@engineer,
engineer wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
How little you understand. An incitement to violence has to contain an actual request or suggestion that violence be done.
No it doesn't. For the millionth time, you can indirectly request or suggest that violence be done. You do not have to say "go hit someone". In fact, Trump did say over and over "fight" and "fight like hell." You say those are just figurative, but context matters. Those links (that you conveniently refuse to read) explain that clearly. At this point, it is obvious you don't want to understand, choosing to be ignorant and claim victory than learn something that might challenge your world view.
First of all, I refused to read the links, as I explained clearly to hightor, because the person who makes the claim has the responsibility to provide evidence, at least if challenged. I'm not going to read some article searching for buried treasure to make your case. It's just a way for you to get out of doing work or to obscure a losing argument.
You are misquoting me:
You do not have to say "go hit someone."
I never said that you have to say "go hit someone." I gave it as an example. What you do have to do is have some sort of actual solicitation to violence. The idea that "creating an atmosphere" by saying "fight like hell" is enough for someone to be guilty of incitement to violence is laughable. Politicians tell their supporter stuff like that constantly.
What's really disturbing is that you want to live in a country in which all that's required for someone to be penalized legally for speech is for him to tell people to protest and fight, both of which are absolutely rights as long as the fighting is not literal. A person's enemies will always say that he "created an atmosphere." It apparently doesn't bother you at all to give up the freedom of speech which has distinguished this country from every other one that's ever existed. It appalls me how little the left respects the Bill of Rights. You know in the oath of office when they refer to "domestic" enemies the Constitution must be defended against? That's you.
Furthermore, you also don't seem to mind if you break the institutions of government so that future generations won't be protected by them. Impeachment was designed to give the country a way to oust a president who was an actual criminal. Not as a means of continuing a lost election. Possibly from now on, whenever the Congress is controlled by a different party from the president's, he will be impeached as a matter of course. You're ruining the institutions of government so that they won't protect future generations and you don't give a sh*t.