Why is the comparison apples to oranges? You’re comparing euphemisms and a very specific definition of ‘fight’ to a direct call to escalate confrontation at protests.

It's apples to oranges because she was not speaking directly to a crowd that was being encouraged to make an election go her way, as Trump was.

That’s a very specific interpretation of events

I'm not sure what answer would have satisfied your question if it wasn't asked with poor intent. There are many differences, including Trump organizing the group together that then turned into rioters after his speech.

The question was most definitely asked with intent to make you consider why any comparison is somehow inappropriate.

> His speech was at best divisive and contained many euphemisms, if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight."

Here are all references to the word "fight" in that speech (Full transcript is here: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/tra...):

* And Rudy, you did a great job. He’s got guts. You know what? He’s got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He’s got guts. He fights, he fights.

* For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they’re out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it’s, it’s incredible.

* And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them. We’re going to. We’re going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.

* Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder.

* But we’ve done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great and now we’re out here fighting. I said to somebody, I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. 10 o’clock it was over. But I was going to take a few days.

* The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they’d argue with me. I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight, I’d fight, they’d fight. Pop pop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you’d have an argument.

* Now what they do is they go silent. It’s called suppression and that’s what happens in a communist country. That’s what they do, they suppress. You don’t fight with them anymore. Unless it’s a bad story. They have a little bad story about me, they make it 10 times worse and it’s a major headline.

* But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There’s never been a movement like that.

* And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

So which of those is a "straight call to violence"?

And just so it's not forgotten, he also said this during the same speech:

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

As a devil's advocate: if the presidency was about to be stolen, what must be done to secure heart of the nation? Not fight?

What would it mean to get newspaper ads in another nation which asserted that their presidency was being stolen?

Stop straw manning what I said. That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is like pretending that his words didn't matter at all.

He mentioned being peaceful once, but then suggested that the nation was being stolen from them and that they should be patriots and fight back.

> Stop straw manning what I said.

It's not a straw man. You explicit said "... if not straight calls to violence by using words like "fight."". I listed out every instance of him using that word as well as it's conjugations.

I'll ask again, which of those instances do you claim is so egregious?

> That speech was written and was trying to accomplish a goal. Ignoring that public speaking is intended to influence people is like pretending that his words didn't matter at all.

Every speech is intended to influence people. That's literally the point of public speaking.

He also repeatedly mentions that the audience should see if their elected officials are "fighting for them" and, if not, choose different ones the next chance they get.

> He mentioned being peaceful once, but then suggested that the nation was being stolen from them and that they should be patriots and fight back.

Again, where does he say that "fighting back" involves anything that resembles violence?

The phrase, "fight back" is one of the most clichéd expressions in politics. Every politician says it during every election cycle.*

Using the words "if not" in English in this manner indicates that it is a further extreme than the preceding portion of the sentence (and not strictly a matter of fact). There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me. Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message.

He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd.

Patriot: a person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

Fight: take part in a violent struggle involving the exchange of physical blows or the use of weapons.

Steal: take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

> There is a spectrum there, obviously, and I could argue for specific instance of him using "fight" as being sketchy, but really that he used the term over a dozen times is striking to me.

You called out using that term as the strongest indicator of his intent to incite yet you continue to refuse to pick out a specific example of it.

> Connecting patriotism and fighting alongside the election being stolen from them had a message that more action than usual was necessary. That was the underlying message.

None of that is inciting violence. There are millions of Americans that believe there were actions during the recent election that were fraudulent. There’s nothing violent about voicing such concerns.

It’s been done in just about every election since the dawn of Democracy. Nancy Pelosi herself is on the record, on video, rejecting the outcome of a Presidential election. And she has just as much right to voice her concerns as Trump or anyone else.

> He used a lot of euphemisms, and I think there is some evidence there that he knew the message he was sending to the crowd.

That’s totally subjective and totally conjecture. If that’s going to be the standard for banishing someone from the internet then the kangaroo court of the Facebook Oversight Board is perfectly fitting.

I actually just called "fight" (and words like it) out as one of the things (using the term "like" to imply this) not the strongest indicator. He also made assertions that the country was being stolen from those people, that this was their last chance to do anything about it before the downfall of the country, that the crowd couldn't be weak, that the whole thing was illegal, that conceding isn't an option, and that the enemy (Democrats) were to blame. You're picking my selection of the word "fight" as a straw man that you keep attacking as if he wasn't whipping them up with tribalism and violent symbolism immediately before they marched on the Capitol building.

He scheduled the speech nearby so that they would march on the Capitol building (it's literally in his speech). Others have spent time detailing this out[0]. Again, he picked many words and phrases that he used to convey to the crowd that this was a time for _action_. If he wasn't aware that crowd was going to react to his words with action, then that'd make him pretty dense.

I think I've exhaustively gotten the point across that using the term "fight" in a speech isn't the problem. If you want to whack it again, go for it.

0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2021/ann...

Can you actually provide an example or not? So far you are only repeating your conjectures without citing from the actual speech.

An example of what exactly? That his speech contained a bunch of euphemisms and some of them may have been taken as calls to violence? Do you expect me to provide a clear example of him telling folks go harm congress members? We can all agree he didn't say any direct quotes like that. I did link to a full article that contained highlights for things that I'd consider euphemisms.

Here are a few (not even all of them):

- "... these people are not going to take it any longer, they’re not going to take it any longer."

- "... to see our election victory stolen by bold and radical left Democrats. ... We will never concede. It doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved. ... We will not take it anymore, and that is what this is all about. .. We’re just not going to let that happen."

- "We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder."

- "... Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness."

- "Well, I would say yes, it does, because the Constitution says you have to protect our country, and you have to protect our Constitution, and you can’t vote on fraud, and fraud breaks up everything, doesn’t it? When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by very different rules."

- "Looking out at all of the amazing patriots here today, I have never been more confident in our nation’s future."

- "But I said something is wrong here, something is really wrong, can’t have happened, and we fight. We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore."

The crowd was literally chanting "fight for Trump" during the speech before they went and...surprise... fought for Trump.

Then after, he tweeted a video and some text:

- "... Stay peaceful!"

- "No violence!"

- "We had an election that was stolen from us. ... We have to have peace. ... I know how you feel."

- "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!"

So yeah, he called for peace after rallying the crowd to fight for him. At the same time, he was saying that it was justified and that he feels the same way as the folks rioting.

None of those citations was a call for violence. What you call an euphemism looks a lot more like a conspiracy theory. Sounds very unbelievable, that Trump could made his whole speech in cyphers and only his followers understood its meaning, until...

I see your perspective but I disagree with the conclusions.

Let me put it one other way: if he didn’t organize people and then make that speech, do you think there would have been a riot at all?

There were probably 1000s of protests/riots last year in the USA alone. I don't think all the others were spontaneous and this one was orchestrated by a mastermind using cryptic language to wake up his sleeping warriors.

Years of peaceful gatherings by Trump with more than ample evidence that Trump called for peaceful protests...

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-trump-say-peacefully...

The Ruling Mostly true.

The president did say that the crowd was going to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. After the attack, Trump said he does not condone violence.

This is a great article detailing what was said, including why it is only _mostly_ true that he called for peace.

> However, it does not necessarily mean the president did not incite violence with the rest of his speech or in his rhetoric prior to January 6.

The same people saying he incited violence are the people who back Maxine Waters who's comments led to violence against police.

So it's hard to look seriously at those "he incited violence" given his YEARS of similar public gatherings and never having incited violence previously.

Key is that he never called for violence, he called for peaceful protests and he condemned the violence.

I mean... it doesn't get any simpler than that.