"Just to be clear: IF the verdict is Not Guilty, I will be disappointed, but I won't be in the streets and calling it a sham. IF, on the other hand, he's found guilty, you can count on anger and protests from Trump and his allies."
I've seen some version of this sentiment a fair amount over the last couple of weeks, yet I haven't seen anyone acknowledge that they were wrong.
Of course Trump is annoyed, maybe even angry. I'd say he has the right to be. He believes, with reason, that he's been denied justice and a fair trial. Of course he's pissed. I regularly see people who are angry with how the justice system treated them react angrily, it seems like human nature.
What I also see, and see with Trump, is the channeling of that justified anger in appropriate ways. Last week, our country attorney dropped charges against a State Trooper who shot a driver who was trying to escape from a justified traffic stop/injure or kill him. The family was angry, spoke out angrily, and is channeling their anger into seeking a massive payday in the civil justice system. Trump and his followers are channeling their anger into support for his campaign. We saw a massive increase in funds raised, a string of high dollar fund raisers from donors who likely supported Biden last time around, and huge crowds at rallies. We've seen Trump gaining traction among black voters because they relate to how he's been treated.
What we haven't seen is violence. The left has repeatedly pushed the narrative that Trump followers will react violently IF X,Y, or Z happens. Yet nothing. Even J6, while problematic, was not violent.
It's almost like the APL needs to project how they react to news they don't like onto Trump supporters despite the reality that the promised violence never happens.
6 comments:
The left/progressives are very hopeful that if they can just push the right a bit more, then they'll surely respond in a violent manner, thereby justifying their projection about the character of the right. At the same time, I can't say we're not edging closer to that possibility, because there are always limits to human endurance.
I haven't seen anyone acknowledge that they were wrong.
We weren't wrong. Trump IS whining about a great travesty of justice. He is responding in anger and with lies and protesting, suggesting violence if he goes to jail. We ARE seeing his followers threaten civil war and killing the jurors, the DA, the prosecutor. I, at least, was correct in saying that, of course, this is how Trump would respond. He's predictable that way.
With H Biden, there are no angry cries of protest that his trial has been "rigged," nor threats against those who are engaged in the process.
These threats and complaints against the justice system ARE the problem. Biden has said that he would not (of course) pardon H Biden if he were convicted. Trump would certainly pardon himself and his other criminal conspirators if he could - he's promised as much.
Biden and progressives have not issued threats on the lives of the the jurors or the justice system. Trump has.
THIS is the difference.
It remains to be seen whether or not further violence will follow with Trump's ongoing encouragement of violence and his anti-American, anti-Justice system, anti-Free Press attacks against the nation. We know that Trump's false claims have encouraged his followers to engage in violence - we see them proudly saying how Trump has inspirted/encouraged them. We'll see what happens in the days to come, especially if Trump is sentenced to jail time (unlikely) or if/when he loses the election, again.
"We weren't wrong. Trump IS whining about a great travesty of justice. He is responding in anger and with lies and protesting, suggesting violence if he goes to jail. We ARE seeing his followers threaten civil war and killing the jurors, the DA, the prosecutor. I, at least, was correct in saying that, of course, this is how Trump would respond. He's predictable that way."
1. Of course Trump is disputing the result of his trial, literally everyone who's ever lost a court case disputes the result of their trial.
2. Until the appeals process is over we won't actually know how correct Trump is.
3. I haven't seen on instance of anyone threatening anyone. If you can't prove your claims don't make them.
4. Given that there have been no "protests", and no one "in the streets", it's hard to say that you weren't wrong here.
5. As far as "predicting" that Trump would be "angry", whoo-hooo. You just literally "predicted" the response of every human in the world (who's been to court) when a court case goes against you. You just "predicted" human nature.
"With H Biden, there are no angry cries of protest that his trial has been "rigged," nor threats against those who are engaged in the process."
1. Yet there were protests about his sweetheart plea deal, which was rescinded because people objected.
2. Because there do not appear to be any examples of Hunter's trial being rigged.
3. Because Hunter isn't running for president.
4. Because Hunter's case is straightforward.
5. Yet, Hunter isn't being prosecuted for multiple other crimes he's obviously guilty of.
"These threats and complaints against the justice system ARE the problem. Biden has said that he would not (of course) pardon H Biden if he were convicted. Trump would certainly pardon himself and his other criminal conspirators if he could - he's promised as much."
1. The pardon is one aspect of the presidents powers that is completely unilateral. I have no problem with Biden pardoning Hunter, or with Trump pardoning himself.
"Biden and progressives have not issued threats on the lives of the the jurors or the justice system. Trump has."
You keep saying this without providing proof.
"THIS is the difference."
Did you not read the original post? Did you just decide that the original post was about comparing apples to oranges and go off on a tangent?
"It remains to be seen whether or not further violence will follow with Trump's ongoing encouragement of violence and his anti-American, anti-Justice system, anti-Free Press attacks against the nation. We know that Trump's false claims have encouraged his followers to engage in violence - we see them proudly saying how Trump has inspirted/encouraged them. We'll see what happens in the days to come, especially if Trump is sentenced to jail time (unlikely) or if/when he loses the election, again."
It seems impossible to have "further violence", when there has been no "violence" up to this point. But then reality and staying on topic aren't really how you roll.
Given that Trump's followers have literally NOT engaged in "violence" because of anything he's said, he was quite clear and specific on J6 in speaking against violence and J6 wasn't particularly violent" this notion that you can assert something you've imagined as fact is strange. That you think you can assert something you've imagined as fact, then use your imaginary bullshit to conjure up some future actions, seems a sign of mental health issues.
Art,
Much like what's happening with Hamas, I agree that the left is trying to push those on the right into fulfilling their self fulfilling prophecy, all while pretending that we didn't see 10 years of violence, arson, looting, and destruction (damages in the billions of dollars) centered around left wing causes.
There is of course one other point which must be noted, despite this all being old news at this point. When Dan originally stated,
" "Just to be clear: IF the verdict is Not Guilty, I will be disappointed, but I won't be in the streets and calling it a sham."
Unlike the obvious abuses of the legal system which took place in order to pretend Trump was guilty of some unknown offense, Dan and his pervert kind would not have been justified in being in the streets objecting to an actual legitimate verdict of "not guilty".
And also, lefties do have a history of rioting when verdicts exonerate innocent people they insisted must be found guilty. Rodney King is just one such example. Michael Brown another. Whether or not Dan specifically would protest in the streets is not significant, especially since he's not one who has the spine for such things. But he'd have whined. No doubt about it, and we'll see how he responds should justice prevail upon appeal.
Art,
I think that Dan is choosing to ignore the twisting of the law that these charges to be brought in the first place, the obvious bias of the judge, and the bizarre exclusion of major parts of Trump's defense. He's choosing to believe in his Pollyanna fairy tale that left wing judges and prosecutors would NEVER do anything underhanded, while believing the opposite about those on the right.
Clearly the left has issues rioting after verdicts, as well as threatening courts and juries during trials to force the verdicts they want.
Post a Comment