS for "high crimes and misdemeanors", but hypothetically, Congress could impeach a POTUS for having a bad haircut. There's no appeals process or veto authority to regulate what Congress can impeach the POTUS for.
Personally, I think we should just get rid of that "high crimes and misdemeanors" clause and just impeach a POTUS whenever Congress feels like it.
You need to consider that Trump called upon his supporters in the weeks before January 6 to come to the "Stop the Steal" rally. At the rally, he got them all fired up to march down the street and "stop the steal." Watch a video of the speeches at the rally. They were designed to convey the message that only the people at the rally could stop the steal, and Trump wanted them to go to the capitol and stop it from happening.
I haven't read the other comments yet, nor have I yet heard or read the entire speech (I'll get to it eventually), but I saw an article from The Atlantic (a very anti-Trump publication) that portrayed the pro-Trump argument as based on the fact that he used the word "peaceful" in his speech. It appeared to me that the Atlantic, while criticizing Trump supporters for allegedly basing their argument on that one word, was also basing their own argument on a single word - "fight". They quoted the whole sentence in which it was used, but their argument ultimately rested solely on his use of that one word just as much as the pro-Trump argument rested on a single word.
It is certainly possible to fight peacefully in the sense of putting up a contest without the use of physical violence. Peaceful fighting can take several forms, including legal action, legal use of executive and legislative powers (for those who have those powers), voting, peaceful protest (not BLM/Antifa style), and perhaps even some mild civil disobedience. Did Trump supporters cross the line at Capitol Hill? I believe some did, and there have been arrests made and charges laid. People need to take responsibility for their own actions, and I am not aware of anything Donald Trump has said or done that I believe would legitimately move any of the blame from those individuals onto him.
I haven't personally seen or heard anything from Donald Trump himself that I would classify as incitement of violence or insurrection.
There is also the allegation that Trump's very questioning (or continued questioning) of the legitimacy of the election is incitement of violence or insurrection, and this allegation is usually presented along with the false assertion that there is no legitimate reason for Trump and his supporters to be concerned. Firstly, Trump has not asked anyone to violently overthrow the government on the grounds of the election results. Secondly, as yet, no court of law has considered the evidence of the impropriety that is alleged to have occurred. They have simply used excuse after excuse (sometimes contradicting each other - e.g. "no injury in fact" before the election and "latches" after the election) to dismiss the cases without a fair hearing. Despite the Democrat, RINO, and media insistence that there is no evidence that would constitute a legitimate reason for Trump to ask his questions, they have misrepresented his objections, and they have ignored the evidence that DOES exist, and done their best to cover it up.
DaveO276
Level 8
Jan 14, 2021
1
He did not incite but he may have known. Did the “siege “ provide cover for the disappearance of Nancy’s laptop and all sorts of other treasonous materials?
Where are these things now?
Who has possession?
What did they discover?
May be the reason for her maniacal behavior and that flesh melting look on her face.
Be STRONG 200 the Republic needs you 
Mickm007
Level 6
Jan 13, 2021
2
So evidently, the 12+ staff and Cabinet members who resigned the day after the Capitol breach, citing inappropriate behavior on the part of their boss, must be complete idiots, since there was nothing in Trump's speech that could have possibly incited violence. I await a reasonable explanation of how this could happen?
TyKC
Level 7
Jan 13, 2021
2
IDK, maybe ideas in their heads that if they don't abandon the sinking ship and disavow ever working for the man, they might be branded and denied employment for life, or worse?
I like the "Sinking Ship" analogy @Jamesdomus1861 used because its all we've seen from 90% of GOP'rs that supported Trump 6months ago...
Before the riots he told them to march to the capitol building.
After the riots he said he loved the rioters and they were very special.
It's all just plausible deniability though isn't it?
bastion
Level 7
Jan 14, 2021
1
By this standard, anyone who ever made a march to the capitol who expressed affection for their follower is inciting violence, including Martin Luther King.
N0DD:
@brianberneker what standard is that for an intended riposte?
@N0DD consistency.
N0DD:
@brianberneker oh yeah 
Sedition, conspiracy, and incitement to insurrection are the charges and offenses being investigated, violence paradoxically is immaterial to the actuality of what was attempted.
N0DD
Level 7
Jan 14, 2021
1
@N0DD Are we reading the same articles of impeachment?
The article states that
- prior to the joint session of Congress held on January 6, 2021, to count the votes of the electoral college, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the presidential election results were fraudulent and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by state or federal officials;
So he's being impeached for having an opinion?
- shortly before the joint session commenced, President Trump reiterated false claims to a crowd near the White House and willfully made statements to the crowd that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the Capitol;
I'd have to see the "statements ... that encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action"
- members of the crowd, incited by President Trump, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol and engaged in other violent, destructive, and seditious acts, including the killing of a law enforcement officer;
How is Trump to blame for that? I seem to recall numerous members of Congress encouraging similar lawless actions among the Left.
- President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the presidential election, which included a threatening phone call to the Secretary of State of Georgia on January 2, 2021;
I don't think a phone call encouraging the GA SoS to do this or that constitutes a "effort to subvert and obstruct the certification of the presidential election"
- President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government, threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of government;
Kind of a leap there, considering how weak the premises are on which it's based.
and by such conduct, President Trump warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold U.S. office.
[congress.gov]
The bar is certainly lowered for future impeachments. Maybe we'll impeach a POTUS every other term now.
N0DD:
@ZuzecaSape so what are the responsibilities of a President? What should be minimally expected of any American President? I'm Irish so my President is Michael D. Higgins, and the Irish system mirrors the American one in having a House of Representatives the Dail, a Senate an Seanad and an elected President, the main function is to represent Ireland and approve or rarely veto legislation.
@N0DD Generically, the POTUS is the head of State and the head of Government. Apart from that, the duties of the POTUS should be pretty simple, as outlined in the US Constitution. Act as Commander in Chief of the armed forces, approve or veto legislation, grant pardons, make treaties (to be approved by Senate), appoint judges / ministers, brief Congress annually on the State of the Union, and - most importantly - support and defend the Constitution.
[en.wikipedia.org]
Apart from that, the POTUS technically has free reign, with some exceptions, as outlined in law (e.g., laws to prevent bribery and abuse of power). Personally, I think our POTUS should be somewhat demure. I dislike what our office of POTUS has become tho. It's become like an elected dictator. It should be returned to the status of mediocre functionary.
Trump is the
"Grand theft Auto"
of former presidents.
Mikewee777
Level 7
Jan 13, 2021
1
I think the five years of democrat and media shenanigans that Trump has spent five years standing up against, along with the success of their election shenanigans, has roused passions on both sides to a point that violences is necessarily incited even still.
govols
Level 8
Jan 13, 2021
1
Agreed. He could say: "Fish swim in the ocean" and someone, somewhere would say that was a call to violence.
EDIT: Yet the pundits on the left who are actually calling for people to get 'punched in the face' or Johnny Depp asking when was the last time an actor assassinated a president... well, that's all in good fun.
He not only riled the swamp, he riled Wall Street and all the power brokers and globalists who were hell bent on getting rid of this wrench in the destiny they had all worked towards for decades. To see the massive forces arrayed against him even before he took office was to understand just how seriously he had gummed up their works.
The case for Trump inciting violence
Calling people to the capitol on the day of the certification of electors saying "it will be wild"
Directing rally goers to the congress.
Being crass in general.
Violence occurred.
That's it. That's the case.
Afterthought
Level 7
Jan 13, 2021
1
Rather like a sock full of holes isn't that?? LMAO
Trump? He was an unknown. Controlling him was a problem. All methods were used to remove him including violence. One of the people (who were set up to take the fall) that entered the Capitol were murdered. So violence happened around him but that violence was orchestrated by the deep state.
Arty
Level 7
May 25, 2022
0
First of all the folks who rushed into the capital building did so of their own free will and I'm willing to bet that was their plan before even getting to DC. There and only there is where the real responsibility is. Their choice and certainly their consequences. Trump cannot be blamed unless those doing the blaming want to check out the three fingers pointing back at them and their rhetoric to their followers who have rioted, harassed, looted, and burned businesses in their districts. The actions of their followers were much much worse than anything that so called Trump supporters did on Jan. 6th and might I also add, their followers are still at it. Should they also for their words? Should they also for raising funds for their followers bail? But to the victors go the spoils and that has always been the way throughout history.
The rush to the capital building began before he was even done with his speech, suffice it to say many who participated didn't even attend the speech part. There were also outside agitators there to egg things on and of course folks let their emotions take over rather than their critical thinking skills. Most were there simply taking selfies. None the less, they are now paying a price.
Folks played right into the hands of those who have been looking for anything they could blame on Trump and they got it....and boy what a gift it was. And anyone now who questions the status quo in DC or the very real problems with this election are labeled domestic terrorist. And it's going to hurt a lot of folks before it runs its course. It just goes to show that you simply cannot allow your emotions to rule your actions.
LMroberts
Level 2
Jan 25, 2021
0
Hasn't any news reporter asked Trump the very question yet? He would probably say 'No' in public but he may say 'Yes' to the people close to him, or "No, honestly!" to them in which case he is a honest person. We simply don't know what kind of person he really is.
Naomi
Level 8
Jan 13, 2021
0
N0DD:
Of Trumps many qualities I fear that honesty may not be top of the list.
Recent Visitors 198
Photos 127 More
Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?
Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?
Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?
Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?
Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?
Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?
Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?
Posted by Admin Now what?
Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?
Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?
Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?
Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?
Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?