The US Presidency 2020
- Thread starter FJAG
- Start date
- Status
dapaterson said:
I seldom find myself saying or thinking 'Unbelievable...' about anything he utters anymore, but I'll admit this one took me by surprise.
To simply state 'LIBERATE ______' three times in a span of minutes, that's an imperative. He's telling his supporters to do something. More to the point, he makes explicit reference in the third tweet, to the second amendment being under siege, and urges people to 'save it'.
This appears to very close to the President of the United States urging his followers to take up arms against the legal powers currently enacted by the governors of three states, which Trump himself only days ago asserted (falsely) that he has "total" authority over. He followed those three tweets up with a rant against Governor Cuomo in New York.
He is very quickly fomenting a political crisis that has real potential to turn violent. These are not responsible actions or utterances by someone in his position, and I'm concerned as to what his motivations are to frame his objections to state policy in such terms, and with a reference to bearing arms.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,666
- Points
- 1,160
[quote author=Brihard]
This appears to very close to the President of the Unit States urging his followers to take up arms against the legal powers currently enacted by the governors of three states, which Trump himself only days ago asserted (falsely) that he has "total" authority over.
[/quote]
I think it's a few levels closer than that. What a crazy post to make.
This appears to very close to the President of the Unit States urging his followers to take up arms against the legal powers currently enacted by the governors of three states, which Trump himself only days ago asserted (falsely) that he has "total" authority over.
[/quote]
I think it's a few levels closer than that. What a crazy post to make.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,666
- Points
- 1,160
Brihard said:
Seeing stuff like that is actually scary because there's people who will read that and launch into a crusade to take back their government. From the governor's who are trying to manage a pandemic under the umbrella of a leader who tells them to get their own medical supplies themselves then buys the fucking stuff out from under them and laughs about it.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a tweet from the US president suggesting US soldiers may have to cross in to Canada to take back medical supplies. Or something along those lines.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,979
- Points
- 1,040
Sure. Some people read rhetoric about Republicans and then go out and shoot some, but if there is open armed rebellion it'll be because people are tired of restrictions. The unfortunate thing about Trump's bombast is that it will give cover to the little Napoleons in states and cities across the US to claim it's Trump's fault, not theirs.
It's just rhetoric - like "crosshairs", or "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"; those wishing to suffer from high anxiety may do so.
It's just rhetoric - like "crosshairs", or "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"; those wishing to suffer from high anxiety may do so.
FJAG said:
Their saviour is unravelling. He’s unhinged given the crisis with nowhere to go but down so he’s lashing out. No Trump supporter wants to admit what is obvious to everyone else so they have to double down.
meltdown Monday was just the start.
The “United” States are anything but.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,979
- Points
- 1,040
>No one is shooting Republicans.
For those who missed it, James Hodgkinson got worked up enough to shoot some Republicans at a softball practice. That settles one question: can people be moved to violence by politics and political rhetoric? (Yes.) But it happens very infrequently (is there more than a handful of examples over the past 20 years?), which settles a second question: does it happen often? (No.) We haven't witnessed open armed rebellion yet, and very few outrages perpetrated by two or more people, and there has been plenty of heated rhetoric that hasn't even led to lone wolf rampages, so it is a really long jump from another piece of rhetoric to hand-wringing over ridiculously unlikely outcomes involving large numbers of people.
>The only unfortunate thing about Trump's bombast is that so many people continue to be apologists for him.
It's unfortunate that so many people need to put on the tin hat and fabricate worries out of thin air. But it's not an apology for him. The point is that Trump becomes an apology - a scapegoat - for others. The first rule of problem-solving is to correctly identify the problem. Trump is a source of problems; but for the problems for which he is not responsible, there can be no effective solution if the first step is the reflexive leap to blame something Trump said.
If matters come to a boil (widespread rioting, if not armed rebellion), it'll be because of reactions to burdensome policies in specific municipalities and states. To fix the problem, the focus must be those policies, not bits and pieces of throwaway political lines.
>That’s entirely enough apologetics for this particular bit of dangerously provocative rhetoric, thanks.
And I think there's enough for people to worry about without pot-stirring Chicken Little-ism.
For those who missed it, James Hodgkinson got worked up enough to shoot some Republicans at a softball practice. That settles one question: can people be moved to violence by politics and political rhetoric? (Yes.) But it happens very infrequently (is there more than a handful of examples over the past 20 years?), which settles a second question: does it happen often? (No.) We haven't witnessed open armed rebellion yet, and very few outrages perpetrated by two or more people, and there has been plenty of heated rhetoric that hasn't even led to lone wolf rampages, so it is a really long jump from another piece of rhetoric to hand-wringing over ridiculously unlikely outcomes involving large numbers of people.
>The only unfortunate thing about Trump's bombast is that so many people continue to be apologists for him.
It's unfortunate that so many people need to put on the tin hat and fabricate worries out of thin air. But it's not an apology for him. The point is that Trump becomes an apology - a scapegoat - for others. The first rule of problem-solving is to correctly identify the problem. Trump is a source of problems; but for the problems for which he is not responsible, there can be no effective solution if the first step is the reflexive leap to blame something Trump said.
If matters come to a boil (widespread rioting, if not armed rebellion), it'll be because of reactions to burdensome policies in specific municipalities and states. To fix the problem, the focus must be those policies, not bits and pieces of throwaway political lines.
>That’s entirely enough apologetics for this particular bit of dangerously provocative rhetoric, thanks.
And I think there's enough for people to worry about without pot-stirring Chicken Little-ism.
Brad Sallows said:
Not sure what part of tweeting “LIBERATE!” three different states with an appeal to the second amendment you’re struggling with. It’s a profoundly dangerous and destabilizing thing for him to say. He’s setting up those who take his words seriously for violent confrontation with state authorities who are operating under the powers constitutionally granted to the states. His words have great power and he knows it. This is dangerous.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,979
- Points
- 1,040
>Not sure what part of tweeting “LIBERATE!” three different states with an appeal to the second amendment you’re struggling with.
Temporal context matters.
Only the tweet mentioning Virginia also mentioned the 2A. VA recently was in the news (and on plenty of web sites) for a bunch of stuff signed into law, including gun control measures. One person is free to interpret that as a called to armed revolution. Another is free to interpret that as a call to fight back in the political arena against a specific and recent set of legislative changes.
The tweets mentioning Michigan and Minnesota mentioned no particular issue; but, in recent news both states have featured prominently as places where some people feel the measures taken to restrict COVID-19 spread are overdone. Again, some may decide to interpret the tweets as a goad to revolution. Others may decide to interpret the tweets as calls to protest and engage in civil disobedience to get the policies changed.
You're the one spun up about this; I'm not the extremist here looking for incendiary interpretations.
Absent asking Trump what his intent was, we don't know if he meant to goad people to violence, or to political action. (And if he claimed the latter, undoubtedly he would simply be accused of lying, so why bother.)
The overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people, unlikely to interpret those remarks as calls to take up arms.
Among the lunatic fringe who might interpret those remarks as a call for armed revolution, very few have the means and courage to do so.
If the ones with means and backbone suss out opinions around them, they will figure out very quickly that the mob is not interested in joining them and most will lose interest.
And if any of the remaining few go ahead anyways, they will rapidly become extinct. But there won't be widespread violence.
This is worth freaking out over about as much as an asteroid strike.
OTOH, if over-restrictive measures continue to be imposed for too long, there may be violence. But, in advance, critics should agree to blame those responsible for the measures - which have already triggered objections and protests - rather than Trump's tweets.
Temporal context matters.
Only the tweet mentioning Virginia also mentioned the 2A. VA recently was in the news (and on plenty of web sites) for a bunch of stuff signed into law, including gun control measures. One person is free to interpret that as a called to armed revolution. Another is free to interpret that as a call to fight back in the political arena against a specific and recent set of legislative changes.
The tweets mentioning Michigan and Minnesota mentioned no particular issue; but, in recent news both states have featured prominently as places where some people feel the measures taken to restrict COVID-19 spread are overdone. Again, some may decide to interpret the tweets as a goad to revolution. Others may decide to interpret the tweets as calls to protest and engage in civil disobedience to get the policies changed.
You're the one spun up about this; I'm not the extremist here looking for incendiary interpretations.
Absent asking Trump what his intent was, we don't know if he meant to goad people to violence, or to political action. (And if he claimed the latter, undoubtedly he would simply be accused of lying, so why bother.)
The overwhelming majority of Americans are reasonable people, unlikely to interpret those remarks as calls to take up arms.
Among the lunatic fringe who might interpret those remarks as a call for armed revolution, very few have the means and courage to do so.
If the ones with means and backbone suss out opinions around them, they will figure out very quickly that the mob is not interested in joining them and most will lose interest.
And if any of the remaining few go ahead anyways, they will rapidly become extinct. But there won't be widespread violence.
This is worth freaking out over about as much as an asteroid strike.
OTOH, if over-restrictive measures continue to be imposed for too long, there may be violence. But, in advance, critics should agree to blame those responsible for the measures - which have already triggered objections and protests - rather than Trump's tweets.
- Reaction score
- 22,114
- Points
- 1,090
When the "liberation" forces dress in the stars and bars of racist treason...
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,979
- Points
- 1,040
>In Trump's 'LIBERATE' tweets, extremists see a call to arms
So there's the lunatic fringe. "Anti-government sentiment has percolated among far-right extremists in recent weeks over the stay-at-home orders governors have issued to prevent the spread of the coronavirus." The nutters will find whatever they want to give them an excuse.
>When the "liberation" forces dress in the stars and bars of racist treason...
The preferred uniform seems to be neckbeard and jammy-cammies.
So there's the lunatic fringe. "Anti-government sentiment has percolated among far-right extremists in recent weeks over the stay-at-home orders governors have issued to prevent the spread of the coronavirus." The nutters will find whatever they want to give them an excuse.
>When the "liberation" forces dress in the stars and bars of racist treason...
The preferred uniform seems to be neckbeard and jammy-cammies.
Brad Sallows said:
Simply writing them off as a ‘lunatic fringe’ does not make real potential for violence and other danger go away. It does not absolve a political leader of moral culpability for things he instigates and violent radicals he may embolden. The ‘fringe’ of a total population of 328 million people can be a hell of a lot of dangerous individuals. We have fought bloody conflicts against ‘fringes’ of populations that numbered a small portion of the total.
I will pose to you a simple question: in the current situation, knowing everything we currently know, was it responsible or irresponsible of the President of the United States to tweet “LIBERATE” with those three states’ names, and to refer to the Second Amendment being under threat in one of them? Very straightforward question
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
The problem are the governors in some states that are ignoring the rights of its citizens. Thus the protests. In Virginia the Governor has violated the 2d amendment rights. In Michigan you can get an abortion but not buy seeds for plating a garden but you can buy pot or alcohol.
- Status
Similar threads
