Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Comment About Mob Violence
Let me lay out my assumptions right up front, before making the point I want to make.
- The President didn’t incite violence. His comments were within the boundaries of appropriate political discourse, whether or not he was correct in the views he expressed about the election. (In fact, I’m sure he was partially, though not wholly, correct.)
- I categorically condemn mob violence, and this instance is no exception: everyone who broke the law should be charged, tried, and, if convicted, punished. Whatever the motives of the lawbreakers (and I don’t know who they are or why they did what they did), I reject any claim they might have to legitimacy in their actions. Lock them up.
There. I hope that’s sufficiently clear. Now here’s the point of this post.
For months, businesses have been destroyed by lawless mobs. Billions of dollars of damage have been done to the private property of American citizens as shops were burned, windows smashed, stores looted. Through it all, the President called for a restoration of law and order, and offered federal support in that effort. In each instance he was rebuffed.
Because the destruction of private property and livelihoods doesn’t matter to folks on the left.
The Capitol break-in didn’t endanger anyone’s livelihood: no one will go out of business because of it, no Senator or Congressman will miss a paycheck or lose his life’s savings because thugs broke in to the building and damaged the nation’s property. Democracy, the Constitution, and the nation were not at risk.
The optics were terrible. But the optics were also terrible when Mainstreet USA was burning; the difference is that we didn’t see that, because the left didn’t care, and so didn’t want us to care either.
By all means prosecute the thugs who broke the law in D.C. this week, and good riddance. But remember that, when it came to demanding justice for regular American citizens faced with the loss of their jobs, businesses, incomes, and savings in the hundreds of Antifa and BLM riots this past year, it was the President who was calling for an end to the violence and the protection of regular American citizens. And the left fought that at every turn, choosing to side with lawlessness and the mob.
So to anyone who couldn’t be bothered to stand up for regular American citizens all summer long — and that’s essentially everyone in mainstream news and every Democratic politician at the state and federal level: go back and report on the tragedy of all those shuttered businesses and destroyed lives before expressing your faux outrage over this most recent event. And explain to me why all those people didn’t matter while they watched their hopes and futures burn.
Published in General
Which would be wrong because…..?
The Russian hoax was a hoax, absolutely. Comey should be in jail. But there was no wide scale vote fraud. There was expanded mail in voting and month long in person voting where the rules got changed just before the election. It was unfair but unfortunately legal. I do not count that as vote fraud. All the other stuff about voting ballots being dumped or generated or voting machine rigged has not been proven to be true in a court of law. After two months of waiting for the evidence to be presented, nothing, zippo. No objective institution has substantiated it. No one. One can only conclude at this point it was all hearsay and fake news. There is fake news on the right as well as the left.
And the Establishment (political and pundit) seems intent on taking that path-including the Ricochet editors.
Definition of incite
transitive verb
: to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on
Trump “moved to action,” “stirred up,” “spurred up” “urged on” (he did all four of those things, check my quotes in #41) the events that led to what happened. He may not have wished to have the end result it did, but his rhetoric led to what that segment of the crowd did. You seem to be hung up on a direct statement of intent. The logic of his statements led to the conclusion of physically stopping the election confirmation. That is clear. Leadership carries responsibility, and his irresponsible words caused this. Don’t just take my word for it. Check the objective conservative editorials: NY Post, Wall Street Journal.
Thanks. I know what “incite” means.
You’ve said he wasn’t responsible for the mob’s criminal behavior (#62). But then you say that “his rhetoric led to what the segment of the crowd did.” I assume you’re referring to the criminal segment of the crowd here, not the peaceful, law-abiding segment.
So are you saying that he led the crowd to criminal action, but is not responsible for it? I don’t understand what that formulation means.
This stuff matters. We’re living in a time when the left would love to equate speech they don’t like with violence. You’re doing something perilously close, linking constitutionally protected speech with incitement to criminal behavior — something that isn’t actually legal and that can in fact be prosecuted.
So, unless you can explain this to me in some way that makes sense, I’m going to assume that you meant what you said when you said that he wasn’t responsible for the criminal behavior, and assume that you’re scoring him on grace and charm, where he gets low marks, and leave it at that.
I think he is saying if you play with fire don’t be surprised if you get burned. Trump is not criminally responsible for what happened. I don’t think he is necessarily morally responsible; however, I am not sure that is @Manny’s position. He did contribute to an explosive situation and got caught in the backlash. I get no relish from saying this but, It is how I feel.
I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know the extent of his legal culpability. He didn’t hatch a plot to break into the capital. However his words led to others breaking in. What’s his legal culpability, I don’t know. As someone who created the event in the first place, as a leader who’s words are listened to by his followers, as a speaker who’s words could imply such an action, yes he was responsible as a leader.
Query how many politicians “play with fire” and contribute to any variety of “explosive situations.” Based on that standard, there are vociferous Democrats who could be responsible for yesterday’s events. But they aren’t because those participants at the Capitol have free will and did it on their own.
I’m also still waiting for someone to tell me why the considerably greater number of people who were all over the rally and did nothing and weren’t seduced by such obvious “incitement” by Trump. Could it possibly be that a relatively isolated few had their own ideas about what to do?
I don’t subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, so this is quoted second source, from Business Insider:
And further down:
Yes, I believe what Trump did was an impeachable offense, but with ten days left, it’s time to just let this quietly come to an end.
The Pennsylvania changes were not legal; in fact they were unconstitutional (by the state constitution). The corrupt and partisan state supreme court allowed those changes to stand. If the SCOTUS doesn’t fix problems like this, who does?
Since I think this election contained a shameful amount of fraud, and since I think too many institutions (and I’m going to include Ricochet in this) have shown a disturbing lack of interest in exploring just how much fraud there was, I think the passions on display in D.C. were entirely justified. This includes the President’s tone and remarks, and the intensity of the crowd.
It does not justify the violence and, again, I unequivocally condemn that. But there’s a very real chance that an election was stolen, that the nation will face enormous consequences, and that if left unchecked this will become the new normal. I won’t fault the President for expressing that view.
Nor will I hold him accountable for the behavior of a small number of unknown people who chose to commit criminal acts.
Generalizations atop generalizations. Isn’t it so much easier that way—especially when you ignore requests for specifics and other questions posed. Spare us.
Business Insider is a nasty site. I would recommend you not go there.
Yes, I believe what Trump did was an impeachable offense
By that standard, practically any action taken by a President to either influence congress through the pressure of public opinion or to grandstand could be rationalized as an impeachable offense…..no.
I agree. I have said that this frackus pales in comparison to the racial animosity that the Democrats bring up consistently. I also am not saying they don’t have their own agency. I just can’t let Trump off the hook. I am not happy about that. The NT triumphalism and backslapping and calls for purges make me sick to my stomach, but I can’t say that DJT is 100% innocent here. He is culpable maybe not legally and maybe not in the eyes of Heaven, however, I my heart I believe he bares some responsibility for this.
You have absolutely no proof of that (see bold type above). This is pure speculation and conjecture on your part. You don’t know the particular motives of the individuals involved or whether they had an intention to break in and cause havoc before they ever came to D.C. One individual in particular was an anti-Trump BLM activist who had already been arrested in Utah and hosted a “Dump Trump” rally…so, one can probably safely assume that he wasn’t a Trump supporter.
Again this is a reckless rush to judgement but given all the hysterical calls for Trump to be impeached, removed from office, and even arrested this seems to be par for the course. You’re better than this, Manny.
I never even heard of it before. I knew the WSJ had put out an editorial and I googled for that and they ere one of the few that carried it.
Every action taken by the President doesn’t lead to a riot that crashes into the Capital. What the heck are you talking about?
Brian, a heck of a lot of responsible people across the country are saying what I’m saying. The motives of the people that broke into the Capital were there to “stop the steal.”
So an action is impeachable based on unforeseen results, not the legality or appropriateness of the actions themselves? No.
They went in there to make a nuisance of themselves, just like those jerks during the Kavanaugh hearing, not physically force the congressmen to reject the official results.
Apparently they’re not as “responsible” as you make them out to be. Trump was still speaking 1.5 miles away when these bozos broke in. And the Capitol Hill Police are on video actually letting about a couple of dozen people in at another entrance to the Capitol who then proceeded to walk up a flight of stairs in an orderly fashion. Did CHP frisk them for weapons? Check their backpacks? It appears they did not. They sent them on their merry way – some to engage in mayhem.
Meanwhile, back at the rally on the Mall, Trump was instructing his followers that when they reconvened at the Capitol Building that they needed to be orderly and gather in a peaceful manner. Sure doesn’t sound like an incitement to me. Again, you and others may wish to wait until all the facts come in and examine the timeline of events before shooting your mouths off.
A version of this original post is what should come out of everyone’s mouth when discussing the events of this week. Our fire needs to be exclusively directed on the Left. After all, at the end of the day, it is their fault. Too many of us in the comments are fighting each other instead of our enemies.
I think that’s what happens on a discussion forum. There are shades of beliefs here. I don’t characterize them by whether the opinions are “right” or “left.” I characterize them based on whether I agree with them. When I don’t, I might say so.