At best it's a mixed message. If you're telling people that the election is actively being stolen, what are your expectations for their response exactly? That they say "aw shucks" and go home?
“Stand down and stand by” is a prime example of this.
"Democrats stole the election"
"They are the enemy of the people"
etc. etc.
These are all things Trump actually says, ad verbatim, and has been repeating this for the better part of a year. If these things were true then violence would be a logical, reasonable, justified, and appropriate response to stop a hostile anti-democratic takeover of the country.
Of course, nothing of Trump's claims are true. Not even remotely. Not even a tiny kernel of truth in it.
But you just can't expect people who actually hold this worldview to quietly stay at home. I wouldn't, if this would actually be happening.
As I've said many times before, if the current path continues it's only a matter of time before there is actual real bloodshed, and Trump and his bootlickers can't just wash their hands with "but I said I they had to remain calm!"
And if you look at the cause for all of this ... it's not even a political disagreement really, it's just Trump not being mature enough to accept that a universe exists where he could lose an election. Good heavens all this ruckus for something so petty. Future historians will look back to Trump not too dissimilar to how we look back to Caligula.
So the 4 years that Democrats said the election was stolen, and they illegally stormed the US Capitol at the Kavanaugh hearings, what should we have thought of that?
Basically every organization and politician on the left was supporting that and there was no Twitter censorship.
It's totally legitimate to say "I hate Trump and want to see him go", but it's impossible to stand on principle and say "Hey, Stacy Abrams is really in the right to say that her election was fraudulent forever" but Trump can't say the same.
It puts Twitter in the position of legitimizing certain claims of fraud and discounting others in national elections. That's frightening, and people supporting this should think what an alternate world would look like where billions of people were on Parler and not Twitter.
Yeah, that's kinda how truth and lies work.
not the left. Lots of D politicians, granted. But I can't believe you seriously think that the "the election was fraudulent theatrics" (which I'll take for granted as theatrics, though a more careful treatment is warranted) of D politicians and e.g. Rachel Maddow could ever have had the same effect as these theatrics from Trump and co, which call for armed citizens to take action.
And the citizens weren't armed. The people killed were the unarmed protestors, by the police.
We can imagine what would happen if they had a certain skin color and were protesting a different event. It isn't the reaction that would happen today.
I've seen people on social media in the past few weeks talking about bringing weapons to DC for what happened earlier today. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was arrested a couple days ago in DC while carrying high capacity magazines [0]. A lot of pictures I've seen of people in the capital building today show them carrying heavy duty zip ties. Why did they have these? Were they planning on taking prisoners/hostages?
We've also seen the reaction to other protests in DC in the last few years. The police response today was much smaller than other recent protests.
Donald Trump's response to statues being torn down was to push for long sentences for people damaging federal property [1]. Has he also pushed for long sentences for people trespassing in the capital buildings and damaging them?
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/4135703001
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thedenverchannel.com/news/a...
This kind of positioning is frustratingly confusing to me. What do you personally gain exactly by saying something so obviously false?
Truly am curious what is forming the foundation of such a position you have?
” Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.”
Sept 2019
It is still absurd to act like there is an equivalence between her claiming that Russian interference misled voters into choosing the "wrong" candidate, vs. Trump (a) claiming that ballots were manufactured, altered or tampered with and that actual voting infrastructure and processes are corrupt, (b) having his legal team launch a bunch of frivolous lawsuits in various states, and (c) pressuring the secretary of state of an electorally-close state to overturn election results.
Clinton's statements, as overblown as they may have been, were just an accusation of unfairness, not calling for the results to be overturned and the loser installed in office. All of the #resistance rhetoric was about the need to defeat Trump through the electoral process, or through parliamentary procedures (based on his actions after taking office). Again, there is a fundamental difference between claiming that voters were lied to, and claiming that the government itself directly interfered in the voting process without ANY remotely credible evidence to back that claim.
Trying to equate the two situations because they both involved the use of the word "illegitimate" is beyond laughable.
That’s not the point.
Clinton claims election is stolen. Uncritical article written.
Trump claims election is stolen? Obvious coup attempt and a need to curtail freedoms.
She conceded hours after polls closed. 2019 likely was not the first time she criticized Trump's legitimacy, but the intention was always different.
You mean ... showed up and were lawfully admitted to hearings, and then were disruptive by yelling? Or do you have something else in mind?