Given the mass violence and rioting of that year, you don’t think threatening the country with more civil unrest is any kind of threat to voters?

Given the mass violence and rioting of that year, you don’t think threatening the country with more civil unrest is any kind of threat to voters? — NOS4A2

What does it matter if it's a threat to voters? It's not election interference because according to you we can't influence other people, and so can't influence their decision to vote (or not):

Linguistic activity does not have the causal effects you claim they do. At best such activity makes concrete what the speaker thinks. Here they reveal what Isaac thinks, nothing more. The effects on me never manifest, however. I’ll be sure to let you know if they do, though. — NOS4A2

According to you, any Trump supporter who chose not to vote out of fear of what would happen were Trump to win only has himself to blame. You can't blame them not voting on Democrat protestations.

Are you finally going to abandon this position? And perhaps also argue that people shouldn't be allowed to threaten protests? That would also require abandoning your free speech absolutism.

Yeah, sorry, your words are still not influencing anything. They do not have the causal effects you pretend they do. Your words only reveal what you think. What influences me are my own fears of what might happen should you get violent and burn my business down.

Yeah, sorry, your words are still not influencing anything. They do not have the causal effects you pretend they do. Your words only reveal what you think. What influences me are my own fears of what might happen should you get violent and burn my business down. — NOS4A2

Then threats of protests aren't election interference. They don't prevent people from voting. They don't make it harder for people to vote. They don't dissuade people from voting. They don't persuade them to vote for someone else.

If Trump supporters didn't vote for Trump because they were afraid then they only have themselves to blame for his loss.

Threatening civil unrest lets people know your intentions, that you may become belligerent should things not go your way, and threat of this future activity is more than enough to get people to do what you want.

and threat of this future activity is more than enough to get people to do what you want. — NOS4A2

Sorry, but my words are still not influencing anything.

You can't even maintain a consistent argument across two posts.

Again, your words are not influencing anything. My belief that you may act on your words do. Is this going completely over your head?

Again, your words are not influencing anything. My belief that you may act on your words do. Is this going completely over your head? — NOS4A2

You believing what you do isn't me engaging in election interference.

Perhaps given your propensity for sorcery you can move me with your words to believe the same as you do.

Perhaps given your propensity for sorcery you can move me with your words to believe the same as you do. — NOS4A2

Well that's a transparent deflection.

I never brought up the influence angle, but should you remain consistent, maybe you can alter my mind with your words enough so as to influence me to believe that threatening civil unrest should an election not go your way is not election interference.

I never brought up the influence angle, but should you remain consistent, maybe you can alter my mind with your words enough so as to influence me to believe that threatening civil unrest should an election not go your way is not election interference. — NOS4A2

What is election interference if not the unjust influence of an election? In what way do threats of civil unrest interfere with an election if not by influencing the result? And in what way do threats of civil unrest influence the result if not by influencing voters?

It certainly does influence voters. It does so because people will believe you will act on your threat.

Are Russian tweets and Facebook ads the unjust influence of an election, but threats of civil unrest aren’t?

It certainly does influence voters. — NOS4A2

So my words can influence you, the voter.

The fear of you acting on them influences me, the voter.

The fear of you acting on them influences me, the voter. — NOS4A2

Then your fear is the election interference, not my words.

And in what way do threats of civil unrest influence the result if not by influencing voters? — Michael

What would Trump say about protest and civil unrest when he is the one who calls for it, as he did with the Capital riot and is now doing with the Manhattan DA investigation? Who is he trying to influence?

If altering election laws in the run up to a contentious election is “democracy” and “making it easier for voters to vote”, what is threatening mass protest should their opponent win and advocating for the censorship of opposing views? — NOS4A2

There's nothing wrong with threatening mass protest if there's a defensible reason for that mass protest. However, making knowably false assertions about election fraud is indefensible. Even though demagoguery is legal to practice, it ought to be kept within the strictest legal boundaries to minimize its risk.

You didn’t mention that Trump spoke with Abdul Ghani. That’s because the propaganda you dine on doesn’t tell you these things. — NOS4A2

What??? That's your counter line?

If he spoke with the ghost of Mullah Omar, the deal he made was really a surrender.

The propaganda tells you the deal is bad; you think it’s bad. — NOS4A2

Yeah, right.

Listening to the WHOLE news conference that Putin and Trump made seems to you propaganda. Well, that's how I came to the conclusion that Trump has some perverse relationship with Putin, because that wasn't normal.

Or the actual written document of the "peace" with Taleban. Have you read the actual terms? Likely not.

Trump has warned of "death and destruction" if he is arrested. I think he has control of an asteroid and is able to direct it towards the earth. :grimace:

He knows some of the idiots who support him are unhinged and will riot if he's arrested.

He knows some of the idiots who support him are unhinged and will riot if he's arrested — Michael

I guess they could march around somewhere. I wouldn't expect a lot of death and destruction.

Trump is sleazing his way up the polls. Is he shooting his wad too early?

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!”

Uh. Ok. I still doubt there's going to be much death or destruction. Not much more than we Americans usually do. You can put your horn hat on and ride down to Washington if you want. Check out the Lincoln Memorial. It's incredibly moving for people who aren't jaded as hell.

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!” — NOS4A2

I'm curious if you see anything wrong with this statement of Trump's. I count 7 things.

It’s not in all-caps.

I feel sorry for the Trump faithful. They must be suffering from whiplash. First he tells them he is going to be arrested and is ready to put on a show for the cameras and prepares them to protest, and now, less than a week later tells them the case is going to be dropped. Of course neither scenario is backed by facts. But then again, in Trump world facts don't matter because there are always "alternative facts".

At his rally yesterday he said he was an example of why the "weaponization of law enforcement" was the biggest problem the U.S. faces — and told the crowd: "They're coming after you." (Axios)

Translation: whoever is against me is the enemy we must fight against. Now someone might want to dismiss this as mere words without consequence, but as comforting as that may be it is dangerously disingenuous.

So you embrace it, which means you can defend it.So:
1) what's the relevance of getting more votes than prior sitting Presidents when his opponent got even more (he lost pop vote both times)?
2) Is a former President above the law?
3) What makes you think there's no evidence of crimes?
4) What's the basis for claiming "it's known by all" no crime was committed?
5) What's the basis for claiming a "false charge"?
6) What is the benefit of mentioning "death and destruction"?
7) Are you aware of the Grand Jury subpoena for docs marked classified, Trump's attorney's letter certifying all had been turned over, and that more such docs were found when the search warrant was executed?
8) Do you deny that at least one crime was committed related to the Stormy Daniel's payment? (e.g. at least a misdemeanor, even of statute of limitations passed - it still .plies a crime committed).
9) Are you aware Trump tried to get the DOJ to lie and claim there was significant election fraud?
10) Are you aware Trump falsely accused Dominion of election fraud?
11) Are you aware Trump repeated a variety of claims about election fraud even after multiple people told him directly these claims were debunked? (E.g. he repeated the debunked Fulton Co. "suitcases of ballots" claim on 1/6 after he received briefings about what actually happened).
12) Are you aware John Eastman pushed a novel electoral college theory that he knew SCOTUS would not accept?
13) Are you aware Trump continues to push the bogus "2000 Mules" claim despite it being debunked?
14) Is Trump's rhetoric consistent with embracing rule of law, and is this at all relevant to you?

TRUMP INDICTED BY GRAND JURY IN STORMY DANIELS CASE

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-indictment-hush-money-stormy-daniels/index.html

However note that at time of writing, while jury has voted to indict, the indictment is yet to be unsealed (i.e. made public) - however this is now expected as a matter of course.