It's his narrative. It's how he's making sense of it. But most importantly, it's his justification.
"The violence on my side is only in response to the violence on your side." This is how such an unambiguous act of political violence makes sense in his head, in the context of it being a defensive action.
Of course it's absurd. But in order to stay aligned with your pre-existing worldview, you sometimes have to say and believe absurdities.
We are just watching him work through it in public.
> Black Lives Matter riots (Funny, you can never say those words. It's always an abbreviation).
> the BLM comparison
Hey look, you did it again.
> provide context for what the country was going thru at the time
No, it's a shameless whataboutism trying to justify your side's riot with a clear political goal with the other side's riots that were more a spontaneous reaction to a horrific crime.
Both were riots but the circumstances and purpose of each could not be further apart.
> and J6 was partly a counter protest.
I know. You need that to be true. But it's not.
> he won many of those cases on appeal
No, he didn't. He lost every single major court case (E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case, civil fraud case, Georgia Election Interference Case, Falsified Business Records), except for one appeal that kept him on the ballot in Maine despite his coup attempt.
exasperaited|4 months ago
This is just the most false thing of all false things.
throwawayq3423|4 months ago
"The violence on my side is only in response to the violence on your side." This is how such an unambiguous act of political violence makes sense in his head, in the context of it being a defensive action.
Of course it's absurd. But in order to stay aligned with your pre-existing worldview, you sometimes have to say and believe absurdities.
We are just watching him work through it in public.
throwawayq3423|4 months ago
> the BLM comparison
Hey look, you did it again.
> provide context for what the country was going thru at the time
No, it's a shameless whataboutism trying to justify your side's riot with a clear political goal with the other side's riots that were more a spontaneous reaction to a horrific crime.
Both were riots but the circumstances and purpose of each could not be further apart.
> and J6 was partly a counter protest.
I know. You need that to be true. But it's not.
> he won many of those cases on appeal
No, he didn't. He lost every single major court case (E. Jean Carroll Defamation Case, civil fraud case, Georgia Election Interference Case, Falsified Business Records), except for one appeal that kept him on the ballot in Maine despite his coup attempt.
https://news.syr.edu/2024/09/10/donald-trump-has-survived-th...
> won the election after which his opponents closed those cases
Yes like I said.
> He avoided prison by overcoming the legal system.
I think we're done here. You're just really interested in remaking reality so that your worldview still makes sense.
Political violence, once it starts, is almost impossible to stop. So when I see people excuse it, I get especially angry.