That general denunciation you linked to does not cancel all the times he avoided calling out specific people. The "good people on all sides" statement at Charlottsville did not mention the neo-Nazis , the "stand back but "stand by" message to the Proud Boys at the debate, the hours of silence on 1/6, etcetera.

You approved of the violent rhetoric at rallies as justified by the circumstances. I am sure you can justify anything you like.

Trump only denounces it when he vacillated or equivocated before.

And in the case of 1/6, he expressed his love for them once he got around to telling them to go home.

Then there are the regular predictions that violence will break out if the trials continue.

The message for peace and lawful behavior is having trouble breaking through.

I don’t see anything in here about pressuring Raffensperger to “overturn the GA election results”. Given this, perhaps you can provide evidence that Trump was pressuring the Secretary of State to “overturn the GA election results”. Also, if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat, since you’re so sure Trump threatened him, it would be helpful since am still unable to see it. — NOS4A2

Raffensperger himself has stated that Trump pressured him. I can't speak for Raffensperger so f you disagree you'll have to take it up with him.

Meanwhile, still you have not explained why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - would NOT have found those 11 thousand votes that Trump was asking for -assuming there was any legal way to do that.

Raffensperger has challenged Trump to publicly debate about the results of the GA election.

Clearly Trump pressured him, but it’s what act Trump pressured him to do that is the question. If you have no evidence or reasoning beyond proof by assertion then I guess we can both agree that the statement “Trump pressured Raffensperger to overturn the GA election results” is unfounded, and maybe we’ll quit repeating it and start calling it out when people do. If the idea didn’t come from Trump, and you and Raffensperger don’t just randomly share the same conclusion, we could even say that it came from propaganda and begin to guard ourselves against it.

And if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat it would be neat to see if there is anything that indicates any threats outside of Raffesnperger’s and your own feelings, and all the propaganda that makes such assertions. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.

I already speculated on your question and went into why I made such a speculation.

Oh I see. It’s not that he didn’t do it, it’s that he didn’t at the times you wanted him to. It’s not that he called out violence and bigotry on all sides, but that it wasn’t specifically targeted at the one group and ideology you dislike. It’s utter hogwash but at least I can see what kind of sand these foundations of lies are built upon.

Clearly Trump pressured him — NOS4A2

I'm glad we agree on that.

And if you wouldn’t mind sharing your definition of threat — NOS4A2

You're really hung up on this - so for purposes of this particular discussion I'll go with your distinction. So Trump "pressured" him but did not "threaten" him.

but it’s what act Trump pressured him to do that is the question. — NOS4A2

The exact details of the acts Trump pressured him to do are irrelevant. The relevant question is why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - did not do any of the things that Trump pressured him to do.

I hope you wouldn’t mind sharing your answer to this specific question. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.

He didn't say it to particular people in real time but just a general statement as policy. I mentioned examples of the lack.

I'm glad we agree on that.

I can tell exactly what you’re dodging by what context you remove from my quotes.

At any rate, I’ve repeatedly said Trump was pressuring him to look at the fraud and to share the data with his team. I can refer to quotes. You said, just like the media, the J6 committee, the impeachment inquiry, that he was pressuring Raffensperger to overturn the GA election results, without any evidence. Upon what grounds are we coming to these conclusions that are not based on propaganda?

You're really hung up on this - so for purposes of this particular discussion I'll go with your distinction. So Trump "pressured" him but did not "threaten" him.

You said that, to your ears, a few statements sounded like threats, and even quoted these threats. Threatening a public official is a felony. I’m just curious how you came to this conclusion. If not some definition, then what? If not propaganda, then what?

The exact details of the acts Trump pressured him to do are irrelevant. The relevant question is why Raffensperger - a lifelong Republican and a Trump supporter - did not do any of the things that Trump pressured him to do.

I hope you wouldn’t mind sharing your answer to this specific question. If not, then I suppose I can again chalk it up to propaganda and I’ll quit bothering you about it.

I have already given my answer and shared why I made such a speculation. Do you want different answers?

...Threatening a public official is a felony... — NOS4A2

...and should be prosecuted. Right?

I personally do not think so.

You said that, to your ears, a few statements sounded like threats, and even quoted these threats. — NOS4A2

I'll try one more time. You feel that there is an important distinction between pressure vs threat so I'm conceding the point. So again - T was merely pressuring R, NOT threatening him.

At any rate, I’ve repeatedly said Trump was pressuring him to look at the fraud and to share the data with his team. — NOS4A2

And once again, why would R NOT do these things?

I have already given my answer and shared why I made such a speculation. — NOS4A2

And here is what you said:

Public and political pressure, maybe. — NOS4A2

Who was putting pressure on R at the time of these events to NOT do things that T was asking for? These things could have potentially given the GA electoral votes to Trump? If you want to convince me that you're right you will need far more then speculation.

R has challenged T to publicly debate this issue at a venue of T's choice. What's that all about?

If I believe what I am writing I am not operating on bad faith.

I try my best to explain my reasoning. — NOS4A2

I think it's better known as "rationalizing". When a person rationalizes it is quite likely that they do not actually believe what they are rationalizing. The rationalizing seems to be done as a way for the person to convince oneself that something which they want to believe, but they cannot quite apprehend as believable, actually is believable.

Some of the rhetoric I see related to Trump is disturbing. I saw a banner unfurled at a Yankees game that said "Trump or Death" with the dates 1776 and 2024 on them. I saw a recent video clip with Mike Huckabee saying if Trump wasn't re-elected in 2024 that he thought the next election would be settled by bullets and not ballots. And I saw a Trump supporter at an event interviewed and saying that she thought 2024 would be the last election we'd ever have, or maybe we wouldn't even make it to the 2024 election. The buzz on the Right seems to be implying a civil war "if we don't get our own way." I take this very seriously, because that was the buzz in the South when things didn't seem to be going their way, politically, without the balance staying in place between slave states and free states. It was a precarious peace built upon that balance. For a long time there was buzz about possible war before it finally occurred. And then it did.

Some of the rhetoric I see related to Trump is disturbing. — GRWelsh

It certainly is, but part of the rhetorical strategy is to deny that the warnings are threats. "I'm not saying this is what I or we will do, but it is what will happen".

I don't think there will be civil war, but this is not to say there will not be violence and bullets. Two reasons I think things will not escalate to war is that the trumpster "patriots" are not significant enough in numbers or bullets.

One central feature of the Civil War was that the South understood it would have to immediately replace the functions of government after leaving the Union. When MAGA speaks of dissolving the Union, they sound like they will be able to somehow go on as before. National institutions, Federal Courts, Medicaid, National funding for education, health, social security, disaster relief, and the rest will somehow continue without a thought given to the matter.

The complacency is what frightens me.

I don't think there will be civil war, but this is not to say there will not be violence and bullets. Two reasons I think things will not escalate to war is that the trumpster "patriots" are not significant enough in numbers or bullets. — Fooloso4

And a Civil War is expensive and makes a country go into bankruptcy. Even the most far-right (or far-left) politician is aware of this.

What does a slogan like "Trump or Death" even mean? A slogan like "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" is pretty straightforward and means without certain freedom and rights I don't regard life as living, and I'd be willing to die to get those things. But "Trump or Death"? Does that mean if Trump isn't re-elected in 2024, you as the Trump supporter will kill yourself since your alternate reality bubble has finally popped and you can't take it anymore? This sort of supporter seems to be ruling out prematurely the possibilities that Trump doesn't become the Republican nominee or simply loses in a fair 2024 election...

I will add that this sort of mentality is what makes this such a difficult situation to resolve peacefully through reasonable discussion. If one side is basically saying "if we don't get our way, there's going to be violence" then there is no reasoning with them. They're signaling to you that there is no scenario where they lose that they're willing to accept because they've already defined their loss as evidence it wasn't fair and honest. "The only way we can lose this election is if the election is rigged."

there is no reasoning with them. — GRWelsh

Sometimes other means of "persuasion" are necessary.

I don't think there will be civil war, but this is not to say there will not be violence and bullets. Two reasons I think things will not escalate to war is that the trumpster "patriots" are not significant enough in numbers or bullets. — Fooloso4

The US can experience political mass shootings as uh, it's now experiencing mass shootings. Likely they will be downplayed, because nobody likes that the going is something like in a Third World country. And never underestimate what kind of a police state the US already is and can be.

The most stupid thing the Democrats likely will do is to portray them as people who start a civil war. That just is condescending nonsense and outright propaganda and won't do them any good.

Besides, the Trumpster won't lead his followers into a civil war, because he's not a leader, just a great populist, yet in the end just a whiner. He genuinely had a chance to make an autocoup and would have the crowd there to make seem like a revolution and what happened? The Secret Service simply drove him off to the White House, even if he demanded otherwise. Then he just stared at the TV at his followers invading Capitol Hill and did nothing. Finally he tweeted for them to calm down.

Yeah, that is NOT a leader in a civil war. Those kind of leaders have to have firm belief in their cause and the will to kill a lot of people.

But semiautomatic rifles in a crowded area can kill a lot of people.

I don’t take it that seriously. It’s awful, of course, that one party has turned fascist, but those of us who pay attention to politics or current affairs sometimes forget that a majority of people don’t care, don’t vote, and aren’t interested.

There will be no civil war. There will be swings of extremism—but the vast majority of people aren’t extremists and don’t like all the fighting. Even most Republicans.

https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/1703398762746384533?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1703398762746384533%7Ctwgr%5E98658a32178ff87bf39611c5465f75530ad1e476%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdonald-trump-defense-doomed_n_65081c16e4b0fa756c766c4f

Trump hired many lawyers. They told him the election wasn't rigged. He fired those lawyers, because he didn't respect them. Instead, he respected the lawyers he could find who were taking him the election WAS rigged.

He fired the lawyers because they weren't telling him what he had already decided must be true.

Damning.

The famous "some people said".

Instead, he respected the lawyers he could find who were taking him the election WAS rigged.

He fired the lawyers because they weren't telling him what he had already decided must be true. — flannel jesus

If I were Donald Trump, I would have fired those lawyers as well. What is the point of paying an amount of dollars to lawyers who will not follow up your strategic defence plan? Whether Trump lies or not, it is obvious that he will not hire lawyers who would not represent him effectively.

follow up your strategic defence plan — javi2541997

But that's what's so damning about his quote - it shows that the whole "stolen election" argument was his *plan*, rather than something he believed because he was shown reliable evidence.

He fired the lawyers because they were telling the emperor he had no clothes.

He fired the lawyers because they were telling the emperor he had no clothes. — flannel jesus

He fired them because they were not willing to do their job.

He fired them because they were not willing to do their job. — javi2541997

Their job is to advise him on legal matters, and they were advising him that he had no legal basis to challenge the results of the election.

I think Michael's got it right. Sometimes doing their job involves less boot licking and more objective reality

Except criminal lawyers, whose job is to represent the client's version of reality.

It is not the job of a criminal lawyer to aid and abet criminal activity. After the fact, the lawyer's job is to establish that there was no criminal activity.