> 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.