Twitter under Musk....

[AndyRM]

I did some reading about this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=716f0da41157

So, Obama put out a Tweet years ago which has a disputed claim. That's not really all that much, is it? When you compare it to say... saying bleach and light can cure Covid for example.

To be clear, while I liked Obama he's still worthy of criticism; all politicians are and rightly so. But I would say that those are far less easy to criticise than those on the right.

Look at the ridiculous stuff that was levelled at Corbyn here. Wearing an anorak, not wearing a tie properly, not bowing low enough... It would be funny if some people didn't take it so seriously.

 

[winjim]

I liked the tan suit.

 

[icowden]

Jup just as i suspected, you have an slective memory, his full speech also mentioned they should fight peacefully but that wasn't what the media and democrats warmongers wanted as it didn't fit there frame so it is left out in many video's news article etc. who then went on to be massively shared.

Oh please. He made a long rambling speech in the middle of which is this line

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

About 15 to 20 minutes later he said this at the *end* of his speech

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.
Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.
And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.
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 never vote 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.
So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

So he mentioned "peacefully" once towards the start of his speech but "fight" 23 times throughout and then commanded that people march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol building - which word do you suppose his supporters mostly went with?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Oh please. He made a long rambling speech in the middle of which is this line



About 15 to 20 minutes later he said this at the *end* of his speech



So he mentioned "peacefully" once towards the start of his speech but "fight" 23 times throughout and then commanded that people march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol building - which word do you suppose his supporters mostly went with?

There is absolutely no way that Trump was not responsible for instigating the damage to the Capitol Building and democracy in that election.
But arguments are not helped by people putting their own prejudices into their versions of the words used in speeches by people they don't agree with. There is no doubt that "march" has a different, more confrontational connotation to "walk", and I am not sure the quote shows he "commanded" them to "march. but Trump's words are clear enough without embellishment.

 

[FishFright]

which is a other word for weatherman or more inclusive weatherperson

Be honest now, you didn't really believe that ?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Oh please. He made a long rambling speech in the middle of which is this line

You now pretend it's the first time he gave an long rambling speech, which is nonsense for long coherent and still saying nothing you have to hire Obama, Trump has always been long winded rambling.

About 15 to 20 minutes later he said this at the *end* of his speech

are you now trying to say you actually watched the whole speech or did you, do that after i pointed something out to you?

So he mentioned "peacefully" once towards the start of his speech but "fight" 23 times throughout and then commanded that people march down Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol building - which word do you suppose his supporters mostly went with?

That's oddly specific, did you get that 23 from some random site or did you count yourself? Not that it matters, he said also fight a lot when he called on his voters to the voting booth/center/place whatever you want to call it, nobody assumed then he intended to ask he voters to burst in, so it's nit picking, looking for arguments because frankly you kind of run out of them.

My point is once again not that Trump is that much of an angel, but the democrats and all the media aren't either, there was a hearing after the capital storming and during that is transpired the National guard was not at the capital because of the left-wing fueled lie Trump would call in the ''martial law'' and i don't know what news outlets you watched but it was full off nonsense all the time during the whole election campaign, the call the inevitable escalation all on Trump is wrong, because your not looking at the greater picture.
I'm also very sure that if it would be the other way round so Trump would have won and anitafa types where storming the capital we would have gotten an whole other kind of message because it's has always been like that.

There is absolutely no way that Trump was not responsible for instigating the damage to the Capitol Building and democracy in that election.
But arguments are not helped by people putting their own prejudices into their versions of the words used in speeches by people they don't agree with. There is no doubt that "march" has a different, more confrontational connotation to "walk", and I am not sure the quote shows he "commanded" them to "march. but Trump's words are clear enough without embellishment.

You can nit pick about what words he used or not but it was much boarder, it much to easy to blame it all on Trump, remember that Trump got a lot of people to vote who otherwise didn't during 4 years of Trump thet saw and heard msm calling them and trump idiot stupid and so much more not in so much words but it all part of the bigger picture, you can't just assume one speech is going the be the cause

 

[Rusty Nails]

You can nit pick about what words he used or not but it was much boarder, it much to easy to blame it all on Trump, remember that Trump got a lot of people to vote who otherwise didn't during 4 years of Trump thet saw and heard msm calling them and trump idiot stupid and so much more not in so much words but it all part of the bigger picture, you can't just assume one speech is going the be the cause

It wasn't just that one speech. His whole campaign was based on causing division and pitting the people, and himself, against established politics and politicians.
He sowed the seeds for dissent over the results of the election even before and during the counts with his demands for recounts, and the speech in question was just the final piece in the jigsaw.
It is easy to blame it all on Trump because he knew just which populist buttons to press.

 

[Deleted member 49]

It wasn't just that one speech. His whole campaign was based on causing division and pitting the people, and himself, against established politics and politicians.
He sowed the seeds for dissent over the results of the election even before and during the counts with his demands for recounts, and the speech in question was just the final piece in the jigsaw.
It is easy to blame it all on Trump because he knew just which populist buttons to press.

Sounds like someone closer to home.....

 

[icowden]

You now pretend it's the first time he gave an long rambling speech, which is nonsense for long coherent and still saying nothing you have to hire Obama, Trump has always been long winded rambling.

Nope. I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was his first speech.

are you now trying to say you actually watched the whole speech or did you, do that after i pointed something out to you?

Nobody watched and understood the whole speech. That isn't possible. It's Trump. He's an incoherent mess.

That's oddly specific, did you get that 23 from some random site or did you count yourself? Not that it matters, he said also fight a lot when he called on his voters to the voting booth/center/place whatever you want to call it, nobody assumed then he intended to ask he voters to burst in, so it's nit picking, looking for arguments because frankly you kind of run out of them.

Have you heard of transcription? Important speeches get transcribed which makes it easy to study how they are composed. By studying what was said and how it was said we can draw conclusions about how it was likely received and judge that by the events that happened after it. I will agree with you that he did not specifically say "go my followers - shoot them - take the capitol building by storm" etc. But over the previous weeks everything he did was forment discord and establish a false narrative that the election had been "stolen" and that the result was illegal, should not stand.

My point is once again not that Trump is that much of an angel, but the democrats and all the media aren't either, there was a hearing after the capital storming and during that is transpired the National guard was not at the capital because of the left-wing fueled lie Trump would call in the ''martial law''

And a lousy point it is too. Mayor Bowser requested the National Guard be present in DC due to what had happened previously when Tumps's fanbase had turned up:

Mayor Muriel Bowser made the request Thursday in a letter addressed to Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the DC National Guard, in which she referenced protests in the city in November and December that "resulted in a large influx of participants, violence and criminal activity."

The National Guard don't just turn up somewhere. They have to be requested using an agreed process. The only person who could have requested that they attend the Capitol Building was President Trump. For some reason he didn't do this and held off doing so for quite some time, until it was far too late. Hence the State Police and FBI were left to deal with the rioters for quite a while.

You can nit pick about what words he used or not but it was much boarder, it much to easy to blame it all on Trump, remember that Trump got a lot of people to vote who otherwise didn't during 4 years of Trump thet saw and heard msm calling them and trump idiot stupid and so much more not in so much words but it all part of the bigger picture, you can't just assume one speech is going the be the cause

I didn't, now calm down before you injure yourself.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Nope. I'm pretty sure I didn't say it was his first speech.

I didn't say you did either, i said the tone and incoherentness of trump's speeches is nothing new. Just to point out that that particular part wasn't diffrent from his capital speech and wasn't unexpected by his follower either.

Nobody watched and understood the whole speech. That isn't possible. It's Trump. He's an incoherent mess.

think you might be wrong about that, i don't know because i hate speeches whether they are from Trump, the local nursery or Obama it's always the same it take a lot of time to say a little.

Have you heard of transcription? Important speeches get transcribed which makes it easy to study how they are composed. By studying what was said and how it was said we can draw conclusions about how it was likely received and judge that by the events that happened after it. I will agree with you that he did not specifically say "go my followers - shoot them - take the capitol building by storm" etc. But over the previous weeks everything he did was forment discord and establish a false narrative that the election had been "stolen" and that the result was illegal, should not stand.

Jup but it kind of throws your claim above in the water, if nobody can follow trump how can they make an transcript?
And if you so sure that's is what all Trumps doing have you look at transcripts, tweets of all other parties involved? Because spoiler alert ''fighting'' language was not coming from Trump alone. The ''where gonna have to remove Trump by force'' narrative was entirely made up by the democrats

And a lousy point it is too. Mayor Bowser requested the National Guard be present in DC due to what had happened previously when Tumps's fanbase had turned up:

Jup but you're still ignoring the fact that they where two sides at play, the democrats/left was in the days before the capital storming increasingly playing with the idea that Trump would not go without force, that he would use the National guard to introduce the ''martial law'' and thus stay in power.

The National Guard don't just turn up somewhere. They have to be requested using an agreed process. The only person who could have requested that they attend the Capitol Building was President Trump. For some reason he didn't do this and held off doing so for quite some time, until it was far too late. Hence the State Police and FBI were left to deal with the rioters for quite a while.

Indeed and after the capital riots they had an inquiry you know a long an boring progress where they interview everyone under oath etc. One of the thing that transpired from there is that they put off from the idea of having the national guard to close because of the whole ''Trump is not going without force story'' so in very short that why i say two parties where responsible, unfortunately for the Americans, most likely also the two parties they have to vote for the next elections.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

It wasn't just that one speech. His whole campaign was based on causing division and pitting the people, and himself, against established politics and politicians.

But it worked, almost twice, and that's votes from someone whop has a history of making stupid comments and remarks adn is in general quite an controversial person. So how did his campaign work so well? Because the people are not happy with how things being done. of Biden's voters during the last election roughly 20% only voted for him because it was not Trump. in my book over 20% is a lot, therefore my point that the issues surrounding Trump, his electional gains and everything leading up to it including the storming of the capital, are part of a much longer boiling issue.

I cut out the rest of your comment because what i wrote in response to @icowden also applies to left out part.

 

[newfhouse]

it take a lot of time to say a little.

Lol.

 

[icowden]

I didn't say you did either, i said the tone and incoherentness of trump's speeches is nothing new. Just to point out that that particular part wasn't diffrent from his capital speech and wasn't unexpected by his follower either.

You said:

You now pretend it's the first time he gave an long rambling speech, which is nonsense

Not what you think you said.

think you might be wrong about that, i don't know because i hate speeches whether they are from Trump, the local nursery or Obama it's always the same it take a lot of time to say a little.

There are few people who can listen to and understand a whole speech by Trump because they are

• Very very long
• Incoherent
• Rambling

Jup but it kind of throws your claim above in the water, if nobody can follow trump how can they make an transcript?

The same way you transcribe anything. You listen to the recording and write down verbatim what the person is saying. This can be done for any situation. You don't have to have understandable words to make a transcript. You can just transcribe the sounds.

And if you so sure that's is what all Trumps doing have you look at transcripts, tweets of all other parties involved? Because spoiler alert ''fighting'' language was not coming from Trump alone. The ''where gonna have to remove Trump by force'' narrative was entirely made up by the democrats

I think you are confusing reporting of "trying to force trump out of office" with the concept of using force which is completely different. If not, I look forward to some quotes from key Democrat figures who suggested using force to remove Trump (other than as a joke, assuming that Trump would lock himself in the Oval Office - a joke that was doing the rounds quite a lot based on Trump's past behaviour and tenuous grip on reality).

Jup but you're still ignoring the fact that they where two sides at play, the democrats/left was in the days before the capital storming increasingly playing with the idea that Trump would not go without force, that he would use the National guard to introduce the ''martial law'' and thus stay in power.

How does that equate with inciting your supporters to take action by calling a democratic election illegal? This is the concept of having to remove a squatting ex-President who doesn't want to go and concerns about how deranged Trump might be. It isn't an action plan.

Indeed and after the capital riots they had an inquiry you know a long an boring progress where they interview everyone under oath etc. One of the thing that transpired from there is that they put off from the idea of having the national guard to close because of the whole ''Trump is not going without force story'' so in very short that why i say two parties where responsible, unfortunately for the Americans, most likely also the two parties they have to vote for the next elections.

Again, looking forward to your evidence of this. This is a link to an article about why the National Guard were in DC:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

And this is an explainer as to why they did not rush to protect the Capitol building as you might have expected:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...d-didnt-respond-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol/

 

[Fab Foodie]

Oh dear...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-elon-musk-twitter?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

...a bit of a bump in the road....

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

You said:

Not what you think you said.

I said you pretend it's the first time he gave an inchoherent speech, that is something else, well i agree the second time i worded it better, i basicly say the same, i in anyway never said you said it was his first speech, my point was more that i came across as if it was the first time he was speaking like that, Which is important if you want to continue to accuse someone of something, pattern, expectations an poeple own responablities are important too.

There are few people who can listen to and understand a whole speech by Trump because they are

• Very very long
• Incoherent
• Rambling

The same way you transcribe anything. You listen to the recording and write down verbatim what the person is saying. This can be done for any situation. You don't have to have understandable words to make a transcript. You can just transcribe the sounds.

Yeah i know how things like that work, but your earlier words claimed it was impossible, apperently ''impossible'' very few people of something?

I think you are confusing reporting of "trying to force trump out of office" with the concept of using force which is completely different. If not, I look forward to some quotes from key Democrat figures who suggested using force to remove Trump (other than as a joke, assuming that Trump would lock himself in the Oval Office - a joke that was doing the rounds quite a lot based on Trump's past behaviour and tenuous grip on reality).

If you think you can play it down to ''give me link this or that'' then you don't understand the point i'm trying to make, you followed the us election ith a tunnel vision because of your hate for Trump or otherwise, but if you seriously need links to see what i just said there well a forum post as this is not enough.
It's not about Trump and it's all about Trump, point is the system in the us doesn't really work, we had the democrats embracing the Black live matters movement, yet Baltimore, the most dangerous place for a black person to live in the Us has been democrat controlled for over 50 years. You see problems are so called adressed but not really solved, in the meantime Trump and others are put away as ''not worth talking too'' ''extremist etc. etc. and the ''Trump side does the same. What is the end result? That You get too side accusing each other of something but real soluttions are getting futher away than they where before. And than it's unfair to blame the advential violent capital outburst solely on Trump, it was a bomb waiting to burst long before Trump even run for president. Sure Trump's A-hole attitude didn't help, but Obama's or Clinton's total different approach hasn't changed much either, so i don't know what will, but i do know that thinking it's all Trump is the tunnel vision that lead to someone like Trump even being succesfull at running. Amd yes how Hatred Hilary Clinton was didn't help either.

However if you now look at the whole abortus discussion that off course has come back because of the high court ruling, you see the same thing, it's either the ''pro-life'' or ''boss of own body'' the more moderate ''sure an abortion is never fun, but it might be better to allow it than have XXX amount of women a year die unnecessary because of illegal's abortions other topic some thing, both is pulled into the extreme which makes any logicall arguments being unconsidered or see them disappeared entirely

How does that equate with inciting your supporters to take action by calling a democratic election illegal? This is the concept of having to remove a squatting ex-President who doesn't want to go and concerns about how deranged Trump might be. It isn't an action plan.

It's Trump's expected reaction because he won the election(2016 )on that basis, he won by saying the system was corrupt needed to be improved under the slogan ''make America great again'' that was just as much as an attack on democracy for so far you can call the Us democratic as his qualification of his lost election. He is always inciting his supporters, so do the democrats, you think he's only one time according to you saying it should be peacefully is not enough, i think youre just to comfortable with that pithfork to see the bigger picture.

Again, looking forward to your evidence of this. This is a link to an article about why the National Guard were in DC:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

And this is an explainer as to why they did not rush to protect the Capitol building as you might have expected:
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...d-didnt-respond-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol/

Yeah that says something about the National guard, the difficulties regarding juristrictions, and that they werent't called to the capital beforehand.
It say nothing about the reason why they where not at the capitol, mig sitll has something to do with the martial law i guess this helped: https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-fake-trump-tweet-martial-idUSKBN28X2HE Mind you this the factcheck from Reuters nothing to suggest the original articles have been corrected. and after the election, innuagrution etc. a more balance side to the story comes https://www.businessinsider.com/giu...n-martial-law-after-election-2022-2?r=US&IR=T But that's just a coincidence right?