I was glad for the rhetoric because rally-goers were getting beaten and berated by protesters, rioters, and Clinton operatives paid to incite violence. I’m also glad that people started to fight back because the belligerent and menacing activity, much of which resulted in violence, is a direct violation of free speech.

I would argue that your alarm was a direct result of two tricks of propaganda. One, contextomy. Two, the one-sided story. You never mention mobs descending on these rallies or protesters evoking their heckler vetoes inside of them. You only mention a concern for the exact words chosen for you by a press who explicitly endorsed the opposing candidate.

Roughly 60% of the country thinks this guy is a crook and should stand trial before the election. — Mikie

But what percentage of these will vote?

I am somewhat reassured by what @Wayfarer and @180 Proof are saying. I have no connections to America and don't follow politics, nor do I understand the priorities of voters there or here in Australia. I was surprised that Trump's popular vote actually went up in 2020, despite the previous 4 years, so I'm prepared for anything.

I watched much more than a few soundbites.
The man can do no wrong in your eyes.
I can't tell what that vision means for you. You only present him through the lens of his opposition, real or imagined.

Once again Trump and the Trumpsters are the innocent victims who did nothing wrong.

...rally-goers were getting beaten and berated by protesters, rioters, and Clinton operatives paid to incite violence. — NOS4A2

What evidence do you have of this?

It's interesting that here in China loads of people actually like Trump and to be honest, that include myself. At the same time, I know that many decent people loathe Trump around the world. So i try to think of the reasons behind our preference. Also, when I say many Chinese like Trump, I don't mean seeing the US as an opponent/enemy and so we prefer Trump so that he could bring down the America, but that if we were Americans, we might want to vote for him. The reasons I can think of is threefold. 1. We don't have direct exposure to the terrible things he said on a daily basis, but we only see the rosy side of him which seems genuine, non-politian-like, and intelligent, with the hope that he might actually make a difference. 2. He really seems to put the country's interest first, not his personal interest. 3. He would be against wars. But this morning, I happened to listen to a podcast in NPR where the host narrated a story of a Afghan refugee girl and how she, against all odds, managed to find asylum in the US. It almost brought me to tears and I then thought, am I being fair to like Trump? He may be more anti-war, but he and his policies would be much more American-centric, and it's gonna be cruel to these people who suffered so much.

That has happened but then Trumpsters did too and more often and Trump called for it several times as well.

Then why can you not bring up anything else but the few select words chosen for you by an opposition press?

It’s because you’re uninformed. There is nothing wrong with that because, really, who gives a straw about political speeches? But if you want to make informed judgements on the matter one has to avoid contextomy and the one-sided story and go straight to the source for a peek.

The examples are myriad. For instance, one of Jack Smith’s indictments abuses contextomy to an almost comical degree:

Finally, after exhorting that “we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,” the Defendant directed the people in front of him to head to the Capitol , suggested he was going with them, and told them to give Members of Congress the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Smith never mentions that throughout the entire speech, the phrase “fight” was used figuratively. When Trump says that Guliani or Jim Jordan are fighters, or that when he fights with the press ("I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop"), he doesn't actually mean fisticuffs and brawling matches.

And Smith never once mentions what Trump thought literally: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

It's comical and embarrassing but also unjust that the Department of Justice itself is abusing this fallacy to dupe people, including grand juries, engaging in a fraud so blatant that only a useful idiot would be capable of believing in it.

Which rally did Trumpsters go to and start harassing and beating the rally-goers?

Ah, yes let's pretend I need to be taken literally. Trumpsters repeatedly attacked protesters at Trump rallies and I can only find one example of protesters attacking Trump rally goers in June 2016, after protesters had been attacked at rallies several times and Trump goaded them to do so. Clearer?

The Chicago rally in March 2016. The Costa Mesa rally in April 2016. The New Mexico rally in May. The San Diego rally.

I'm glad the hecklers were thrown out and mistreated as all censors need to be.

Ah, let's not forget

• In November, a Trump supporter "punched and attempted to choke" a protester at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama (according to the Washington Post); Trump said afterward that "maybe he deserved to get roughed up."
• On March 3, two protesters at a Kentucky rally were assaulted by members of a white supremacist group.
• On March 9, John McGraw, who is white, punched Rakeem Jones, who is black, in the face while cops pulled Jones from a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Trump told the crowd that "in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough."
• On March 19, Air Force service member Tony Pettway, who is black, punched and kicked protester Bryan Sanders, who is white, at a rally in Tucson, Arizona.

And Trump offering to pay their legal fees.

Chicago was instigated by Trumpsters. Costa Mesa where a few stones at motorists and police were thrown. New Mexico was some property damage but no attacks on people. San Diego reports also claim rally goers wanted to fight and went out of their way to accomplish that but I'll give you that one, that protesters actually attacked rally goers.

Meanwhile, violence was condemned by Clinton.

So, Trumpsters started it, did it more often and we're encouraged by the orangutan.

I'm glad the hecklers were thrown out and mistreated as all censors need to be. — NOS4A2

Yes, we know you're no fan of civil rights unless it's guns.

For instance, one of Jack Smith’s indictments abuses contextomy to an almost comical degree:

Finally, after exhorting that “we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,” the Defendant directed the people in front of him to head to the Capitol , suggested he was going with them, and told them to give Members of Congress the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country — NOS4A2

This is a good example of you doing what you accuse others of. Context matters. In what other way could the Trumpsters heading to the Capital have fought like hell? How else would they have attempted to "stop the steal"? Were they going there to "primary"? At that point in time how would "peacefully and patriotically mak[ing] your voices heard" be fighting like hell? What are the "very different rules" he told his followers they are allowed to play by as they fought that day?

There is a significant difference between the rallies you cite and what Trump stood up on stage and encouraged his followers to do. You have not provided any evidence that those who protested against Trump were:

Clinton operatives paid to incite violence. — NOS4A2

The candidate did not seem fazed by the clashes, tweeting after the rally: "Thank you Costa Mesa, California! 31,000 people tonight with thousands turned away. I will be back!"

The amphitheater capacity is 18k. Does he always double the crowd size? :roll:

, if you have access to Wikipedia, you can check False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. It's one angle anyway.

Contextomy refers to the quoting out of context of speech, not to the context of the environment or the moment.

Trump uses the word “fight” numerous times in that speech. You can pick any one of them and we can try to discern whether he was being literal or figurative. Take your pick.

In Trump's January 6th speech compare how much language of fighting there is to how much language there is about peace. By my count, he says fight, fights or fighting 19 times and peacefully once. The reference to peace looks like a disclaimer that can be used later -- and it was. But I think the overall context of that speech needs to be looked at. It's disingenuous to say "He used the word 'peacefully' once in the speech, therefore he's not responsible for any violence that happened." Those people were angry when they got there because of Trump's claims of widespread election fraud. That's why they were there. The theme of the rally was "Stop the Steal." Many in that audience believed their country was being taken away from them, and that they'd lose it if they weren't willing to fight for it. It was in that context that the protesters didn't stay out on the street but broke into the Capitol in search of members of Congress.

He didn't say "contextomy" but "context". Here's the two definitions of that word:

noun

• the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.
  
• the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

Try again.

You celebrate the tough talk in some contexts and deny it means anything in others.

My cousins who celebrated the violence did not waffle as you do. Following the remarks after the Charlottesville march, they made Trump into their image. The Proud Boys did a similar thing with the "stand down but stand by" remark.

It seems that you, too, are a receiver of the "real" message and are sure Trump is speaking directly to you.

Whoever that is.


And then there are the hours spent letting events play out and calling the trespassers heroes when he finally did. And then there are the promises to pardon them all when he gets back in office.

What is at issue is what Trump meant by those words. The situation in which he said those words is part of the linguistic context. See linguistic context:

Context is "a frame that surrounds the event and provides resources for its appropriate interpretation". It is thus a relative concept, only definable with respect to some focal event within a frame, not independently of that frame.

and this:

Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context".

Trump uses the word “fight” numerous times in that speech. You can pick any one of them and we can try to discern whether he was being literal or figurative. Take your pick. — NOS4A2

In order to discern whether he was being literal or figurative he need to do the very thing you are attempting to avoid. When he says:

Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting. The House guys are fighting.

That means something different than telling an angry mob who had falsely been led to believe that the election was being stolen and they had to do something at that moment. And so, once again:

In what other way could the Trumpsters heading to the Capital have fought like hell? How else would they have attempted to "stop the steal"? Were they going there to "primary"? At that point in time how would "peacefully and patriotically mak[ing] your voices heard" be fighting like hell? What are the "very different rules" he told his followers they are allowed to play by as they fought that day? — Fooloso4

I know nothing about your cousins but I suspect they fell victim to the same ploy and nonsense. Trump’s Charlottesville speech and comments is public record and nothing in them can back up your claims. Let’s examine them. There are entire paragraphs condemning violence and bigotry. Perhaps you fell for Biden’s lie that Trump had never once condemned racism or white supremacy. So I’m afraid you and your cousins have succumbed to the very same dirty tricks and now find yourself in the very same moral panic.



Surely you don’t think Jim Jordan was bodyslamming people on the house floor, or that when he says Guillianni is a fighter, Rudy is handing out uppercuts to other lawyers. I wan’t to know why you and Jack Smith would conclude his other use of the term “fight” to mean more than the way he was continually using it previously through this entire speech, not to mention that the riot was well underway before he used the words Smith had quoted in his indictment.

That entire year we were taught rioting and storming government buildings was good ethics, so much so that medical experts deemed it a public health necessity even during a pandemic lockdown. People scoffed when Trump had to be evacuated to a bunker under the whitehouse, and scorned him for taking a picture outside of the historic church that some rioters had burned down. So if some crazed Trumpers want to protest Congress, and the worthless schmucks filling that institution, I say go for it.

Many in that audience believed their country was being taken away from them, and that they'd lose it if they weren't willing to fight for it. It was in that context that the protesters didn't stay out on the street but broke into the Capitol in search of members of Congress. — GRWelsh

Exactly. Which anyone that isn’t in the cult can see— and could see even before it happened. There were warning signs that it could turn violent, based on the weeks of escalation Trump was sowing on social media alone.

I predicted violence — I didn’t expect them to breach the Capitol building, but violence was obvious. Fortunately, the entire thing was based on a delusion, so 4/5 the people there had no clue what exactly the objective was and were just going along, mostly wandering around.

Where did Trump specifically condemn white supremacy? My cousins felt energized by their views not being condemned as what they were (are).

As I said on Saturday, we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of bigotry, hatred, and violence. It has no place in America. And as I have said many times before, no matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws; we all salute the same great flag; and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other, and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry, and violence. We must discover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans. Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator, we are equal under the law, and we are equal under our constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.

https://time.com/4899813/donald-trump-charlottes-ville-remarks-transcript/?amp=true

I think it’s pretty obvious that the way Trump exploits the charges against him for political gain is morally abhorrent. I mean, here he is, facing very serious criminal charges which could see him jailed and his reputation destroyed, but he’s perfectly willing to exploit that by depicting the charges as ‘unjust persecution’ and then asking his supporters for money. And then grinning about it on the media: ‘see how clever I am?’

So the question is: how do you explain how deeply corrupt and perverted this is to those who see nothing wrong with it? Can you explain it? Or has an electorate that is willing to applaud it become corrupted past the point of redemption? This is what makes the Trump candidacy (should it be realised) so utterly malignant - the fact that he can rely on the apathy and cynicism of his supporters to gain ground by wholly illegitimate means.

Those remarks were scripted by Trump’s advisors after widespread backlash against his earlier comments about the Charlottesville riots which said ‘there were fine people on both sides’. It was wholly and solely a damage control exercise by his political apparatchiks, although of course you’ll swallow it at face value.

Surely you don’t think Jim Jordan was bodyslamming people on the house floor, or that when he says Guillianni is a fighter, Rudy is handing out uppercuts to other lawyers. — NOS4A2

That is the point. What it means for Jim Jordan and Rudy Giuliani to fight is not the same as what it means for an angry mob to fight to prevent the certification of an election on the day and place when that process was taking place.

I think you know this and that is why you have avoided addressing my questions.

I’m just asking why you and Jack Smith don’t think it is the same.

I’m just asking why you and Jack Smith don’t think it is the same. — NOS4A2

Just asking rather than answering my questions.

Jim Jordan and Rudy Giuliani did not storm the Capital. Neither did Trump.

My toothpaste fights cavities. In doing so it does not do what Jim Jordan, or Rudy Giuliani, or the insurrectionist mob did. Again, context matters.

The insinuation has always been that he incited an insurrection and encouraged lawless action at the capital. Of course, none of it passes the “immanent lawless action” test of real first-amendment jurisprudence. Nonetheless, he was impeached for it. And now Jack smith follows the same specious line of reasoning.

here he is, facing very serious criminal charges which could see him jailed and his reputation destroyed — Wayfarer

What reputation?