🇳🇱
While some of these are certainly debatable the vast majority are clearly misrepresented by the media against Trump. I never got this since there is soooo much legitimate reasons to attack him.
@realcaseyrollins for some things there is that.
But more to the point, when you actual discuss real merits and points then it can be debated... but who can argue its ok to mock a disabled reporter? Nearly 100% of these things are an appeal to emotions, not logic.
@freemo Didn’t I disprove the “he mocked a reporter’s disability” thing to you before?
@realcaseyrollins You did, and i was satisfied.
@freemo Gotcha, wasn’t sure if you’d remembered haha 👍🏾
@realcaseyrollins I did, and in fact i had seen your proof before and flipped flopped once or twice. I forgot just how obvious it was and that trump just kinda acts a fool all the time and it isnt always directed at someone (even if it is a rather unprofessional way to present himself).
Like I do think he was mocking that guy by mimicking being "retarded". But i dont think he did it just to him or because of his physical disability. I think he is just insensitively mimicking "retarded" people to mock anyone as a way of saying "hahah yoyu act like someone with a disability!".
So yea i agree, he was not mocking that guys disability. But he was acting like a person with a disability as a mannerism as he does to mock anyone and everyone.
You might enjoy https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XfLdFZ4my9g and it's IMO somewhat relevant ~here: it demonstrates that literal contents of speech is not what is communicated. Sadly this means that unless one assumes good faith of the speaker, one can't really judge what they want to convey other than by looking at what effect it has, lest the estimate be ~easily manipulatable :(
By that logic those campaigning against Trump at the time (Biden et el) were responsible for the riots they "caused".. sure they never specifically asked for riots, but that was the result of their rallying speeches all the same, so they should be guilty for the nation-wide rioting that lasted months.
Obviously in reality I dont think like that. People are responsible for what they do, not for what they hope they want.
Hm~ I'm curious what you'd think about the pilots from that sketch then (I understand that it's sufficiently out-of-context that it might be hard to extrapolate there or back, but I'm still curious).
I don't know how to divine intent of people I can't talk with (or that talk in a way I find sufficiently alien). How would you do that?
Expiernce. Seeing how their past words and actions have played out and how their claimed intent aligns with their demonstrated intent.
To me it is obvious he lied and manipulated to try to convince people of election fraud. Therefore it is obvious he intended to convince people of election fraud. It is also obvious that Trump is **very** bad at hiding his intent, his lying and manipulation in that regard is transparent.
Yet as far as I know I have seen him do nothing to suggest he intended violence. If he had intended it becaus ehe is so bad at hiding his intent I would expect there to be a mountain of recording of him saying exactly that.
That fact that he never slipped and let his violent intent be known is very strong evidence he had no such intent.
What do you mean by demonstrated intent? (I assume something like observed effects compared to your estimation of other effects he could have achieved.)
evidence of their intent, but no not observed effects, intent doesnt always align to effect.
So an example is tapes of him stating his intent to someone else (which is what id expect he cant shut his mouth)
But then what would you use as evidence of lack of intent in people who you wouldn't expect to blab so much?
@robryk
In that case it isnt coded language it is manipulative language there is a difference.
In the case of the pilots they were saying things that would cause people to beleive something contrary to what is said. "everything is fine" implies there is a reason someone might incorrectly think everything is fine and look for it.
In Trumps case its very different. His language didnt convery hidden meanings or coded speech, he didnt say one thing intending to imply another. He said exactly what he intended to be heard, and wanted to incite action (though not necceseraly violent action) as a result. Any reasonable person hearing his speeches before the riots wouldnt go "he just suggested everyone riot and break down the capitol".. a reasonable person would say "He wants to rally people into thinking there is election fraud so they will protest it and fight it, peacefully and gain so much support they will overturn it"...
That said I wouldnt be surprised if he did want violence, I just havent seen any evidence of that. What I did see was evidence of him saying exactly the results he wanted, for the population to fight for a recount and to get election results thrown out so he can win. I think he knows he lost and was being manipulative (and worthy of arrest) in doing so, but not for inciting violent, but for lying about election fraud to win an election.
@realcaseyrollins