Weird how the POTUS himself commented on the Smolett case, but holds his tongue on this one.
Or Giffords from the CRCs.
Comment on all crimes, no. Assassination plots against political party leaders or the media, yes.
They have to wait for a trial verdict before denouncing this kind of violent behavior? What are you even talking about? If this was a muslim or an illegal instead of a coast guard officer, you expect us to believe Trump would wait for an āadjudicated trialā before commenting?
It would STILL be the Guardsmanās responsibilty - just like it was NOT Bernie Sanders responsibilty that one of his campaign workers shot up a Republican ball game and almost killed Steve Scalise.
Iām just telling you that your supposition that this guy was a Trump supporter is not at all in evidence.
M
If Sanders was using incendiary rhetoric against Scalise, like calling him the enemy of the people, then yes, he would be accountable to some extent.
No.
I can call you the enemy of the people all day long and you have the right to answer me.
You DO NOT have the right to try to kill me and if you do YOU are responsible for it.
M
Iām not talking about you, Iām talking about someone who has a fanatical following of a third of America.
It seems clear Trump is intentionally inciting violent acts against political leaders and the media.
Sorry, but according to your standards, the President isnāt allowed to have an opinion of people who lie about him and he certainly must allow them to continue, rather than call them out for what they are.
Not gonna happen.
M
Trumpās opinion that it is okay to incite violence and assassination is irrelevant.
Itās not weird at all. The Media hyped the false hate crime report and fawned all over the perpetrator; they have not done that here.
So there is no such thing as incendiary speech?u
So far, we have not seen evidence from the FBI connecting the rants against the political leaders with a plan to carry them out. But regardless, why do you believe it is necessary for the President to vocally condem behavior that everyone knows is aberrant?
No.
Unless and until someone calls on you to kill someone right then and there, then NO. You and only you are responsible for killing someone.
Take some responsibility and demand that others do the same. You have free will. We all do.
M
Oh, I agree they the perpetrator of violence is to blame. I just donāt absolve people who use incendiary language from all blame. Iām not saying they should be charged. But I find nothing wrong with calling them out in the hopes they will temper their language.
To think speech has no effect is ridiculous. Companies spend large sums of money knowing the words in their advertisements sway people.
Guess youāre allowed to speculate but not others?
Trump doesnāt think itās āaberrantā at all. He knows what he is doing, he wants his political opponents afraid. He believes there should be consequences for anyone who critiques him, and fearing for their lives (and especially their loved oneās lives) is the most powerful consequence there is.
I guess my constitution is made of sterner stuff. I will never blame someone else in any way for what I do and I donāt think anyone else can.
M
Iām not speculating. The incident was reported as a hate crime; the report was false.
Did Trump tell you that?
When was that proven?
