69 12

What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

This question is sincere as I'm trying to find out myself. I'm a fairly active reader of news but have only seen outrage in mainstream news outlets about the DC protests and not specific claims of what Trump did or how the protests were more violent or dangerous than the months of BLM protests last year. The attached video by JP Sears seems to suggest that Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Apple, and Google have teamed up with Liberals to censor dissent and promote that Trump is dangerous via propaganda. In the video, he shows two tweets of Trump, shown below, that he says is what the fuss is all about - is that right?

Bonus question: How are the alleged calls of violence by Trump different or worse than those in this video below?

Did Trump incite violence?

  • 183 votes
  • 8 votes
  • 10 votes
  • 5 votes
Admin 8 Jan 13
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

69 comments (26 - 50)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


It is hard for me to realistically believe that Trump (and some of his supporters) are not purveyors of division at the least, violence at the worst.

How are we (anyone) to believe him (given all the misinformation/lies), if/when he says he wants peace ?

FWIW, almost every statement by a political could be consider violence inducing by the other side... no?

But none of those political statements led to a group plotting to kidnap the governor of Michigan who was singled out by the president and none of those political statements led to an asdault of state and national capitals based on a debunked theory promoted by the president.

Unique events usually point to unique circumstances.
So what unique political statements are responsible for violence witnessed at state capitals and our nation's capitol?
Could it be claims of election fraud?
And if so, who is the main promoter of election fraud?

@Admin I agree your video about the progressives' comments is damaging.


By a strictly legal standard, based on Supreme Court precedent, Trump did not say anything that would qualify as "Incitement," which requires a high threshold be satisfied, because the First Amendment most strongly protects political speech, and a president as an individual citizen is protected by that just as much as anyone else. For terms of impeachment, under the "high crimes and misdemeanors" section, the legal standard is not as high, and given his past 4 years, all the tweets, speeches, and random comments he's made, as well as his unchecked sociopathic narcissism, it is obvious to a not-very-sharp rock he absolutely intended to provoke the incident and totally got off on it. This is the guy who was quoted as admitting how much he loves the poorly educated. Why? Because only a poorly educated and/or person of low intelligence would actually fall prey to Trump's bs. Pericles, he is not.

and if there was a next time and all he said was "you know what to do?" Every jury in the world, save a republican one, would know exactly that he was inciting violence and there are no specific words that qualify as incitement.



This is very true. BTW you changed your screen handle on this site!

I've been following the radical Christians uptick for several years now. My family is full of them. When Trump came on the scene they had found their 'savior'. If someone had told me six or seven years ago that my much loved siblings would become moral less, spineless, cowards I wouldn't have believed it. They started digging in deep when their religion grabbed hold. smh


Sources. RT? Really? You don't know what that is? It is Television Free PUTIN." Russia Today".

Mooolah Level 8 Jan 13, 2021

Me thinks more details of this mess will be forthcoming.

Canndue Level 7 Jan 13, 2021

Just heard tonight that a couple of members of Congress saw other members giving tours to people in maga gear, on January 4th and/or 5th. This is currently being investigated by the FBI.

@KKGator it will go deep. FBI said they were investigating politicians..


If anyone saw the movie “The Accused” with Jodie Foster which was based on a true event, was exactly what Big Chump pulled.

You do not have to be a direct participant in a crime to be convicted. Goading, Encouraging or otherwise enticing someone to commit a crime, and depending on the laws of that state, is the Offense of Criminal Solicitation. Which was the offense committed in The Accused. Though less Subtlety, Trump did the exact same thing.

Actually it was not subtle at all, not even the teensy weeniest.


Anything he could

bobwjr Level 9 Jan 13, 2021

I believe this is what you're looking for.


DaganCurie Level 5 Jan 13, 2021

Is there violence in words like "We need to FIGHT for our cause"?

@Admin Yes, "FIGHT" = violence. Ask boxers.

@Mooolah 5 people are dead...prima facie

Intelligent people understand that the context of a word is important and a word can have a variety of meanings.

The word "fight" does not necessarily mean "violence" and more often does not refer to actual physical conflict. Often it means "to put forth a determined effort", "to attempt to prevent the success or effectiveness of", "to oppose the passage or development of", "to gain by struggle", or "a verbal disagreement".

@Admin ...I must reply to you on two levels.

  1. You asked if just two tweets online were what all of the fuss was/is about. I spent less than a minute finding a website that listed all of the tweets they alone figured to be of fuss worthy. That's all I meant to do, and that's all that I did.

  2. You're second question directly to me is one that I think being an Admin of this website, you should know the answer to already. The Bible or just most every ancient religious text et. al. are full of very-open-to-interpretation statements/decrees/persuasions for people feeling loss/anger/pains/entitlements, etc. (people very similar to Trump's most allegiant) for them to take action and then some. the same way that one can apparently see nothing wrong with exact words of a religious text because of how they interpret them, and then someone else sees definite wrongs in the exact same words of same said religious text.......that absolutely helps answer your question. Very much so is the curse of cold wording. Truly it is often not the emotion that the authors write the words that matter, rather it matters ten fold the emotions of the readers. Now, that is exactly what doesn't bode well for Trump. He's not a complete moron. He knows quite well the emotions of his followers who indeed hang on his every single word. His word choices were fairly poor, to say the least. Capping off all that anyone needs to know about the situation is simplest of all, though...being that he said nothing to anyone about "not" being violent until the very moment it was too late.

@Charles1971 But as you said context is important. Trump knew what his words meant to his supporters.

@Mooolah, @AnneWimsey So by similar logic, the BLM were more violent than the DC Trump protest? Should we ban the use of "fight" just to be safe? 😉

@Admin BLM did not incite to riot people who were unhinged. If BLM used the word "fight" they now might consider other verbs. Still BLM did not call for the take over of the government by violent means. They are asking for police to stop shooting first & then assessing the situation. There are consequences for ones speech of which banning words is a solution in the crowded theater analogy. Context doesn't matter to the rabid. BLM doesn't call for stopping our democratic process, openly lie to its adherents, rile up a lynch mob, follow wacky internet wanna be Mussolini sites. The internet is a Pandora's Box.


Incitations can and do take many forms, from mere, questionably, innocent suggestions/comments right through the spectrum to including out-right, blatant and plain 'demands' for Insurrection, Violence, Public Disquiet, etc, etc.
Most times it is NOT directly obvious from the wording/s BUT from what the intent is in what is suggested by 'reading between the lines,' looking for and finding the 'innuendos, etc, etc.
Despite, imo, being a rank Idiot, tRumpanzee has shown over decades that he is well adept at using these 'tactics' and thinking that he can get away with them as well.

Triphid Level 8 Jan 13, 2021

Tell me again why Charlie Manson is in jail? He never did nuthin'....himself.

@AnneWimsey Exactly, he merely 'incited' his followers to commit murder, etc, etc, ergo, and in my opinion and that of Laws of the Land, he IS guilty of all Charges lain against him.
I.e. An Accessory Before and After the Fact.

@Triphid so compare him to drump......

@AnneWimsey In some ways, yes I do.
After all did NOT Hitler incite the German Peoples to hate Jews, etc, etc?


How can you post material from RT? "...teamed up with Liberals...", FOX talk.

jdubose Level 7 Jan 13, 2021

I know. What must your moral compass be like when you look to the Kremlin to defend democracy?


Get off this fake fucking news bullshit. Fox has called him a liar repeatedly. There are dozens of news sources that report the opposite of Fox or News Max. There are over 160 cases opened by the FBI, and are currently looking through 100K pieces of digital data. His speeches HAVE been linked to hate crimes. He ADMITTED he does not go to daily security meetings. He said it's always the same stuff. When he does decide to go, he has to have them in picture form! Know what happens when you do that? THE FUCKING WHITE HOUSE GETS INVADED! He literally could not get off Air Force One and get in the limo directly in front of his fucking face! A SS Agent had to wave him towards AFO!''


You may not like it, but under capitalism private companies are entitled to run their business as they see fit within the law. If Parler wants to acquire its own server it is free to do so, and since you haven't noticed, large companies do not generally have a liberal bias. Perhaps you can dimly discern the difference between vandalising a McDonalds and violating the mechanisms of democracy or the wild rantings of a washed-up celebrity from the public addresses of the President of the USA. On second thoughts, I can't tell the difference between the last two either.

Gareth Level 7 Jan 13, 2021

Ah you mean like this?

@Admin , Like that in reverse. The BLM protesters are not the ones dressed in riot gear, carrying guns and flexi cuffs here. But they were the ones to be pepper sprayed and taken to jail. At the capitol the rioters had the guns, pepper spray and weapons while the police were mysteriously not called in by the white house for several hours. While the rioters chanted 'hang mike pence' and were actively searching for him and congress.


It is not ONLY about the day of January 6th. The storming of the Capitol, was a result of years of lies about evil Democrats then WEEKS of lies about non-existent voter fraud.

Violence should never be condoned, from wherever it comes; BUT, the BIG difference is that THIS insurrection was done with the INTENT of overturning the results of a FAIR and LEGITIMATE election. And, the people who did this believed the LIE perpetuated by tRump that he had won by millions and the election had been stolen.

Trump, and ALL complicit Republicans, who went along with the lie, WHILE KNOWING BETTER, are to blame for this attack on our Capitol and on our Democracy.

Joanne Level 7 Jan 23, 2021

Please forgive the unnecessary commas 😁.


The way you've chosen to frame the question disqualifies it from serious consideration. If I have to explain, you won't get it.

Mitch07102 Level 8 Jan 23, 2021

"People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

postmaster Level 7 Jan 15, 2021

It just occurred to me, you are @Admin but only a level 8 (like me) and you want to get to level 10, cause like you this place ya know, so you post this outrageous stuff, so you get lots of extra points in your quest to be first to level 10. Right?

creative51 Level 8 Jan 14, 2021

Just wondering, @Admin.
Have you gotten your answers yet?
Or are you still looking?

KKGator Level 9 Jan 13, 2021

There were no questions that needed answer .
Except if he is 5 and partially to totally blind .

Another survey to see what democrats have on their hands and minds , and especially web site users .
It’s always good idea to know .


He did not, as some people seem to think, directly promote violence as far as I have seen, but he did promote division which of course, you would have to be stupid to not realize leads to it. And even the none condemnation of violence can be a thing which makes you complicit in it, Re. Pontius Pilate.

Fernapple Level 8 Jan 13, 2021

Yeah, this is what I thought... he didn't directly promote violence... but why is CNN, NYtimes, Washington Post all pushing a narrative that he did? Especially to warrant the protestors to be called domestic terrorists?

@Admin . . . sure. the media is selling the media.

Isn't domestic terrorism regarded as the biggest threat in the US ?
How did the panic buttons get removed a priori ?


Seems like there were at least some 'bad apples' in the crowd.

"Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." Coupled with the circumstances (citizens chance to "take back" a country in a peaceful way is impossible on that day or at the Capitol) to me is a very clear incitement. Especially considering other things that were said before the insurrection like having a "trial by combat". I mean, if it's pretty clear what someone means, exactly what they say shouldn't be the only consideration. For instance, if Trump had made air quotes while saying the word 'peaceful' in a sentence, "I want you to remain peaceful" would you still say his words strictly did not advocate violence? Technically that's true, but I think it's horribly disingenuous to hold that position.

@Admin gee, I dunno, you could watch his speech to the mob just before they marched to the Capitol. Or histweets calling them to DC...for a weenie roast?!?
Your disingenuous "playing stupid" isn't cutting it!

@JeffMurray I value your opinion. How would a possible quote by a progressive, "Because you'll never make social progress with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." be considered? Does it matter ones political views?

@Admin 45 started promoting violence during the 2016 campaign, and never let up.
The media has not had to "promote" anything.
All they've had to do is turn on the cameras and microphones.
All they've had to do is put his tweets up on the screen.

Implying that the media is somehow to blame for 45's downfall is wholly disingenuous, at best.


but why is CNN, NYtimes, Washington Post all pushing a narrative that he did?

for the same reason that the epic times, the New York post, and Breitbart are all pushing a narrative that he didn't.

If you choose hyperpartisan publications to form an opinion of the political views of the right or the left, then you will always view the right or the left in the worst possible terms.

Rather, what is the associated press and Reuters saying? What are the BBC and Al Jazeera saying?
In effect, what are media with little to no political editorializing in their content and with no horse in the race have to say about it?
They're in, I submit to you, lay a closer representation of nonpartisan truth.

@Admin No, political view doesn't matter. What matters are the circumstances, like I said. Was it a progressive that has advocated violence countless times like Trump ("knock the crap outta him" "When [cops] put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head... you can take the hand away" "Trump warned he’ll 'be a little more violent' next time when addressing protesters" “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing. I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble" etc. etc. etc.) or never, like Sanders. Was it a speech at a time when the only way to show strength was in an illegal way, or was it before an election or vote where you have to risk a pandemic or death threats from insurrectionists to carry out your duty? Did AOC speak before that progressive calling for combat or that Kamala Harris better do what we need her to do?

Are you really confused by these differences, haven't really thought about then much yet and are mostly influenced initially by conservative media, or are you just a Trump loyalist equivocator? These concepts don't seem like they'd be very difficult to understand by someone who had the capacity to grasp them which I assume you do.

@KKGator I just added this thought too.
That in the past, he has often promoted a violent culture. For example in his famous "You can get away with anything, grab them by the pussy.", quote about women, and many other similar, which certainly show open approval of a violent culture, and therefore have to share in the blame if there is a rise in violence under his administration.


. . . funny, he is a comedian, satirist, conspiricy theorist :




He told the assembled mob (ONLY there at his incitement/invitation!) that he would march with them to the Capitol, but instead went back to the WH to watch them on TV........meanwhile complaining that they looked "low class"....ya think?

All the speeches given to that mob were meant to wind them up, including comdemning people by name that drump felt hadn't done enough for him. For example, VP Pence, who was fully expected to be hung on the gallows the mob erected, along with Pelosi & others. Which was incessantly chanted from the time drump supposedly led them (!) & the entire time they besieged the place.


The most important thing in my view, regardless of debates over wording of impeachment, is that the President's attempt to take over the US government is ongoing, and the most logical way for him to removed (the 25th amendment) seems to be blocked by his loyal VP, and so it is appropriate to try to do the right thing and remove the President through Impeachment. Every moment that he is in office amounts to tolerating

  • an ongoing attempt to take over the US government and overthrow the rule of law in the US.
  • the deaths of many more than would have died if a President was reasonably attentive to reasonable pandemic leadership.
  • ongoing damage to business and the economy resulting from failed pandemic leadership.

It is hard to prove that words incite to violence, and I sort of wish they hadn't worded it that way, but I do think the President is guilty of inciting to insurrection. The President is sly and it was not likely going to be easy to get him out legally (just like it is often hard to get out of an abusive relationship). But it has to be tried, there are too many American lives, and the rule of law, immediately and directly at stake.

Further, doing the right thing is important and when the US is faced with an ongoing broad-daylight shameless threat to our rule of law, we should try to do the right thing and address that threat immediately and clearly.

kmaz Level 7 Jan 14, 2021

See I’m torn between extremes. I support Nationalism (not letting China rape us economically and I don’t think we need thousands of uneducated immigrants pouring in). But I do support ANYTHING that makes HEALTHCARE more affordable and more accessible!! Trump didn’t campaign any clear healthcare plan. Also, Trump doesn’t respect other religions and he’s clearly a DIVIDER. I like this coming to a head. The USA COULD be so much better. Sometimes you gotta fight it out!

I agree with the China part, and somewhat with the immigration issues, but seriously who do you think is picking all the green beans and chops up the chickens we eat. Some "mericans fer sure, but way way more immigrants. And SS IS a ponzi sceme, and we need more young people to make it work. And if we didn't have it it would be way way way worse.

Good points to you !

The bad news is, Trump's trade war also weakened us against China. So...

Well his presidency was just a little too short. Remember his big, beautiful healthcare plan is going to be unveiled in about two weeks... 😀


Mmm he’s pardoned murderers and then there was this:


But throughout his career, he’s done plenty. This last statement is a total PR thing, perhaps he’s learning to take professional advice? better late than never.

When I say his last statement, I mean the one not condoning the rush to the white house.


Lee Camp's erudite opinion.

"Should the racist violent insurrectionists at the Capitol be punished? Absolutely. But so too should the bought-off politicians who do the bidding of our morally bankrupt corporate America. These politicians and the CEOs they serve are purveyors of violence. They trade in, produce, and reap violence. They sit on hordes of money—the obscene profit from feeding American lives into the death cult of unfettered capitalism. "
"Violence on a breathtaking scale, far greater than what was done at the Capitol and far greater than any of us will witness in person. And yet large scale corporate-endorsed violence, death and destruction is not only allowable, it’s celebrated, it’s furthered, and promoted."


FrayedBear Level 9 Jan 14, 2021

As a follow on from my former comment, I do have to add. That in the past, he has often promoted a violent culture. For example in his famous "You can get away with anything, grab them by the pussy.", quote about women, and many other similar, which certainly show open approval of a violent culture, and therefore have to share in the blame if there is a rise in violence under his administration.

Fernapple Level 8 Jan 14, 2021

Off the top of my head I can't recall a single time I disagreed with you. I took it as a good sign that we were right, I mean, what are the chances we were both wrong? Yet here we find ourselves in disagreement. I'm wondering, considering your position has evolved slightly since your first comment, if I'm not wrong in my stance and perhaps you just didn't give this as much thought as you usually dedicate to your comments or if there's something I'm missing.

You stipulate to the facts:
-Trump invited his supporters to DC, some of whom are white supremacists he told to "stand back and stand by" in a nationally televised presidential debate
-Trump has promoted violence in the past, even offering to cover legal fees for people who commit violent acts on his behalf.
-Trump said, "you can't take our country back with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
-Trump told them to go to the Capitol.

Additionally, you have now admitted that he is to share in the blame. I just don't understand how you can be partially to blame without being at least partially at fault, especially as you shrink the period of time between his words and the subsequent violence.

Furthermore, Trump has resources that most people don't have. Intelligence briefings and data that can (and has) clearly shown a link between his words and actions and the violence we see. This, coupled with the fact that he is the most powerful person on the planet, with followers he personally claims are so loyal to him he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and they wouldn't stop supporting him, should definitely be considerations when trying to determine if the intent and meaning of his words go further than the exact text of them.

Careful consideration of these things against the backdrop of historical cases of incitement have lead me to conclude that his words and actions in this circumstance absolutely meets the standard for the charges filled by The House.

@JeffMurray Yes I think you are quite right. The more I think about it the more I am sure he is guilty. The trouble of course is finding evidence to courtroom benefit of the doubt standard.

@Fernapple Sure, if he was going to a court with an impartial jury of his peers. But he's not. He's going to the Senate where there's near 50 of the most spineless fucking pussies that have kissed his ass for four straight years waiting to acquit him... even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue.

For normal, rational, intelligent people, I think the argument I laid out should be sufficient.

A premeditated murderer would commit a murder and go back to his room as if nothing happened.

Trump walked back to "his room" to watch the violent storm on capitol hill play out. I don't believe he was remorseful. ...was like mission accomplished - but not fully damnnn😶

His "condemning speech" was perhaps brought on by Biden and members of the Republican Party.

The world got wind of his meetings in Trump Tower before this happened🤔

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 218

Photos 24 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin How do you feel about Parler being removed from the Internet?

Posted by Admin How do you feel about Parler being removed from the Internet?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Are Twitter and Facebook's new "Hate Speech" rules fair?

Posted by Admin Is it ok to affirm someone's untrue beliefs?

Posted by Admin Are you ready to reduce your carbon footprint?

Posted by Admin Are you ready to reduce your carbon footprint?

Posted by Admin Are you ready to reduce your carbon footprint?

Posted by Admin Are you ready to reduce your carbon footprint?

  • Top tags#democrats #video #DonaldTrump #world #vote #friends #media #evidence #beliefs #violence #god #injustice #racism #humanity #agnostic #Christians #apple #reason #Freespeech #fear #religious #policy #immigration #culture #racist #moral #species #birth #philosophy #REDlivesMATTER #conspiracy #guns #conservatives #inequality #equality #Asian #weed #books #liberal #tribe #propaganda #films #sex #OneHundredLIARsHere #liberals #FakeNews #PelosiGuiltyOfTREASON #youtube #tech #government ...

    Members 63,896Top