[incrudible]

I find this disingenuous. This is his latest position on the matter of succession[1]:

"Even though I totally disagree with the outcome of the election, and the facts bear me out, nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th"

Why does Twitter want to prevent him from making such a statement on his Twitter account? Would that not be calming the situation, if anything?

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/07/trump-transition-of...

EDIT: I misread Twitch for Twitter. Alternatively, I'm prescient and this was posted in the wrong thread.

[darkarmani]

I think when someone strikes out 100 times, you are finally allowed to call them out.

Cherry picking one sentence of a post that is "calming" is what is disingenuous.

[specialist]

The genius of Trump's tactic of saying everything (continuously contradicting himself) is allowing everyone to cherry pick useful bits to support (or oppose) any given narrative.

[lostlogin]

> The genius of Trump's tactic of saying everything (continuously contradicting himself)

I’ve always found this to make his statements incoherent.

[upbeat_general]

Absolutely.

Evidently his supporters didn’t believe that coherent statements and any semblance of consistency were important though.

[belltaco]

He says the facts bear out his assertion that the election was stolen... how is that calming?

[incrudible]

The part that says there's "an orderly transition of power". Trumpers will forever believe that the election was stolen, but they can believe that from the comfort of their homes, they don't need to go out and attempt to overthrow the government because of it.

If any tech company were to try to suppress the "facts" that support the "rigged election" narrative, that would only reinforce the their beliefs.

[dimal]

It's one thing to say there will be an orderly transition of power, but the events of yesterday already made that statement false, and those events were incited by him. So saying something calming out of one side of his mouth doesn't excuse what he's saying out the other side.

[ghthor]

They were not incited by him.

[craftinator]

Sweet argument bro. Also, the earth is flat.

[notriddle]

> they don't need to go out and attempt to overthrow the government because of it

Yeah, they do.

The election is what defines the legitimate government; if it really had been falsified[1], then anyone who participated in the falsification would be a usurper, and the government instated by the falsified election would be fake. If something like this actually happened, then it would hardly be insane to consider it your patriotic duty to put a stop to it.

The metaphor is overused as hell, but it is apt: Trump shouted "fire" in a crowded theatre, and now he's acting all surprised that a few people got trampled in the rush to get out.

Anybody who believes him at this point obviously has brain worms, but being a notorious liar doesn't exempt you from libel and sedition laws. It is also irrelevant whether the mob sincerely believes the election was stolen, or whether they're using it as an excuse; slander is still slander.

[1]: Using ad-tech to manipulate the way people vote, as the Cambridge Analytica conspiracy theory alleges, is not falsification.

[freeone3000]

Being a notorious liar actually does excuse you from libel. From Tucker Carlson to Elon Musk, the defense is that nobody reasonable would take them seriously.

[incrudible]

I disagree. The constitution says that state electors elect the president, not the people. They did just that. The election is now legally binding, whether there was widespread fraud or not.

Yesterday, Trump still had an unlikely but legal way to prevent Biden from becoming president. Today he does not, so it makes no sense to push any further.

[craftinator]

> The part that says there's "an orderly transition of power".

This has been Trump, forever. He strings together contradictions in every sentence he can, and when he can't, he makes sure to contradict or make a random topic change within the next sentence.

Why does he do this? It's a rhetorical trick. That means every time he speaks, most people find something in it that they want to hear. He makes sure not to say anything specific unless it's obvious that he's embellishing it; then if you don't like what he says, it sounds like it was a joke or off the cuff. This has been his whole platform. Say so many things, with so many interpretations, with so little factual basis, that most people can find something they like, and almost no one can pin him down for saying something awful. You just expect him to be grandiose and full of shit, and he is, so it's hard to be upset, as long as you find him charismatic.

[craftinator]

If you've ever read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson, it's very similar to JBF's rhetorical style (scary similar). Big ideas, many ideas, full of contradictions, and fluidly swapping between possible interpretations to convince as many as possible, and demonizing anyone who figures out what your doing. It's nasty.

[incrudible]

Of course I want to hear that there will be an orderly transition. I do not necessarily disagree with your general analysis, but what are you implying here? That he is still hedging a plot for a coup? Doubtful.

The fact of the matter is that until yesterday, it made complete sense for Trump to cause a huge scene to scare the electors into tossing the election. Today it does not, the election is over, there is no recourse. Trump has nothing to gain from any further unrest.

[craftinator]

Late getting back to this response, but I think it's still relevant.

> but what are you implying here? That he is still hedging a plot for a coup? Doubtful.

I think that you are giving him credit he's not due. He's not someone who creates and executes long term, complex plans. He acts on emotion; whatever he's feeling right then, and takes actions that will coerce people into feeling the same way.

He's angry that Biden won and that the certification of the vote is going to happen. Thus the certification is bad, and anyone going along with it is bad, so he says whatever will make the crowd think it's bad.

> The fact of the matter is that until yesterday, it made complete sense for Trump to cause a huge scene to scare the electors into tossing the election.

No, that's not a fact. This was never going to happen. The electors were never going to get scared and overturn the will of the voters. He's a simpleton; he didn't like that he was losing, so he demonized everyone involved with that bad thing that he doesn't like. This is something he's been doing his entire life, and it's effective as long as he has the money, influence, and smart people on the payroll to shape his vitriol and gusto into reality.

[fredophile]

If somebody said "your democracatically elected government has been taken away but you should just go home," would you? Would the Trump supporters that raided the capital yesterday? The reason they will forever believe that the election was stolen is because Trump continues to say that the election was stolen.

[barbacoa]

People spent years de-legitimatizing the 2016 election by claiming that Trump colluded with the Russian government. There were even stories published by mainstream media outlets that Russians hack election machines.

The other side undermining the election results after they lost is not exactly new.

[wnissen]

The difference is that there are 250 million documented user engagements with confirmed Russian propaganda pages. Those are the numbers provided directly from Facebook: 76 million on Facebook and 187 million on Instagram. That's a lot of likes, comments and shares.

Page 48. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu...

[fredophile]

There is a huge difference between saying "the winning campaign worked with a foreign government to spread disinformation" and "the votes were rigged. If you ignore the fraudulent ballots I won in a landslide."

There's also a long running argument in American politics about voter registration. Over the years both sides have had victories but after the elections no one claims the results of those elections were fraudulent.

[newacct583]

Sacking the Capitol Building to prevent certification of an election is certainly new, though. I remain horrified at the level to which republicans genuinely think these situations are equivalent.

[incrudible]

It wasn't a sacking. There was trespassing and a couple of smashed windows. These are the worst images that CNN could find:

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/06/politics/gallery/electora...

There are two ways forward: We make a really big deal out of this and therefore implicitly demand that protests should be suppressed with massive force. Alternatively, we can admit that this is about as peaceful an outcome as we could have possibly hoped for, all things considered.

[dmitriid]

Hillary Clinton conceded she lost the very next day. There was an orderly transition process from Obama to Trump that started on the second day after the election. Compare that "undermining" to what the GOP and Trump are doing.

[zaroth]

Hardy ordinary though, for the FBI to orchestrate false charges and spy on the incoming administration with fraudulent FISA warrants.

They are both very wrong, in different ways.

[upbeat_general]

I don’t know of any mainstream stories about actual votes being changed/hacked but there’s tons of evidence that Russia hacked state voter databases and manipulated online media for their benefit. We also have significant evidence that the trump campaign tried to collide with Russia (he even published those self incriminating emails on Twitter).

Few people cast doubt on the votes themselves however in 2016 and that Trump was the legitimate winner.

In this case there is zero evidence of widespread voter fraud after being litigated through the courts and acknowledgement as such by many republican Secretaries of State, senators, etc.

[adamsea]

Honest question - do you really believe the two situations are equivalent?

[barbacoa]

Are they equivalent? No.

This is a clear escalation but the escalation is due to the deteriorating of our political discourse. I would not have been surprised if we saw something similar if Trump had won a 2nd term.

[colinmhayes]

The president told the protestors to go to the poorly defended capital, never disavowed them, refuses to apologize.

[puszczyk]

This post is about Twitch, not Twitter.

[incrudible]

I guess I'll need a new prescription.

[weavie]

You are not the only one. I had to scroll down this far before I realised too.

[newacct583]

> Why does Twitter want to prevent him from making such a statement

Sorry, but that framing is disingenuous. Trump was suspended when he incited a mob to march to the capitol and "fight" to "stop" a joint session of congress, who then invaded and sacked the seat of government of the United States.

Later, after all this, he posted (for the very first time ever!) that he'd accept the results of the election. So... that's good. But it's not why he was banned.

[dmitriid]

> nevertheless there will be an orderly transition on January 20th

The transition starts way before January 20th. It starts immediately follwing presidential election. Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_tra...

Trump didn't even acknowledge he would agree to a peaceful transition of power until today when he lost all avenues (however imaginary) of staying in power.

Quotes:

--- start quote ---

The General Services Administration Administrator, Emily Murphy, initially refused to issue the "ascertainment" letter declaring Biden the "apparent winner", on the basis that the election result was disputed. The declaration would mark the official start of the transition. Withholding it denied the Biden transition team full funds, secure office space, and access to agencies

Biden had also been denied daily classified national security briefings.

Further, the State Department denied access to communications from foreign leaders, leaving the Biden team to communicate through other unofficial channels.

-- end quote ---

Ah, how nevertheless an orderly transition this is, indeed.