If Trump had used these words...

[bmw]

Imagine in your head now Trump's voice. Imagine him on late night TV with a friendly host to his cause, such as Sean Hannity. Imagine him saying this (minus the "before election day in November" quote) days BEFORE the capital riots about his supporters who were peacefully protesting the election results:

But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And 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.

If violence had ensued after saying such words, would you believe Trump to be guilty of inciting violence?

Because that is a direct quote from Kamala Harris on Late Night with Steven Colbert this past summer during the BLM "protests." You know, the ones where violence eventually ensued and over 20 people ended up dead.

If they're NOT the same thing, then I'd love to hear somebody make the intellectual case that I'm comparing apples to oranges.

[Bryce]

Imagine in your head now Trump's voice. Imagine him on late night TV with a friendly host to his cause, such as Sean Hannity. Imagine him saying this days BEFORE the capital riots about his supporters who were peacefully protesting the election results:

But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And 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.

If violence had ensued after saying such words, would you believe Trump to be guilty of inciting violence?

Because that is a direct quote from Kamala Harris on Late Night with Steven Colbert this past summer during the BLM "protests." You know, the ones where violence eventually ensued and over 20 people ended up dead.

If they're NOT the same thing, then I'd love to hear somebody make the intellectual case that I'm comparing apples to oranges.

But wait, there's more...

She went on to donate money to bail some of those people out of jail so they could "protest" some more.

[bmw]

Ok, so let's add the following caveat: Let's say the NRA bailed out the capital rioters.

[bmw]

Plus where I come from, if somebody tells me to "beware," I take that as there being eminent danger ahead.

[Honeyman]

George Floyd was murdered in cold blood. Reality. You saw it with your own eyes. The protests were a reflection of that.

Donald Trump was inciting people about something that never existed. The states, the courts, and you yourself agreed that there was no election fraud.

[bmw]

George Floyd was murdered in cold blood. Reality. You saw it with your own eyes. The protests were a reflection of that.

Donald Trump was inciting people about something that never existed. The states, the courts, and you yourself agreed that there was no election fraud.

So it is all about the underlying cause and nothing about the violence. The ends justifies the means.

This is EXACTLY the response I expected and precisely why I can't take any arguments from the left seriously right now.

[bmw]

And just to be clear Honeyman, are you suggesting that violence-inciting language is ok as long as the people protesting have, in your view, a "legitimate" reason to protest?

[Honeyman]

And just to be clear Honeyman, are you suggesting that violence-inciting language is ok as long as the people protesting have, in your view, a "legitimate" reason to protest?

Absolutely not. I believe Harris was speaking before the protests became violent. Correct me if I'm wrong and link me the video or the date of her Colbert appearance.

[bmw]

Trump was ALSO speaking before the protests became violent, was he not? Did violence erupt WHILE he was speaking?

Regardless, by definition, for language to "incite" violence, the speech must occur before the actual violence takes place.

[Bryce]

George Floyd was murdered in cold blood. Reality. You saw it with your own eyes. The protests were a reflection of that.

It's sad that Mr. Floyd died. But he's not blameless. If he had not physically resisted officers nor had fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use, he'd be alive today.

Or at least that's the logic someone recently used...

[Honeyman]

Trump was ALSO speaking before the protests became violent, was he not? Did violence erupt WHILE he was speaking?

Regardless, by definition, for language to "incite" violence, the speech must occur before the actual violence takes place.

Trump started his lie about an injustice that did not happen before the election even took place. He continued to perpetuate the lie for 2 months. He then gathered tens of thousands of his followers in one place, again continued to lie and incite the group and told them to march down the street. They did all the destruction and killing for something that did not exist.

Kamala Harris was being interviewed about a man being murdered in cold blood. Black people have been held down and mistreated by the police for decades. This was a culmination of something very real for generations.

I am not excusing the violence that occurred in the George Floyd protests. The rioting, looting, injuries and death was abhorrent. But I just don't see the comparison. I am sure we don't agree.

[bmw]

The point I'm trying to make is that the underlying cause is irrelevant. Inciting violence is inciting violence, and what I'm suggesting is that if the language used by Trump at his rally constitutes inciting violence, then so does Kamala Harris' late night TV speech. Even accepting everything you say as true (ie, Trump intentionally lying about non-existent election fraud), people have a right to peacefully protest anything they want (which, to the best of my knowledge, Trump's supporters were peaceful at all times right up until the capital riot), however misguided said people may be. Just like people don't have a right to riot, no matter how just the cause.

And politically what I'm suggesting is that the reason a lot of conservative voters are NOT inclined to hold Trump accountable for his speech is because the very people who are saying Trump should be held accountable are the same people had no such wishes for hold Harris (and others) accountable for their speech that they view as having exasperated the BLM protests.

[Honeyman]

And I disagree with the assertion that the underlying cause is irrelevant. If somebody harmed your wife and you killed him, it would be wrong, but in my eyes, understandable. If somebody told you that this guy harmed your wife and you killed him, completely different story.

Maybe you weren't as revolted as I was seeing those pictures from the Capitol. I find that strange though, because your true passion for this country is obvious. 9-11 stands alone. Outside of that, there is nothing I have seen that gave me as sick of a feeling in the pit of my stomach than what I saw last week.

[Rate This]

Trump was ALSO speaking before the protests became violent, was he not? Did violence erupt WHILE he was speaking?

Regardless, by definition, for language to "incite" violence, the speech must occur before the actual violence takes place.

Trumps words were clearly based on ginning people up over a lie in order to sow chaos at the Capitol. That he had to have his arm removed, twisted into a pretzel and reattached before he would say what was happening was not good speaks volumes.

Harris was clearly referring to the movement and the marches and demonstrations themselves and not referring to any violence at all.