[archdang]

There are quite a few to be found if you look around.

From Wikipedia: On January 4, 2021 (the day before the Capitol attack), Kirk tweeted that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 “buses of patriots” to Washington, D.C. to “fight for this president.”

On March 21st 2024, he called for the whipping and using rubber bullets and lethal force on migrants at the southern border.

Sounds plenty violent to me. I'd have to agree with those who say there are grounds for seeing Kirk as someone who frequently advocated for violence.

[gruez]

>From Wikipedia: On January 4, 2021 (the day before the Capitol attack), Kirk tweeted that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 “buses of patriots” to Washington, D.C. to “fight for this president.”

Was it clear 2 days before Jan 6 that it was going to be violent, or does this hinge on the "fight" wording?

>On March 21st 2024, he called for the whipping and using rubber bullets and lethal force on migrants at the southern border.

See: >except perhaps the government monopoly on force (e.g. to speak in favour of the death penalty).

[archdang]

Yes, Kirk advocated for a violent solution due to the election not going his way. It's also standing in stark juxtaposition to how Brazil handled similar issues with a much greater level of integrity.

"Expect perhaps" now seems as only so much weasel words. Whipping? What manner of government monopoly on violence needs to include whipping?

[zahlman]

> Yes, Kirk advocated for a violent solution due to the election not going his way.

No, you have not demonstrated any such thing.

[yepitwas]

What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was stolen, on the very day that the election is to be formally certified? The election was over, the contest had ended… so far as legal options that follow the usual route for the peaceful transfer of power. What does “fight” mean here? What is someone using that kind of language around an event like that trying to accomplish?

I think it’s prodding people to do something dangerous and illegal and a risk to democracy herself, and I’m not really sure what else it could be.

(Why… would Trump hold a rally in DC on that particular day to begin with? And why did he and other speakers choose to say what they did? None of this is mysterious, it’s easy to read, but it still seems to be eluding a lot of folks in ways that it don’t think it would in any analogous situation that didn’t involve partisan politics)

[zahlman]

> What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was stolen, on the very day that the election is to be formally certified? The election was over, the contest had ended… so far as legal options that follow the usual route for the peaceful transfer of power. What does “fight” mean here? What is someone using that kind of language around an event like that trying to accomplish?

The same, non-violent thing that it means in the stock phrase "fight for your rights".

> None of this is mysterious, it’s easy to read, but it still seems to be eluding a lot of folks

Other people are not unaware of the possible connotations you describe. They have evaluated the evidence for themselves and concluded that those connotations were not intended.

[archdang]

Two days before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely. Intelligence units within the FBI and DHS were aware of this chatter, and the FBI’s Norfolk office even issued a report on Jan 5 warning of extremists preparing for “war” at the Capitol. Social media and fringe platforms (Parler, TheDonald.win, Gab, Telegram, etc.) were full of posts openly discussing storming the Capitol, bringing weapons, and even targeting lawmakers.

We can conclude with very high certainty that joining this clamour with promises to send busloads of people to fight was a call for violence at the time.

[zahlman]

> there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely.

Even taking your claims for granted (none of this sounds familiar to me) there is no reason to suppose Kirk would have had any knowledge of it. For that matter, the FBI and DHS believing something about an ideological group doesn't make it true.

> We can conclude with very high certainty

No, we cannot.

[vitanuova]

It means what "fight" always means in a political discussion, work hard to make your voice heard and win the argument. So you know exactly what it could be. There were still court cases out there, and shenanigans being uncovered. And in the end the only person that died was a trump supporter. Unlike the other riots during that time where dozens died and it's much more easy to read what one side wanted to happen, namely country-wide intimidation and destruction. And another politician shouted "Fight like hell!". Do you denounce that? Of course now. I'm sure you don't even want to discuss it.