Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Later Trump said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives, and unfortunately, there's plenty to go around." I'm almost sure Trump said that.

And then he said of his supporters, "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day." He went on to say, "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not. And we should not."

Trump didn't stop there, though. He took aim at the Biden administration, saying to his Trumpsters "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." While some thought this was encouraging violence, Trump kept going. "The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you."

Not content to end with such overtly violent rhetoric, Trump continued, "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be."





(Just kidding, these were all statements by very prominent democrats. Leftists like Sam didn't make a peep when these nut jobs overtly called for violence)

---

Debunked.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

---

Calling for "unrest in the streets" isn't a call for violence?

---

It can be. It's less than clear in this context, where she's talking about organizing, making phone calls, and other things that go along with peaceful activism.

---

ROFL, I've heard it all!! Somebody shouts there will be unrest in the streets and the action that followed was a group of people making phone calls and writing sternly worded letters.

All you have to do is look at what happen in areas after the statements were made just like what you're doing with Trump. You will see the unrest in the streets" did equate to violence, not emails to congress people

---

Waters' and Pelosi's statements were two years before the riots. Harris' was after they started, and Pressley's was two and a half months later. I'm leaning toward agreeing with you on Pressley. Considering that the riots had been going on all summer, she shouldn't have said it. I give her less benefit of the doubt as a member of the Squad.

---

Many letters and phone calls were made to representatives based on Trump's speech, therefor we can ignore the couple hundred rowdy tourists on Jan 6th! I like the reasoning being shared here. And as for that awesome timeline you shared of when these violent leftists were calling for riots and murders, if they were making such statements for two years before their followers decided to act on their instructions during the year of black supremacist riots or two minutes before, it was all part of what led to the death and destruction. It was also part of what led to ICE facilities being firebombed. (You forgot about those attacks, didn't you? All that anti-ICE rhetoric based on the "kids in cages" lie) Harris literally bailed out rioters and one went on to murder. If you can't see the difference between "yeah, they said it but we don't think they meant it" and "yeah, he never said it but we think that is what orange man bad REALLY meant" then you're always going to be embarrassed when these conversations come up, as you have been here.

---

You're making my case for me. All I'm saying is that these were not overt calls to violence. No doubt some of the Dem rhetoric did contribute to violence, just as Trump's rhetoric did on J6. I've always said so. Glad you're starting to see the light.

---

No, they were direct calls to violence for two years that led to the year of black supremacist riots. You failing to understand the conversation might be the least surprising thing ever.

---

Your failure to see context is unsurprising. It's practically a requirement for Trump supporters at this point.

Speaking of which, any thoughts on the Trump interview?

---

By "context" you really mean "anything you can imagine that supports your narrative", because you certainly aren't in favor of actual context.

---

My "narrative" about Democrats only exists in your imagination. I have no interest in defending them or doing anything else except pointing out that words mean things. I know partisan hacks often find that inconvenient. But "kids in cages" does not overtly mean "burn, loot, murder" no matter how much you might like it to be so.

If you're comfortable with the reasoning which holds that months of inflammatory rhetoric can contribute to violence even without expressly violent language, we can certainly agree. All pretenses notwithstanding, you obviously aren't comfortable when it's applied to Trump. You're bringing the same old double standards and tiresome whatabouts that we see here daily.

---

At but there's the rub; you claim that outright calls for violence were not expressly violent language from democrats while claiming language that EXPRESSLY asked for peaceful demonstration from Trump was a de facto call for violence. You desperately want to compare the democrats' violent rhetoric with Trump's calls for peaceful demonstration and it simply doesn't work. Besides, the years of violent rhetoric and actions from democrats were a direct factor in the actions of the rowdy unarmed tourists on Jan6th. The same cannot be said for the actions of the black supremacist riots.

---

What I'm doing, and what you desperately don't want to do, is comparing the entirety of Trump's message with that of the Democrats. Not just one sentence from one speech. And the one thing we know was a direct factor in J6 was Trump's rhetoric. We know it because the rioters said so.

---

Ah, so we can't look at the words he spoke to determine if they're actual calls to violence but his entire existence and our interpretations of that existence is at play when judging his specific words. I guess that's the same brilliant reasoning that allows you to ignore direct and headed calls to violence by democrats, right, because despite their actual words we can look at the entirety of their careers and create a peaceful message from those violent words. Got it.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Later Trump said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives, and unfortunately, there's plenty to go around." I'm almost sure Trump said that.

And then he said of his supporters, "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day." He went on to say, "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not. And we should not."

Trump didn't stop there, though. He took aim at the Biden administration, saying to his Trumpsters "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." While some thought this was encouraging violence, Trump kept going. "The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you."

Not content to end with such overtly violent rhetoric, Trump continued, "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be."





(Just kidding, these were all statements by very prominent democrats. Leftists like Sam didn't make a peep when these nut jobs overtly called for violence)

---

Debunked.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

---

Calling for "unrest in the streets" isn't a call for violence?

---

It can be. It's less than clear in this context, where she's talking about organizing, making phone calls, and other things that go along with peaceful activism.

---

ROFL, I've heard it all!! Somebody shouts there will be unrest in the streets and the action that followed was a group of people making phone calls and writing sternly worded letters.

All you have to do is look at what happen in areas after the statements were made just like what you're doing with Trump. You will see the unrest in the streets" did equate to violence, not emails to congress people

---

Waters' and Pelosi's statements were two years before the riots. Harris' was after they started, and Pressley's was two and a half months later. I'm leaning toward agreeing with you on Pressley. Considering that the riots had been going on all summer, she shouldn't have said it. I give her less benefit of the doubt as a member of the Squad.

---

Many letters and phone calls were made to representatives based on Trump's speech, therefor we can ignore the couple hundred rowdy tourists on Jan 6th! I like the reasoning being shared here. And as for that awesome timeline you shared of when these violent leftists were calling for riots and murders, if they were making such statements for two years before their followers decided to act on their instructions during the year of black supremacist riots or two minutes before, it was all part of what led to the death and destruction. It was also part of what led to ICE facilities being firebombed. (You forgot about those attacks, didn't you? All that anti-ICE rhetoric based on the "kids in cages" lie) Harris literally bailed out rioters and one went on to murder. If you can't see the difference between "yeah, they said it but we don't think they meant it" and "yeah, he never said it but we think that is what orange man bad REALLY meant" then you're always going to be embarrassed when these conversations come up, as you have been here.

---

You're making my case for me. All I'm saying is that these were not overt calls to violence. No doubt some of the Dem rhetoric did contribute to violence, just as Trump's rhetoric did on J6. I've always said so. Glad you're starting to see the light.

---

No, they were direct calls to violence for two years that led to the year of black supremacist riots. You failing to understand the conversation might be the least surprising thing ever.

---

Your failure to see context is unsurprising. It's practically a requirement for Trump supporters at this point.

Speaking of which, any thoughts on the Trump interview?

---

By "context" you really mean "anything you can imagine that supports your narrative", because you certainly aren't in favor of actual context.

---

My "narrative" about Democrats only exists in your imagination. I have no interest in defending them or doing anything else except pointing out that words mean things. I know partisan hacks often find that inconvenient. But "kids in cages" does not overtly mean "burn, loot, murder" no matter how much you might like it to be so.

If you're comfortable with the reasoning which holds that months of inflammatory rhetoric can contribute to violence even without expressly violent language, we can certainly agree. All pretenses notwithstanding, you obviously aren't comfortable when it's applied to Trump. You're bringing the same old double standards and tiresome whatabouts that we see here daily.

---

At but there's the rub; you claim that outright calls for violence were not expressly violent language from democrats while claiming language that EXPRESSLY asked for peaceful demonstration from Trump was a de facto call for violence. You desperately want to compare the democrats' violent rhetoric with Trump's calls for peaceful demonstration and it simply doesn't work. Besides, the years of violent rhetoric and actions from democrats were a direct factor in the actions of the rowdy unarmed tourists on Jan6th. The same cannot be said for the actions of the black supremacist riots.

---

What I'm doing, and what you desperately don't want to do, is comparing the entirety of Trump's message with that of the Democrats. Not just one sentence from one speech. And the one thing we know was a direct factor in J6 was Trump's rhetoric. We know it because the rioters said so.

---

Ah, so we can't look at the words he spoke to determine if they're actual calls to violence but his entire existence and our interpretations of that existence is at play when judging his specific words. I guess that's the same brilliant reasoning that allows you to ignore direct and headed calls to violence by democrats, right, because despite their actual words we can look at the entirety of their careers and create a peaceful message from those violent words. Got it.

---

I'm not even going to spend time trying to make sense of that.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Golem said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

Sam is dishonest. You are wasting your time. He's wrong and is siding with evil. He knows that. He is good with that. He hates Trump so much he'd drown a sack full of puppies every Tuesday, in the name of Moloch, if he thought it would send him to jail.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Golem said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

Sam is dishonest. You are wasting your time. He's wrong and is siding with evil. He knows that. He is good with that. He hates Trump so much he'd drown a sack full of puppies every Tuesday, in the name of Moloch, if he thought it would send him to jail.

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

I don't think you can blame J6 entirely on the Democrats. Just from listening to the rioters and taking them at their word, it's clear that Trump had something to do with it.

---

JXL said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Later Trump said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives, and unfortunately, there's plenty to go around." I'm almost sure Trump said that.

And then he said of his supporters, "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day." He went on to say, "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not. And we should not."

Trump didn't stop there, though. He took aim at the Biden administration, saying to his Trumpsters "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." While some thought this was encouraging violence, Trump kept going. "The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you."

Not content to end with such overtly violent rhetoric, Trump continued, "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be."





(Just kidding, these were all statements by very prominent democrats. Leftists like Sam didn't make a peep when these nut jobs overtly called for violence)

---

Debunked.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

---

Calling for "unrest in the streets" isn't a call for violence?

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

I don't think you can blame J6 entirely on the Democrats. Just from listening to the rioters and taking them at their word, it's clear that Trump had something to do with it.

---

Well sure. He was mad at the chicanery all objective Americans witnessed before and during the elections. So were most Republicans who had just witnessed the year of violence and years of violent rhetoric. The bigger picture only further condemns democrats.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

I don't think you can blame J6 entirely on the Democrats. Just from listening to the rioters and taking them at their word, it's clear that Trump had something to do with it.

---

Well sure. He was mad at the chicanery all objective Americans witnessed before and during the elections. So were most Republicans who had just witnessed the year of violence and years of violent rhetoric. The bigger picture only further condemns democrats.

---

"Objective Americans" being the posters on this board as opposed to dozens of impartial judges, many of whom were appointed by Trump? Or his own attorney general? Or the White House counsel? Not sure about that.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

First time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts. He isn't sharing honest opinions. He is intellectually as dishonest as they come with mountains of hypocrisy behind every one of his threads. He is not sharing his opinions; he is trying to manipulate others'.

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

First time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts. He isn't sharing honest opinions. He is intellectually as dishonest as they come with mountains of hypocrisy behind every one of his threads. He is not sharing his opinions; he is trying to manipulate others'.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

First time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts. He isn't sharing honest opinions. He is intellectually as dishonest as they come with mountains of hypocrisy behind every one of his threads. He is not sharing his opinions; he is trying to manipulate others'.

---

I think you're misunderstanding his methods. When "cornered" after having displayed bad logic/ outright falsehoods he will parse out a semantic argument in effort to return to a previous point he may have felt a victory on. Many here seem to take this as an attempt to avoid admitting his initial opinion was wrong, and it angers them. Me personally I see it as a "Sam Lowry surrender" so to speak. It's a cordial way to allow Sam to admit he was wrong without ripping out his fingernails for some level of normal apology/admitting error. Recognize how he apologizes and you'll understand. Discussions go much further with this method.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

First time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts. He isn't sharing honest opinions. He is intellectually as dishonest as they come with mountains of hypocrisy behind every one of his threads. He is not sharing his opinions; he is trying to manipulate others'.

---

I think you're misunderstanding his methods. When "cornered" after having displayed bad logic/ outright falsehoods he will parse out a semantic argument in effort to return to a previous point he may have felt a victory on. Many here seem to take this as an attempt to avoid admitting his initial opinion was wrong, and it angers them. Me personally I see it as a "Sam Lowry surrender" so to speak. It's a cordial way to allow Sam to admit he was wrong without ripping out his fingernails for some level of normal apology/admitting error. Recognize how he apologizes and you'll understand. Discussions go much further with this method.

---

That is some high level trolling right there. Well done, sir.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam takes the time to explain his opinions, right or wrong. I can respect that.

---

First time I've ever disagreed with one of your posts. He isn't sharing honest opinions. He is intellectually as dishonest as they come with mountains of hypocrisy behind every one of his threads. He is not sharing his opinions; he is trying to manipulate others'.

---

I think you're misunderstanding his methods. When "cornered" after having displayed bad logic/ outright falsehoods he will parse out a semantic argument in effort to return to a previous point he may have felt a victory on. Many here seem to take this as an attempt to avoid admitting his initial opinion was wrong, and it angers them. Me personally I see it as a "Sam Lowry surrender" so to speak. It's a cordial way to allow Sam to admit he was wrong without ripping out his fingernails for some level of normal apology/admitting error. Recognize how he apologizes and you'll understand. Discussions go much further with this method.

---

That is some high level trolling right there. Well done, sir.

---

Who the hell wants to continue a conversation where they have to admit they were wrong before conversation can continue? Doesn't hurt me at all to recognize the behavior is not so much antagonistic as much as it is a way to keep conversations going. Not a troll, not an insult.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

I don't think you can blame J6 entirely on the Democrats. Just from listening to the rioters and taking them at their word, it's clear that Trump had something to do with it.

---

Well sure. He was mad at the chicanery all objective Americans witnessed before and during the elections. So were most Republicans who had just witnessed the year of violence and years of violent rhetoric. The bigger picture only further condemns democrats.

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Yes, calling for the abolition of ICE by democrat politicians, comparing them with Nazis, saying they are kidnapping children and worse was a direct factor in ICE facilities being firebombed by democrats. Even if you don't wish to acknowledge it.

---

I don't mind acknowledging it at all. Will you acknowledge that calling for the abolition of the FBI and comparing them with Nazis is no different? I doubt it.

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

I don't think you can blame J6 entirely on the Democrats. Just from listening to the rioters and taking them at their word, it's clear that Trump had something to do with it.

---

Well sure. He was mad at the chicanery all objective Americans witnessed before and during the elections. So were most Republicans who had just witnessed the year of violence and years of violent rhetoric. The bigger picture only further condemns democrats.

---

Enough of the Truth.

Leftist democrats uncritically ejaculate that the election was legitimate. I sat in a forum yesterday that included elected Texas Republicans who have been seeking the truth and it really bothers me that they are not celebrating my party's banana republic!

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Later Trump said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives, and unfortunately, there's plenty to go around." I'm almost sure Trump said that.

And then he said of his supporters, "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day." He went on to say, "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not. And we should not."

Trump didn't stop there, though. He took aim at the Biden administration, saying to his Trumpsters "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." While some thought this was encouraging violence, Trump kept going. "The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you."

Not content to end with such overtly violent rhetoric, Trump continued, "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be."





(Just kidding, these were all statements by very prominent democrats. Leftists like Sam didn't make a peep when these nut jobs overtly called for violence)

---

Debunked.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

---

Not one democrat said to go and protest peacefully.

---

Also debunked.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_44839468-3d38-415c-b0b0-11ceb87d1ced

---

Not a single one of those quotes changed with your CNN link. Try again.

---

No one takes issue with the existence of the quotes, but only the context in which they're presented.

---

contrario said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Golem said:

---

Later Trump said, "There needs to be unrest in the streets for as long as there's unrest in our lives, and unfortunately, there's plenty to go around." I'm almost sure Trump said that.

And then he said of his supporters, "They're not gonna stop, and everyone beware, because they're not gonna stop. They're not gonna stop before Election Day in November, and they're not gonna stop after Election Day." He went on to say, "Everyone should take note of that, on both levels, that they're not going to let up and they should not. And we should not."

Trump didn't stop there, though. He took aim at the Biden administration, saying to his Trumpsters "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gas station, you get out and create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." While some thought this was encouraging violence, Trump kept going. "The people are going to turn on them. They're going to protest. They're going to absolutely harass them until they decide that they're going to tell the President, 'No, I can't hang with you."

Not content to end with such overtly violent rhetoric, Trump continued, "I just don't know why there aren't uprisings all over the country. Maybe there will be."





(Just kidding, these were all statements by very prominent democrats. Leftists like Sam didn't make a peep when these nut jobs overtly called for violence)

---

Debunked.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jan/07/facebook-posts/quotes-4-democrats-twisted-make-it-look-they-endor/

---

Not one democrat said to go and protest peacefully.

---

Also debunked.

https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_44839468-3d38-415c-b0b0-11ceb87d1ced

---

Not a single one of those quotes changed with your CNN link. Try again.

---

No one takes issue with the existence of the quotes, but only the context in which they're presented.

---

Since when does context matter? Jinx, cinque and humck still say Trump said there were good people on both sides. Never once did you call for them to add context or the full quote.

---

whiterock said:

---

quash said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Your(democrats) previous reactions and outright support of such rhetoric like abolish ICE and defund the police and all cops are *******s leads me to not care what you think now, when we see an actual corrupt agency that needs a top down "reimagining". In other words, we don't let the real wolf maraud freely just because you democrats wouldn't stop crying wolf when there was no wolf.

---

---

---

Yeah, except that everything you just said there is wrong. I was vehemently opposed to ACAB, defund the police, etc.

---

Yet you excuse the rhetoric that caused it and the politicians that literally bailed out the rioters pushing it. There is a terrible Allanis Morrisette song about that kind of thing.

---

I don't excuse it. I just don't lie about it. I can make a good enough case against Dems by telling the truth. Maybe you can't? I don't know.

But who are we kidding, really? We both know why you have to say "kids in cages" is an overt call to violence even though it obviously isn't. Because if you admitted that Dems can say "peace, peace" while stirring up conflict, you'd have to admit that maybe Trump can do the same. You won't do that, just like you won't condemn Republicans who refer to the FBI as the Gestapo or the KGB. Same old story. Rules for thee, not for me.

---

So you are attempting to say "go peacefully" is a call to violence but "those Nazis are ripping kids from their mothers and putting them into CAGES!!!" was not? Did anyone firebomb the capitol? Because ICE facilities were firebombed from said rhetoric and no, I have not said their words were peaceful, like Trump's request to demonstrate peacefully. "Kids in cages" is nothing close to peaceful rhetoric.

---

None of those are specific calls to violence. To illustrate the importance of context, look at the rhetoric of the pro-life movement. I say this as a staunch pro-lifer. To call abortion murder and compare it with the Holocaust, as we do all the time, is about as strong as the rhetoric can get. Yet pro-lifers have also been very consistent in opposing violence. It's not all about cherry-picked phrases and quotes. It's about the whole ethos of the movement and the message that it sends.

---

Years of democrat rhetoric and riots all across the United States led to a few hours of unarmed angry morons taking photos in the capitol and you want to pretend it was Trump's fault despite asking his followers to demonstrate peacefully. Years of violent democrat rhetoric in response to law enforcement enforcing the law led to that year of violence. Specific calls to keep rioting in the streets were made. Specific calls to gather in mobs and harangue conservatives anywhere they are found is a call to violence. The ethos of the democrat party has been win at all costs, through lies, through violence and through abuse of government agencies, so I'm not sure how you can claim looking at the big picture somehow absolves their specific (and heeded) calls to violence.
As far as abortion being likened to the holocaust, you're absolutely correct. The holocaust only saw six million-ish people killed, abortion has killed around SIXTY THREE MILLION since 1973, so they really are not comparable. Abortion is FAR worse.

---

I don't think you can blame J6 entirely on the Democrats. Just from listening to the rioters and taking them at their word, it's clear that Trump had something to do with it.

---

Well sure. He was mad at the chicanery all objective Americans witnessed before and during the elections. So were most Republicans who had just witnessed the year of violence and years of violent rhetoric. The bigger picture only further condemns democrats.

---

Enough of the Lie.

Objective Americans know that the election was legitimate. I sat in a forum yesterday that included elected Texas Republicans who are having to waste taxpayer dollars in counties all over Texas defending unfounded lawsuits challenging the very election that put them in office.

---

Actually, polling does not indicate that. one las week had 78% of Americans believing that the outcome would have been different had alphabet and social media not sat on the Hunter Biden story. And others show a clear (and growing) majority believes fraud affected the outcome of elections. those and other polls even show a majority of Democrats believe election/voter fraud is a problem. You see, it's happening in Democrat primaries. It's how the progressives in the big urban counties have seized control of the blue machine. Moderate Dems have lost control of their party to cultural marxist radicals via primary fraud, yet STILL insist there is no problem with elections.

Until we end vote by mail, you will not see the American people trust elections.

I would sign on to the recommendations of the Carter/Baker bi-partisan commission on election integrity, with a proviso for additional measures on voting machines - mandatory bipartisan inspections and audits. Until we get there.....I'm sorry. If you say you believe in systemic oppression, I don't trust you to responsibly use sovereign power.

---

Hillary Clinton ripped for Trump-Hitler rally comparison: 'Desperate' attempt by someone who lost an argument https://t.co/6C0uXQ6eag

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 24, 2022

riflebear said:

---

Dems have zero to run on except Trump is bad yet he's not even on the ballot.

---

quash said:

---

riflebear said:

---

Dems have zero to run on except Trump is bad yet he's not even on the ballot.

---

This is the Issues page for the Democrat running for the highest office in Texas. Maybe you can find Trump in there somewhere among the dozen or so issues?

---