But Harris was actually accused of that by the "Preserve America PAC" ads factcheck.org/2020/09/… And Fox News covered that too foxnews.com/politics/…

The majority of this answer is simply whataboutism, which doesn't make a very compelling argument.

Please note that this is not a website to bash political views you don't agree with. For more information on what kinds of posts fit here, check out the article Help! I am being oppressed! Why do people keep downvoting my opinions? on Meta.

Hmm, if you KNOW that someone is EVIL and engaged in unfair actions ("election fraud") then wouldn't it make more sense to interpret a call to "fight" them as a call to violence, rather than peaceful discourse? Even if the same words could have been considered peaceful in other circumstances. It's not lighting a match, it's lighting a match at the scene of a gas spill.

I admit I'm annoyed by Donald Trump's speaking style. It always annoys me when people attempt to overthrow democracy through violence.

@NuclearHoagie read the answer again, if that does not help consider this tactic: go through other answers and see which of them are explicitly mentioning parts of trump speech that are obviously bad without the bias (it must be bad since Trump said it... ) I'll wait here...

@Caleth you are missing the point...point was not that Kamala was paying people to kill people, but that if you are loose enough in your "logical" investigation you can get almost any conclusion you want.

@NoSenseEtAl A defense of whataboutism that itself uses whataboutism, now that's a rhetorical tactic I haven't seen before.

No, you can't, if MNFreedomFund isn't posting bail for those accused of homicide

@Caleth does not matter... argument can be made: "Kamala knew when she encouraged the protesters that some of them will be violent and kill somebody..." See how easy is to stretch logic to fit whatever someone want?

@user3067860 in retrospect it seems so, but without the Occupy Congress event happening that speech would be pretty boring generic political nonsense... Imagine 10 people that initiated the break in missed their flight and none of this happened... Not even media that dislikes him would say that Trump tried a coup but failed, because they would sound ridiculous...

Funding bail is not equivalent to wielding a pardon power

@Caleth again does not matter...you can argue(poorly but that is my point) that if you are potential protester and you know you will get bailed out you are more likely to break the law... Nobody is gonna fact check that claim, since it is impossible, nobody is gonna measure the effect since it is impossible... But if your target audience dislikes Kamala that is not a problem, they are happy to beleive you.

Your point seems to be "because anyone can make things up about anyone, no-one I like did anything wrong as far as I can tell"?

Re Harris and bail funds, I refer you to the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. If it is reasonable to refuse bail to a particular accused person, the court has the ability to do so.

And look at Allure's answer: "at least some of people who did the rioting have said they thought he was inciting them" How is that a biased answer?

@Caleth I do not like Trump, but it is funny that you assume that. Simple fact is that Trump did not call for insurrection. If anybody else said the same words he did people could accuse that guy of being a sore loser, or something, but nobody would really think that president X tried to overthrow the government with his speech. If he did people would be quoting him, instead of using vague claims about context and "what he really meant"

I honestly don't understand why people doing the insurrecting saying "he told us to" doesn't convince you that he did in fact tell them to

No, I would say that any president, having had a security briefing on that armed group, giving that speech, was trying to overturn the election by intimidation or force. And that if it isn't currently a crime, it should be, up to and including a constitutional amendment limiting the scope of the 1st.

@Caleth obviously some of the people thought he was inciting them... So what? People hear what they want to hear. Question is not if somebody crazy or biased interpreted his words to mean X. Question is if a reasonable person sitting there in the crowd after his speech would think: I think Donald told us to storm the government buildings... answer is no.

Well either a reasonable person wouldn't be in that crowd, or yes, he did tell them to. Not exact instructions, but "go threaten them into doing what we want"

@Caleth when you start claiming 100% of group X are Y it is time to pause...

I'm not saying they all are. I'm saying that either "the crowd that heard that speech then invaded the Capitol" don't meet your "reasonable person" test, or that a reasonable person in that crowd *would" think that Trump was calling on them to invade the Capitol. Based on the fact that they did.

@NoSenseEtAl "without the Occupy Congress event happening that speech would be pretty boring generic political nonsense" But it was at the Occupy Congress event. Trump stood in front of that crowd, the crowd there to support his months-long election fraud claims, and chose to speak those words. There's a desire to excuse Trump's behavior as if he's just some guy saying some things to no one in particular. He's the President of the United States. His words matter. He's sworn to defend the Republic. Instead he walked away and watched Congress get sacked on live TV.

@Schwern you are missing the point... maybe, surely my joke style is bad but I was joking in reference to Occupy Wall Street, what I meant by occupy is literal physical presence in the congress, not generic protesting in front of it.... But my point still remains: if nothing happened nobody reasonable would say: gee Trump tried to start the insurrection but his fanboys were too dumb and or too scared to do it...

@NoSenseEtAl This is not a joke, nor is it a hypothetical. It happened, the Capitol was sacked, five people are dead, and he bears the responsibility. When the president acts like an edgelord, lies about an election for months, calls the press and opposing politicians enemies of the people, yes, he risks inciting violence. This wasn't some anomaly, it wasn't if it was going to happen, but when. The FBI was aware how volitile that crowd was. His lawyer called for Pence to be executed. The plans for violence were public. And excuses like yours enable him.

@Schwern you should learn the definition of hindsight. If none of this happened nobody would consider Trump's speech dangerous. So he bears zero responsibility. People that decided to break in, and maybe the officers that shot them bear the responsibility(depending on if shootings were justified).

That's totally disingenuous. "It might not have happened" does not excuse making it more likely to happen. Trump could have said different things, like "stay here by the White House" "The election was conducted fairly".

Not to mention: He could have asked for NG to be deployed before giving the speech (instead of alledgedly not at all)

Also "So he bears zero responsibility." No. Even if Trump meant for them to be peaceful, his failure of communicating that makes him share responsibility.

@NoSenseEtAl A reasonable person could've said that Trump tried to start an insurrection; seemed kinda obvious. If no one went with it, it wouldn't have been a matter of Trump having been too subtle (I mean, seriously, I don't get how anyone informed of the events could've been oblivious), but rather an issue of Trump having failed to convince his fanboys to throw away their self-interest in favor of Trump's interest.

Which, I think, was what a lot of folks had hoped for: that even those who'd favor Trump over America still wouldn't act against their own self-interest, as attacking the Capitol building would obviously be a stupid thing for most individuals to do.