You only have to look at old films of despots through the ages spouting populist rhetoric to see how easily a certain type of person can manipulate a mass. George Orwell spelt it out very clearly in 1984 and Animal Farm. Just because Trump didnt wear a uniform, it doesn’t make him any less of wanna be dictator who deliberately went out to manipulate the masses. Watch films of Mussolini and compare the facial expression and body language. The bloke might be a total moron, but he certainly knows how to speak to and motivate a certain kind of person. Where he has been clever is that he winds them up and then steps back and admires his handiwork when it kicks off. By not leading from the front he can claim that it has nothing to do with him and so far he has gotten away with it. For now.
The US public should be storming the capitol and stringing their politicians up by their eyelids and genitals. The fact that Donald Trump supporters were able to do this should give hope to us all. The problem is actually that social media has the power to shut this sort of thing down and is being given the green light to go further with this in future, by a public easily influenced by the indignation and condemnation spewed by the MSM.
This is the thing though, no one should be storming anything and wouldn’t need to if politicians did their jobs properly, including the likes of Trump. He was voted out of office. Accept it and move on without a fuss. Others have managed it with good grace. It is part of the process, unless you are a raging dictatorial narcissist who should be within a million miles of the job in the first place.
If they did this I very strongly suspect you would not like what took the place of Congress
I think you’re confused about what politician’s jobs are in Western oligarchies.
No I don’t think so. But there is a point where you have to park your political allegence and do the right thing. Some Republicans have done that and called Trump out for what he is. It’s just a shame that the rest haven’t got the backbone to do the same. If they did it would send a message out to the 73 million voters out there who seem to think that Trumps behaviour and sticking two fingers up to democracy is ok.
To date America has set itself up as the leader of the free world, bastion of democracy and holders of the higher moral ground. What happened to that recently?
We are going the same way here. If you breached a certain standard of behaviour you were expected to resign. Not any more, sadly.
But Soggy.IF you read what is happening to those that voted against you would better understand why it was a mistake.
They were in a position they could have taken/led real effective actions.
Now they are being disowned and abused even by their own FAMILIES!
In the mid-terms they will all be gone and will have simply made a pointless gesture so people like you can feel “a gesture needed to be made”
Gestures are what Boris does. They are bullshit
Which speaks volumes about what is going on in America and why a strong stand needs to be made against it. It should never happen again. When I talk about a gesture, I am not talking about. Johnson platitude, I am talking about standing up against an attempt to subvert a democratic process to instate the new president no matter what your political allegiance and saying to everyone, even your family if they are so inclined, that this is unacceptable. If they hadn’t indicted him what does that say about America and its view of democracy? That it is perfectly ok to incite a riot if the vote doesn’t go your way? That it is perfectly ok to call a democratic election a fix when all of the checks have come back and supported the result? There comes a point when you have to stand up and say this has gone too far. 5 people dead plus another two police suicides just after, I think that is more than enough. God knows what they would have done if they had caught Pence and Pelosi. If these people didn’t want to upset their families, and let’s face it, are they there to serve their families or America, then they could have abstained. If their families cannot see the damage that Trump had done and were putting pressure to support Trump, what does that tell us about democracy in America? We have probably already said that it should not a a political issue anyway and should be dealt with through the law courts, but as it is part of the procedure, I still think that it was right to indict him.
Genuine question.
Do you not understand that great swathes of the UK think Boris is doing his best?
300 million people in USA and only about 6% gap between the two of them.we see the obvious. They dont.
Simple analogy? Some people support the Skates.
Not every human is sane!
Indeed!
Leading House Democrat sues Donald Trump under a post-Civil War law for conspiracy to incite US Capitol riot
Could be entertaining!
Bring it on!
We’ve got words for all kinds of things that should not be words. See Mr Carlin or Mr Stanhope for their respective takes on the emergence of new words and phrases.
It’s a word of the Roman empire, most likely first used to describe people that were revolting against the oppression the plebs faced back then.
My point stands. Speech is speech. Actions are actions. Most of Trump’s 75 million supporters did not storm the Capitol. A few did because they’re fucking idiots.
If Donny had told them to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge they probably would have, not because it’s incitement, but because they’re fucking idiots.
Inciting isn’t ‘telling’, it is encouraging/suggesting/persuading. Many a time I haven’t wanted to go out and get off my tits and make a complete arse of myself, and if my friends hadn’t asked me I wouldn’t have. Was it my choice to go out? Yes of course. Would I have gone out if my friends hadn’t suggested it? I doubt it. Not that it is a very good example as it doesn’t pertain specifically to violence. I’m also not convinced by your caveat that it’s not incitement because not all of Trump’s supporters who heard his ‘speech’ acted on it, incitement doesn’t need a 100% strike rate to be effective or validated does it? And your argument that incite is a word that has no relevance just because you don’t agree with it is quite Barry-esque, are you trying to fill the void that captain caveat has left?
Incitement is a very real thing, unless hundreds/thousands of people all had the same idea to be violent at the exact same time and location? The questions in this case would be:
Was it Trump inciting them?
Were they inciting each other?
Were they acting completely independently of each other with no interaction whatsoever?
Some combination of all 3? (This last one would be my take on it).
If I could clarify something else, is your main point of contention that incitement shouldn’t be grounds for prosecution?
I think you’re on very dangerous ground. First, who becomes the arbiter of what is incitement and what is persuasion? Does persuasion become incitement the minute persuaded people turn violent?
I think you’re confusing the potent power of any mob with incitement. People are strange in crowds. They become fucking idiots.
See above.
Incitement and persuasion aren’t mutually exclusive, just need the right context, e.g. you persuading me to down my pint because we would miss kick off would be simple persuasion, you persuading me to down my pint and then throw my empty pint glass over my shoulder Begbie stylee into a crowd would be incitement.
From my understanding incitement doesn’t even need to result in a crime taking place, and in some cases is used as a preventative measure. And here is the crux of the matter, how do you prove it? I am sure there is a complicated legal process with lots of jargon and semantics to explain this process, not something I’m going to claim to be an expert in My bone of contention is your proposition is that no-one is affected by ‘incitement’, I would argue that people who are (not an exhaustive list) scared/angry/confused/stormtroopers/gullible/or just fucking idiots are all open to incitement through one avenue or another, maybe the rest just want to watch the world burn.
And I don’t think I’m confusing anything, stirring up and then exploiting mob mentality would be one of the most efficient ways of inciting people in the moment I reckon, and Trump is nothing if not opportunist.
In closing, I would say that ‘incitement’ is certainly not black and white, difficult to prove but does exist.
Since when did Incitement have racist overtones?
But seriously.
Debate is fine.
The Law is specific. I learned long ago NEVER try and apply logic to Law, either Civil or Criminal and NEVER argue it with a Lawyer
Aha I see what you did there. Also is there a significant difference between overtones and undertones? Serious question no trolls pls.
This is why I said you’re on dangerous ground.
At almost every demo I’ve been to, despite it being entirely peaceful where I am, yet there are always some violent nutters, either real or agent provocateurs, having a ruck at the front.
Now did any of those speakers in Hyde Park incite them? Clearly not, but using this nebulous definition, someone could easily argue that someone did.
Words were said. Violence happened. 2+2 = 5.