Tu Quoque really doesn't work here, because you can't compare a riot - no matter how unlawful - with the storming of multiple national symbols of government, complete with pipe bombs, nooses set up on the lawn, gunfire, the trashing of at least one official media enclave, and intimidation of lawmakers. Plus injuries and deaths.
And the implication that there's more to come if the machinery of government isn't handed over in full to the leader of the insurrection.
Argument against Trump on what though? If you are talking about direct incitement to violence: Sure, he did not directly incite violence - he merely mumbled fire in a crowded theater.
However, if the question is about impeachement: Yes. There's more than enough reason to go through with it. In the broader context of how the President has been lying to his supporters about election fraud, telling them to stop the steal, and that he will never concede. The President is on record trying to strong-arm election officials in Georgia to find him 11,780 votes, the exact number that would overturn the state.
No, he does not say that they need to investigate. He wants them to find him the votes because he knows he won it. And that is just what has happened in the past week.
If someone foments a violent uprising, and then there is a violent uprising, yes they're responsible.
It's not just Twitter claiming Trump bears responsibility, it's Mcconnell, Pence, Murkowski, WSJ, and other former Trump allies. It's the perpetrators themselves claiming fealty to Trump.
Feel free to point us to where rioters took over downtown Portland at the behest of and in allegiance to Mayor Wheeler.
Feel free to point us to where Pence, McConnell, and Murkowski had to flee for safety from rioters who were there at the behest of Pence, McConnell, and Murkowski.
> encouraging people to join a BLM protest that ended in violence.
There's a difference between encouraging joining a peaceful protest, and having tweeted for weeks about 6th of January going to be big, getting the crowd mad by telling them for 70 minutes how they've been defrauded, and then telling them where to go and what to do:
"So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we're going to the Capitol and we're going to try and give... The Democrats are hopeless, They're never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don't need any of our help, we're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country."
Of course he didn't explicitly say "Go there and break the windows, beat some cops up and threaten our lawmakers with violence", but geez, he basically said "let's intimidate them".
Yeah yeah, of course you Trump defender are going to say "He didn't say anything bad, it's not his fault that his followers interpreted things differently...".
> Of course he didn't explicitly say "Go there and break the windows, beat some cops up and threaten our lawmakers with violence", but geez, he basically said "let's intimidate them".
Yes, if you view everything he says with the benefit of hindsight and the most uncharitable context possible, which has pretty much been the strategy from day one, you can interpret it that way. And whatever happened to the BLM riot days, where a minority of the protestors caused violence but oh no, we can't paint everyone with the same brush. You may be shocked to realize this but only a minority of the protesters actually went in to the capitol. Apparently the vast majority of the protesters weren't able to decipher Trump's coded language like seemingly everyone else can. That's really strange.
> There's a difference between encouraging joining a peaceful protest
But here's the problem: when there are repeated instances of peaceful protests devolving into looting and rioting, isn't there some point at which you should know that encouraging yet another BLM protest makes you responsible for what it turns in to?
And you kinda sidestepped the question about CHAZ. When the mayor rejects the president's offer of the National Guard to control the, ya know, illegal occupation of several city blocks and lets CHAZ continue after repeated acts of crime in the area that culminated in two deaths... why aren't they held responsible? Why is THAT considered some unforeseen consequence of protesting but Trump's is an open-and-shut case of "he knew it would happen and wanted it to"?
The mayor of Portland also rejecting Trump's NG offer and allowed rioting to continue for two months. At what point -- maybe day 35 of 60? -- does the mayor become responsible for what happened by rejecting the initial NG support?
I'm hoping you understand what I'm getting at, it's that certain people get very charitable interpretations of their actions while certain others don't.
> it's that certain people get very charitable interpretations of their actions while certain others don't.
That's what you're doing isn't it. MAGA riot? "Ooh it was just a minority...". "Oh let's view what Trump said with a charitable context" Despite the context of 4+ years of him lying, defending white supremacists, and stoking misinformation and keeping his supporters pissed off.
Well, it's useless to debate with you, you're brainwashed. Sure, on the other hand you can say I'm brainwashed, go ahead and go and claim you won in this debate.
