White Supremacists try to kidnap the Governor of Michigan

Originally posted by Newjak
It also wasn't an illogical conclusion to point out Trump had a tweet that seemed to endorse this type of behavior. In fact Trump has a long history of making comments that don't exactly calm people down.

Both sides have this problem. It’s not just Trump.

I actually find the tweets endorsing or implying endorsement of rioting/looting to be far more disburbing tbh. Riots are far more destructive than a single plot to kidnap that didn’t even happen.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like, it depends on where you started from, if you new that guy attended a BLM protest and agreed with them in regards to police violence. it wouldn't have been too much of an assumption?

That's the part that makes it seem less illogical then it other wise would be.

@Nibedicus Yes but we aren't talking about those. We are talking about Trump's tweet that would seemed to link him directly to the idea that kidnapping a governor would be okay.

Originally posted by Newjak
I see you conveniently ignored the part where Trump specifically shot himself in the foot by a posting a tweet that would have seemed to endorse this type of activity 😂

That's the part that makes it seem less illogical then it other wise would be.

Like you conveniently ignored that at least one of them called Trump a tyrant?

BTW, Do you have proof that every one of them saw the tweet and agreed with it?

Originally posted by Newjak
@Nibedicus Yes but we aren't talking about those. We are talking about Trump's tweet that would seemed to link him directly to the idea that kidnapping a governor would be okay.

For you to find a sufficient enough “connection” to tweets by Trump to find fault or something condemnable with regards to the kidnap plot, you also have to have the same consistency as to find this same “connection” to tweets by celebs/politicans/etc with regards to the rioting/looting. In fact, the latter actually has a stronger “link” to incitement than the former from the tweets I read.

And between the two, you should find the latter FAR more disturbing as ppl’s lives were lost and many more were destroyed in the rioting/looting, entire economies of communities ruined for years to come. They are not even comparable.

So, I want to ask. Did you apply the same standards for both? Just want to make sure we are debating in good faith here. 😛

Originally posted by Silent Master
Like you conveniently ignored that at least one of them called Trump a tyrant?

BTW, Do you have proof that every one of them saw the tweet and agreed with it?

You're so concerned about removing Trump out the equation you're ignoring how he himself is the reason he actually got put into this conversation.

In fact you guys are so concerned with this you've all made terrible arguments over the span of pages about whether or not conservatism was was so technically opposed to anarchy that someone hanging that flag couldn't be a Trump supporter. That is an illogical jump because of personal beliefs.

At the time these initial Trump connection ideas were happening. The most known knowledge was they belonged to a right wing leaning group and we all saw Trump's tweet.

Heck DDM only recently posted something that showed one of them was definitively anti-trump. While we definitively know one of them is pro Trump.

All this shows is that people here keep missing the main problem of why Trump is mentioned in these conversations. That is he makes stupid Tweets that at face value would seem to least show some endorsement of violent acts like this.

@Nibedicus That's not a good faith argument you presented because it doesn't actually involve the conversation at hand.

It involves you trying to ask me about something that is unrelated.

None of that answered my question. was assuming that they were all right-wing Trump supporters an example of jumping to conclusions?

Originally posted by Newjak
@Nibedicus That's not a good faith argument you presented because it doesn't actually involve the conversation at hand.

It involves you trying to ask me about something that is unrelated.

It is a good faith argument because you are asking that a certain standard for “assignment of fault” be applied.

For you to ask others to accept your standard for this specific instance, you need to assure others that this is indeed the standard that you follow.

Originally posted by Silent Master
None of that answered my question. was assuming that they were all right-wing Trump supporters an example of jumping to conclusions?

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean we know at least one of them is a Trump supporter.

We also know the group they belong to is pretty conservative in most things.

I also think the important thing there isn't that there has to exist a clear cut connection between Trump and this group. It's the fact that Trump said things that could have been construed to people as wishing this to happen.

It's also funny the logical loops conservatives are jumping through to make Trump not look bad for the things he said 😂

You seem to projecting. You're looking for any excuse to try to tie this to Trump.

Here is are the facts: no, this wasn't a group of trumpers that did this.

Originally posted by Surtur
You seem to projecting. You're looking for any excuse to try to tie this to Trump.

Here is are the facts: no, this wasn't a group of trumpers that did this.

And actually I'm not the one who really cares that much. You guys seem to care way more than I do.

It's just funny/sad how you guys keep trying to act like Trump didn't bring some of this on him by his own words 😂

Originally posted by Newjak
Technically at least one of them was 😉

And actually I'm not the one who really cares that much. You guys seem to care way more than I do.

It's just funny/sad how you guys keep trying to act like Trump didn't bring some of this on him by his own words 😂

More projection. It's funny/sad how you can't let go of the fact that this wasn't caused by anything Trump did despite some people hoping that indeed would be the case.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think you're being honest at all.

He was literally and overtly an BLM supporter.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-accused-of-hatching-plot-to-kidnap-whitmer-is-blm-supporter-and-made-comments-critical-of-police/ar-BB19UUXD

“He was afraid the government was going to take his guns,” the employee said. Those at the store were aware of Fox’s Second Amendment views and involvement with a group of armed men, which did not strike them as unusual for the area.

Not entirely sure where he got an idea like that from but...

“The Democrats want to take away your guns, they want to take away your health care, they want to take away your vote, they want to take away your freedom,” Trump said in the video, which was shot outside the White House.

“They want to take away everything. We can never let this happen,” he said. “We’re fighting to drain the swamp, and that’s exactly what I’m doing.”-trump

The BLM supporter is Daniel Harris.

The homeless guy afraid to have his guns taken away is Adam Fox.

Just to make sure there is no confusion here.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
The BLM supporter is Daniel Harris.

The homeless guy afraid to have his guns taken away is Adam Fox.

Just to make sure there is no confusion here.

So incels tried to do something and failed. Typical.

they were just trying to get laid

😂

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
they were just trying to get laid

By kidnapping and raping the second hottest governor in the US?

That's a pretty dark joke.

This is like two-heaping scoops of ambivalence for me.