So, let be get this straight...

No. Wrong. The line in question from Trump’s 1/6/2021 speech is, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” Page 4 of the 15-page transcript. https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/08/politics/trump-january-6-speech-transcript

Wrong? That's literally the exact same words I wrote.

Do you have a response to the rest? Did you notice how no where throughout the rest of the 15 page transcript could any other sentence urging calm be found? Do you really think this is how one who does not want violence behaves on stage? And do you really think this one sentence you and every other MAGA sympathizer loves to cherry pick makes any sense at all within the context it was uttered?

How is my response to Doubler "paraphrased" when I offered a direct quote from the speech? Come on; be fair. And I don't know that I'm a "Trrump apologist," particularly in this regard of the 1/6 speech, because, while I acknowledge he spoke of "fight" multiple times, my approach is legitimately scholastic, not political.

According to my OED [Oxford Engilsh Dictionary], the only dictionary of the English language I will ever use [there is no equal], and it's definition of "fight" is actually 8 separate definitions, and only one of them involves physical confrontation. By Trump's context in each of his mentions of "fight" over the whole 15-page transcript, none can be said to be physically combative by intent, contrary to how detractors of Trump's speech want to analyze it. Theirs is political, not scholastic. I have an English Lit doctorate, so at least I have recognized scholastic achievement in the lexicon that most do not have. That carries weight, politics notwithstanding

Same to you as I replied to Wryly on post #32. Read that post; it explains why "violence" was not encourage3d by Trump, but instigat5ed by the people, themselves, not following Trump's advice. Also note the several definitions of "fight," =opnpy pone of which specks to physical confrontation. You should understand by context of each mention of that word, not key on the word itself. Context, not only content, is king, my friend, in language.

But, I'll add, since you ask, I do not claim the crowd going to the Capitol went peacefully to the Capitol, just that Trump told them to do that. Their actions are on them, not Trump. That should be well noted, as well. Not everyone is a blind robot, only doing what they are told.

I am not MAGA, andI'be told 6tpou that before. Get it? Yet? I am an Indie. I voted for Trump because Kammiecakes is an idiot, not worthy of being a San Francisco DA, let alone the CA AG. I lived in SF for 20 years, and well aware of the disaster Kammiecakes was then, let alone as a pres. candidate, and VP. Unqualified to be more than a salad.

"the ancient Greeks tried an experiment making all crime punishable by death, and nearly destroyed their civilization." #23 partial

I've heard the same about Chinese Legalism,

If the punishment for a minor and major offense are the same,

Why not just attempt the major offense.

Especially in instances where the major offense might mean escape from punishment.

Death for the military commander in being to slow in travel. We the government ask that you turn yourself in.

Military commander decides to become a bandit or rebel.

. . .

I suppose America War on Drugs had similar problems.

. . . Then again, Some argue it has worked better in the Philippines.

I first read the Constitution at age 5 

That explains why you misrepresent the Constitution like a whiney five-year-old who didn't get his way.

Your dishonest attempts to use the Constitution to justify Trumps lawlessness are childish.

How is my response to Doubler "paraphrased" when I offered a direct quote from the speech? Come on; be fair. And I don't know that I'm a "Trrump apologist," particularly in this regard of the 1/6 speech, because, while I acknowledge he spoke of "fight" multiple times, my approach is legitimately scholastic, not political. According to my OED [Oxford Engilsh Dictionary], the only dictionary of the English language I will ever use [there is no equal], and it's definition of "fight" is actually 8 separate definitions, and only one of them involves physical confrontation. By Trump's context in each of his mentions of "fight" over the whole 15-page transcript, none can be said to be physically combative by intent, contrary to how detractors of Trump's speech want to analyze it. Theirs is political, not scholastic. I have an English Lit doctorate, so at least I have recognized scholastic achievement in the lexicon that most do not have. That carries weight, politics notwithstanding

You paraphrased in post #20, and I'm calling you a Trump apologist in the case of this thread only.

Trump's propaganda is exclusively responsible for Jan 6. Those people were deranged by his lies. If you make people feel cheated and threatened and enraged enough, you become responsible for the violence they commit, even if your rhetoric was not explicitly violent.

Context, not only content, is king, my friend, in language.

Correct, so let's put his speech/statement in context.

Trump had spent the prior two months telling his supporters that democrats had stolen the election. Not stolen like a crazy last minute play at the end of the game, stolen as is a deliberate, coordinated and brazen attempt to defy the most basic rules and principals of Democratic governance in order to attain power over the will of the people standing in that very crowd.

Trump then calls on them all to come to DC to "stop" this from succeeding. Stop how exactly?

In his message he tells them the protests "will be wild". Have you ever heard of a peaceful protest described as wild? Of course not, that's an oxymoron.

Then the rally commences and Trump is preceded by speakers saying things like "let's have trial by combat", and "Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass!".

Then... Trump speaks.

In his speech he delivers 11k words over 70 minutes. One line... One... Ostensibly urges calm. The rest of his speech is remarkably inflammatory, telling the crowd they have to show strength, they have to fight, and if they fail they won't have a country anymore. This isn't the language and posture of someone who wants peace.

So now, with all of the context, we can evaluate Trump's "peacefully and patriotically" line. One of these things is not like the others.

Again, how do you make your voices heard to people who are literally in the process of stealing your voice? In any society, power is only achieved in one of two ways; agreement or force. Agreement is what democracy is founded on. If that is broken, force is the only thing remaining. So if the election is literally being stolen as Trump explicitly alleged for two months prior, revolution is the only option left. You can't accomplish that by yelling really loud.

The idea that Trump wanted them to be peaceful contradicts everything Trump demonstrated to the crowd that day and in the months prior. They were riled up to be violent before that speech even began. So you're absolutely right - context is king. But you have to apply the entire context, not just the cherry picked version that appeases your predisposition.

And if there was any doubt as to what Trump wanted, that was no longer reasonably debatable after Trump's 187 minutes of watching the riots on TV taking no official action to stop it.

I note for all your histrionic claimed, you offer zero evidence from the Constitution that my "dishonest attempts to use the Constitution to justify Trumps lawlessness are childish."

Why not? Surely if you're so aware if such childishness, you would have differed at least one example. So cite it, or shut it.

If I told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do it? That's what you're claiming. Think it thorough

Then Trump speaks...The rest of his speech is remarkably inflammatory, telling the crowd they have to show strength, they have to fight

All you said before that is what it is... but from this point on, everything you say begins with the assumption of picking one of eight definitions of "fight," and you miss of context, as I said, drives the rest of your claims. Nope. Wrong definition by context.

He was saying fight without a sandwich, which reduces its impact.

If I told you to go jump off a cliff, would you do it? That's what you're claiming. Think it thorough

By this logic Charles Manson should have never gone to prison. If you agree he shouldn't have, then I guess your beliefs are consistent, though questionable. If you think he belonged in prison, then you yourself know that a leader with cult-like power over his followers bears responsibility for the control he exerts over them.

All you said before that is what it is... but from this point on, everything you say begins with the assumption of picking one of eight definitions of "fight," and you miss of context, as I said, drives the rest of your claims. Nope. Wrong definition by context.

What are you talking about?

The discussion here is about Trump's language and whether it should have been interpreted as a call to violence. That's a question that isn't answered by just looking at the sentence before and after as if his speech occurred in a vacuum. To understand what he was conveying to the crowd you need to take into account everything which includes everything he did and said about this issue prior to his speech and logical implications of what he was telling them in real time.

"Peacefully" make your voices heard contradicts everything he told the crowd within that speech and over the two months prior, as well as everything he had endorsed up until that point including the preceding speeches carrying a very similar message. The lack of effort on his part to clarify his peaceful intentions by relying only on this one sentence while disregarding the rest also speaks volumes about whether he really wanted this one sentence to be absorbed.

"Peacefully" make your voices heard also makes absolutely no sense. The central claim he was making about the "other side" is one in which peaceful assembly would be deeply inadequate as a response, that's like telling a student to deal with the guy bullying him at school everyday by writing that bully a very strongly worded letter. You would question of you were understanding that directive correctly

So the conveyance of a desire to be peaceful fails on every level. Meanwhile the idea that he wanted the crowd to be violent is entirely consistent with everything he said on that speech as well as everything he said over the months prior, and consistent with the rest of his speech.

It is plainly obvious that the peaceful line was thrown in there so he could point to it later and go "duh see I told them to be peaceful". And guess what, the crowd that marched into the Capitol understood that very well.

In no language of the Holy Bible that I have read [4 of them], is "cult" the word used for the church Jesus established, which, in King James, at least, the word is "church." You may see no difference, but my preferred Engloish language dictionaerytis the OED. Go ahead ands use 'cult" if that os your shtick, but it is yours, not mine.

I'm lost. Why are we suddenly talking about religion?

It depends on how wealthy the cult leaders are. Your corporate activist media was responsible for hundreds of deaths, inciting American riots a few years ago. Nobody is in jail.

When all is lost, the losers turn to religion.

"We" who? You keep taking us back to religion by such references as "cult," even by accusation. Physician, heal thyself.

It's more a sociopolitical quasi-cult.

Then. you are wrong on two counts, because I took your "leader with cult-like power" to be Jesus Christ. I do believe Manson belonged in jail. He deserved to be executed, along with the followers of his who actually, blindly, committed the murders. Coincidentally, as a teen of about 16, I became acquainted with Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, who lived in my immediate neighborhood, so her violent death, and her unborn child, hit me very hard. But you're talking about Trump. Typical, and, as always, with no justification. Ever. Somebody ought to figure out how to market that hatred stuff, because, as is, it has absolutely worthless value.

Despite your attempts to hystericize or dismiss your opposition, you've still put forward no arguments for why we should cherry pick a few words of lip service to peace from Trump's 10,000 metric tons of incendiary language and propaganda around Jan 6.

Coincidentally, as a teen of about 16, I became acquainted with Sharon Tate and Roman Polanski, who lived in my immediate neighborhood, so her violent death, and her unborn child, hit me very hard.

what what what

I will be making a thread about this.

listen we here at mcdonalds are going to capitalize on this. we're selling our filet o fishes at a discount rate and adding a slingshot happy meal toy so the next ice raid ya'll know exactly what to do. but i dont know why that cop was mad. maybe he was hungry. maybe he took it as a compliment. if it was a mcrib we both know he would be dead on his feet.

anyway im ted cruz and i approve this message

-FakeMcDonalds

Your corporate activist media was responsible for hundreds of deaths, inciting American riots a few years ago. Nobody is in jail.

People rioted because they watched a police officer murder a civilian in broad daylight, and noticed that this had happened many times prior with no consequences. That's not on the media.

It's a murder because your activist media called a drug overdose a murder, before they were even thinking about picking a jury. Your salaried activists made sure that American cop was a dead man walking before any due process. Again, nobody is in jail.

The more I think about it, your country is operating today exactly as the South did during Reconstruction era. Justice via mob rules written by those out to exploit.

Why is Ted Cruz sticking his finger at the server?

It's a murder because your activist media called a drug overdose a murder

The medical examiners who performed the autopsy called it a homicide, along with the bulk of the medical community, along with common sense given the knee on the man's neck that we all saw with our own eyes.

Blaming the media is such an intellectually lazy cop out. It's also telling projection.

ah good point. in his real insect form that's actually his pinky. but right now he's wearing the human suit

Oh, yes I have. The argument, from the beginning, has been the incorrect interpretation of the word "fight" in the context of the speech transcript. I've said the words ha8 definitions in the OED, the premier English language dictionary on Earth. Only on of those definitions even implies a physical, "lip service to peace" by suggestion of physical violence. I've said this at least three times, but you totally ignore the context, which is everything in understanding what we say rot one another.

Get it, yet?

Oh, yes I have. The argument, from the beginning, has been the incorrect interpretation of the word "fight" in the context of the speech transcript. I've said the words ha8 definitions in the OED, the premier English language dictionary on Earth. Only on of those definitions even implies a physical, "lip service to peace" by suggestion of physical violence. I've said this at least three times, but you totally ignore the context, which is everything in understanding what we say rot one another. Get it, yet?

Is there a reason you continue to repeat the same arguments I have already refuted without acknowledging my post which did so?

That is done so you will keep repeating your argument.