I'll take "looking for racism under every rock" for 500 please

The incitement to violence was not one speech alone, but one speech in the context of a long campaign to make it very clear to those who can't think straight that "the election had been stolen" and that therefore it was imperative to prevent Congress from certifying the result. He had also made it very clear that the VP was betraying the country, by his willingness to certify this "false" result. Anyone who doesn't see that entire campaign of lies as inciting violence is woefully ignorant and willfully fooling himself.

And this is one more case of FF defending Trump, even at his most odious...

I'm not defending Trump, I'm saying that a politician that says ."fight like hell" is not inciting violence.

Oh so now you're interested in nuance. Faschinating

And that's where you're wrong. Context matters. You pretending that Trump was not inciting to violence in the context where he said it clearly is defending Trump. For someone who pretends not to be a Trump supporter, you do that very often.

Telling a mob of angry drunken idiots carrying pitchforks, torches, bearspray who built a noose whilst chanting "Hang Mike Pence" is exactly the same as Tim Keane saying in "fight like hell" in a one one interview on television?

Ah, I see FF can't rationally defend his position any longer, so he has just resorted to calling everyone "dumb". That's a sure sign that someone knows he doesn't have a tenable argument.

It's like pushing buttons!

No I just realize that your hatred for Trump outweighs everything else so discussing anything further with you is pointless.

Keep up the rep whine.

If it weren't for double standards, the left would have no standards at all.

I declare that the sun rises in the west.
Game set and match.

They need double standards - one standard for each side of their mouth!

Sunrises (and sunsets) are an optical illusion.

No shit I better write that down, that info might come in handy some day.

Context is important.

That is why shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater when you know that there is no fire, is one of the most cited examples of unprotected speech, but shouting "Fire!" when there actually is a fire or where a person might reasonably believe there was a fire, or to fool a single person in a context where people would not stampede their way to the exit would not be as problematic.

So it is a very different thing to say "I am going to fight like hell" or even "We need to fight like hell" on the one hand when it is not tied to a specific action as opposed to "We need to fight like hell, and this is how we're going to do it by this specific action that we're going to do today that is super urgent and that we need to do or else they are going to take our country away."

It is a very different thing to deliver a stump speech to an average crowd and to deliver a speech to a crowd that had people that you know, or had a reasonable chance to know, was armed with bear spray, zip ties, and other weapons.

It is a very different thing when the rest of the speech makes clear that the fighting being talked about is within the system versus a speech that talks about an existential threat that cannot be fought within the system.

I am just wondering if we should be calling out @Obiwan-Can-Blow-Me for making physical threats every time he says die in a fire because we cannot tell nuance and understand when someone is actually making a threat to burn someone up in the street like the right wing was doing with their fight like hell cried while they were actually rioting. I think every left wing person ends up calling out rioters when they occur because of some people becoming violent at peaceful left protests. Donald Trump and the right wing agitators clearly spoke out of both sides of their mouths when calling for violence.

I can even see where some people on the left have participated in inciting mobs for their causes, but not nearly to the extent, or for the pitiful reasons the right has. Some left win people saying stop killing innocent PoC or we will riot is much different than the right saying they are going to lynch congress for certifying a legal election they did not like.

As long as trump supporters continue to deny his incitement of violence, trump supporters have no ground to stand on with anything said by Maxine Waters.

Technically I think FF is attached to the Rand Paul branch of the republican human centipede so something something he is different than the right wing? Just don't ask many questions about it because he melts down real easily. If you are nice to him you send his mom your address and she will send you a check in the mail.

Course, there IS an existential threat to Republicans.
That being, people are seeing through their bullshit, and no one wants them around anymore.
And it's not like they're a healthy body what just suddenly had a gun pulled on it, they're Rise Of Skywalker Palpatine on the life-support crane.
They've stolen borrowed time with gerrymandering and suppression for 30 years.
Time for 'em to go.
Long past time.

People can say they don't support the Republican party all they want. But, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the truth. If they vote for a party and defend a party, then they support that party.

It's also perfectly possible for people to not really like the Republicans while just REALLY disliking the Democrats. Lesser of two evils and all that. Not sure how the GOP of 2021 could ever end up less evil than...well, most anything, but YMMV.

I keep trying to put myself in the shoes of people who genuinely thought the 2020 election was stolen and.....Chuck Schumer fucking said it already, we've been there, motherfuckers stole Al Gore.
We didn't bust up the place.
The right wingers are the ones that threw the fucking tantrum.
End of.
No sympathy coming for the MAGAs.
None.

But there are a couple of differences.

I don't think anyone felt that the Right straight up cheated in the 2000 election. Did stuff like suppress votes. Use pretzel logic to stop the recount and effectively get Bush the election, yes. Win in the Electoral College despite Gore having a popular vote majority, sure.

But as distasteful as that is and as hard as it is to swallow, those are victories within the rule of law.

If a scenario ever presented itself where liberals came to believe what conservatives were deceived into thinking about the 2020 election -- that there was massive, demonstrable voter fraud, that dead people were voting, that voting machines were turning votes for the Democratic candidate to the Republican candidate, that there was shady counting of votes out of the view of Democratic party members who were supposed to keep the process fair, that two states that traditionally voted Democratic suddenly flipped and voted Republican, that sacks of votes for the Democratic candidate in many states were dumped uncounted, that there was clearly ample evidence of all these claims, but for some reason the courts were not willing to listen to the evidence -- I don't know if Democratic voters would take the high ground.

I am just going to put this here for @Uncle Albert and @oldfella1962 for them to understand where their points are coming from.



Feel free to let that sink into your thick skulls.

Neither party has any moral ground to stand on here. We can argue semantics all day( Trump vs Waters) but both make statements with the intent of riling up their bases and sometimes that leads to disaster.

A. What disaster has resulted from any attempt Waters had made to rile up her base?

B. Even if we were to accept that Waters had made statements that led to disaster, it still would probably be a false equivalence on many grounds. A president has more responsibility than a congresswoman to serve more than just their base, the number of times that Trump has said such things is much greater than the times Waters had said such things, the end result of Trump's riling up his base in Jan 6 is worse than any "disaster" Waters caused, the things that Trump said and did to rile up his base involved far more lying than anything Waters could have done, etc. etc. etc.

The term is negative partisanship and it is not only possible it is the driving force of modern politics.

There's no false equivalence about it. It doesn't matter if one is president and the other is a congress woman. Both have their bases of impressionable idiots who take everything they say as the gospel. And if you are not aware of the some of the things Maxine Waters has said in the past let me refresh your memory...

Waters calls for protesters to 'get more confrontational' if no guilty verdict is reached in Derek Chauvin trial

Maxine Waters encourages supporters to harass Trump administration officials
"If you see anybody from [Trump's] cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."

When south-central Los Angeles erupted in riots—in which 63 were killed—after the Rodney King verdict in 1992, Waters gained national attention when she led a chant of "No justice, no peace" at a rally in the midst of the riot

And as far as bitching about Presidential results, Waters has been the biggest one every time a Republican wins

As I said before, I don't care to argue about who is the bigger douchebag. They're both douchebags. Period.

Well the main question wasn't about whether Waters had said stupid things. Probably every politician has said stupid things over time.

It's when she said stupid things that led to disaster.

Yes, there is. Take a poll. How many people know who Maxine Waters is and what she said. How many people know who donald trump is and what he said.