Trump sought and actively tried to subvert constitutional government and overturn the results of the presidential election. And what he could not do through the arcane rules and procedures of the Electoral College, he tried to do through the threat of brute force, carried out by an actual mob.
If the antecedent component of a conditional statement is not true, then the consequent component of that conditional statement is effectively meaningless, and not logically relevant.
I am so fucking sick of every fucking mainstream media outlet bending over backwards to give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Doing so is willful negligence, plain and simple.
This op-ed piece does anything but. It makes it very clear what’s going on here.
In an age where most people just read headlines, starting one with “he’s not an insurrectionist” is a stupid way to talk about it. Trump is clearly guilty and prosecution hinges on a stacked Supreme Court that will probably upturn democracy and bring about a serious dark period in American history. Legitimate threats of concentration camps at the border and vastly intolerant police enforcing his every decree (like let the capital riots go nuts and do nothing) are just the start.
This is fucking stupid, regardless of the content. It is time to be more forward: Trump is America’s Hitler and will lead America to the same ruination as all other fascist/populist leaders.
Frankly, I disagree. Reading only the headline is one thing but there is also an apparent lack of reading comprehension.
It’s clear in just the title that the author questions how Trump’s behaviour leading up to Jan 6th can be described as anything besides “insurrectionist”. I really had no reason to be surprised that the body of the opinion piece covers why Trump’s actions are clearly would disqualify him from the ballot, and also the supreme court’s involvement weighing in on how it gets enforced and by whom.
Beware whenever the Alt-Right makes a “mistake” that works in their favor - it is most often no accident, from that crowd that values “winning” over all other considerations - even (especially it sometimes seems) morality?
As a famous YouTube video “The Alt-Right Playbook: Control the Conversation” mentioned, bad arguments are bait for liberals to get to talking about what the person offering those want them to be talking about. Whether this journalist merely was “negligent” towards best reporting practices vs. outright hostile to them, I no longer care b/c functionally they make no difference.
You’re gonna want to read through to the punctuation marks on the ends of sentences, they’re pretty important sometimes, like if you’re trying to tell whether an author is making a statement (“.” and “!”, typically) or asking a question (“?”).
It’s still an obnoxiously clickbaity title