I worry that OP's sentiment and those of you in here supporting that sentiment are opting into a bad precedent that attributes the behavior of all members of a politician's audience as being the politician's responsibility.
I understand that you may read that sentence of mine and think I'm defending Trump and MAGA. That is not my goal here. My goal here is that if you opt into these games of letting ONE incidence from ONE supporter of a politician be used as ammo against that politican, then that's not always going to go your way. What if one of Obama's audience members did something wrong? Does that mean Obama deserves to be criticized for that? There are morons all around us, so you can't hope every support of the politicians you like will behave well all the time. Why would you opt into this type of foolish line of argument when it's so chaotic and non-sensical?
If you don't like a politician and one of their audience members does something wrong, then you'll agree with the sentiment. If you like the politician and one of their audience members does something wrong, then you'll disagree with the sentiment. The contradiction there is due to the argument being stupid.
It's not one incident from one supporter. It's systematic. Trump encourages this. Anyone who is still a Trump supporter after more than a decade of being a Russian asset, sex trafficker, thief, and thug, then they absolutely deserve blame.
My point is that if you opt into the sentiment expressed by OP's image, then you are opting into an argument where all your opposition needs to do is supply ONE misbehaving audience member for a politician who you like in order to successfully attack your position. Do you see how weak that position is?
Like if in the future even ONE audience member of Abdul El-Sayed or James Talarico misbehave, then now this position you've taken today will be used against you. Why opt into such a weak position when the politican can't realistically control the behavior of EVERY SINGLE supporter of theirs?
I think the counterpoint here is the reaction of the crowd at these rallies that cheered on the assault, not just that one person assaulted another. So, yes only a few actually assaulted the woman (it was more than one individual) while the mob cheered and the politicians insulted the victim of the assault.
I very specifically said that wasn't what I was doing and I explained why. The notion that MAGA voters are awful people isn't contradictory to anything I said.
I very specifically said that wasn't what I was doing and I explained why.
Then you did it anyway. You said it wasn't your goal, but that's what you did.
The notion that MAGA voters are awful people isn't contradictory to anything I said.
The problem with your position is that Trump is demonstrably as bad as his audience. You presume people are attributing the behavior of the audience to Trump. Wrong. We know Trump is a rapist who supports the assault and subjugation of women and dissent independently of this incident. This isn't setting a precedent for anything but the acknowledgement of the reality that Trump is a violent and deplorable person and you would have to believe that is acceptable to support him. If you want to claim that would somehow apply to Obama, you will fail to make that argument.
You are presuming this is a generalization of Trump and MAGA when it is an observation.
I don't think you're attacking anything I said. You're strawmanning me. Nothing I said in my first comment contradicts the notion that MAGA voters are awful people and yet here you are claiming I said MAGA voters aren't awful people.
I think it comes very much down to how the politician reacts to the incident itself. If they see it occur and attempt to stop it then ya obviously they don’t endorse such insane physical violence. Or if they have a statement condemning what happened afterwards when informed of the incident.
I’m willing to bet whatever trump has to say about it is not going to be very against those actions. Call me clairvoyant if you need.
So ya you have a point but to not take into account the politicians reaction to the event is taking a big chunk of the context you need to decide out of the formula
I mean that's fair. But I don't think the politicians are being singled out here. It's the types of people they draw in their crowds. Presumably people who are excited or "fans" of the person. Maybe not a normal voter, so a person in the extreme already.
200
u/Sweet-Strawberrry 15h ago
Sad that "women don't get assaulted at your rally" is now a selling point, but here we are. There's a clear difference indeed.