this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
205 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18977 readers
3217 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
HLMenckenFan@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
205
Trump often passively encourages violence — and actively rationalizes it (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

There is no question that Donald Trump appears at least indifferent when his supporters engage in violence on his behalf. There are numerous examples and numerous compilations of those examples, to the extent that it barely warrants recapitulation.

So let’s just consider two examples that bookended his first tenure as president.

On the campaign trail in 2015 and 2016, he actively encouraged those at his rallies to attack protesters. On the day of the 2016 Iowa caucuses, for example, he suggested that protesters might be planning to throw tomatoes at him. So, he said, supporters should feel free to “knock the crap out of 'em” — and that he would pay their legal costs. A few weeks later, one of his supporters attacked a protester. When subsequently asked about his promise, Trump claimed that he had never promised to pay any legal fees.

Then there was Jan. 6, 2021. The riot that unfolded that day was not explicitly directed by Trump; at no point did he say the equivalent of “please attack Congress.” Instead, he endlessly stoked his supporters’ anger, framing his electoral loss as an attack on America itself. He called supporters to Washington, riled them up and pointed them at the Capitol. Then he sat back and watched — with apparent approval — as the finalization of his loss was delayed.

That is the pattern that’s unfolding now, as Trump seeks reelection and seeks to derail the various criminal investigations of his actions. In many ways it’s less important that he give tacit approval to violence than that he actively gives his supporters reasons to feel that violence might be necessary.

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 39 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Trump. Is. A. Mob. Boss.

His cultists are his mob. When you understand this fact, everything he does makes sense. We need to collectively stop acting surprised when he does and says things in line with mob bosses.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 7 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No one is surprised. What's surprising is that we can't seem to stop it.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 5 points 8 months ago

I dunno yet if it's "can't" or "haven't yet."

[–] ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Cult leader more than mob boss. They are willing to die for their false idol.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago

I thought we were just using “stochastic terrorism” to describe this sort of stuff.