r/PoursTea • u/Veshaad Timendi Causa Est Nescire • 12h ago

⚠️Trigger Warning⚠️ There's a clear difference.

Post image
26.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

607 comments sorted by

View all comments

191

u/Sweet-Strawberrry 12h 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.

-10

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 11h ago

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.

9

u/pseudymous 11h ago

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.

-1

u/OnceMoreAndAgain 10h ago edited 10h ago

You're missing my point.

My point is not about anything you've just said.

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?

3

u/ryhaltswhiskey 10h ago

Trump should be able to do one basic thing: tell people at his rallies to not be violent.

He's never going to do that. So yeah, after this incident, any further violence at his rallies is partially his fault.

Most politicians don't need to tell their supporters to not punch women in the face at their rallies. But now Trump needs to. But he won't.