Which is just bizarre to me.

Seriously I have no skin in the game - I just do not think using the phrase "trial by combat" to metaphorically describe the possibility of ruining your reputation or someone going to jail over this case is grounds to diss-bar someone or whatever they intend for him now.

It's not like a trial by combat somehow relates to a mob doing violent deeds - a trial by combat was a duel with a formalised process.

It's very clearly used in the speech as a metaphor for the seriousness of losing his career or the other side going to jail.

There's nothing sesame street about that at all.

This is the type of thing that causes polarisation to me. Don't like Rudy? That's cool go find something he's actually done wrong and follow it up. I would have zero issue with that. But it's desperate to go through his speeches and find some colloquial expression used as a metaphor and then try and twist it retrospectively into a code word for people to riot.

It's just as bad on the republican side too - everyone characterises every argument of the other side as the most extreme version of everything. People who want health care are suddenly communists and people who want lower taxes are suddenly nazis. Everyone in politics just needs to calm down and look at things a bit more rationally to me.

Because i'm not here to be a republican shrill. I figured if I fact checked all of them and went through the other side of the coin on each of them then it looks like i'm here to argue for trump. That's not really my position.

My position is that similar to the way the "me too" movement sort to "cancel" people without trial or due process - I find it somewhat concerning that:

1. The actions of extremists can be used to silence moderate disagreement.

That is - we can't say there can never be police reform for black people cos some thugs burn down city hall - it doesn't mean the democrats now have to be de platformed or accused of tacitly encouraging it. Likewise if some of the crazies in trumps base go off message and turn a peaceful protest march into a war zone it's not really grounds to ban trump from speaking at all. It's different if either side directly calls for violence but it has not happened.

2. It concerns me how either side escalates and exaggerates everything. Maybe people on the left are not entirely pedos just because they want the minimum wage raised, and maybe everyone on the right who thinks globalisation isn't working isn't automatically nazi.

This incident was FUCKED UP. But it's gone from a riot, to an insurrection, to a failed coup.

I would be fine with that if all the people calling it a failed coup will similarly consider the BLM riot where trump had to be put in the bunker a failed assassination of POTUS then.

Only difference in these events is there was more security at the white house than there was at the capitol. Does anyone honestly think the radical elements at the BLM march wouldn't have done stuff like steal the podiums and smash some stuff exactly the same way if the cops had let them in the door?

There are democrat leaders who say stuff far more insightful than what trump said here.

I'm not saying that to be pro-republican. I'm just saying it's disturbing to me how people are so polarised and how they change the standards of what's acceptable to suit their arguments at the time. Both sides do it. We need some consistency.

3. I find it concerning from a philosophical point of view that we now have corporations that basically run borderline essential services (web hosting etc) that are almost like the modern utilities - yet these are run free from regulations as private enterprises. Now we have a situation where a group of CEOs can determine that the president of the USA needs to be silenced and it's free from any type of oversight or peer review or due process. That doesn't sit well with me regardless of the specifics of this case.

Well part of the problem is it's boy who cried wolf.

There's plenty of disturbing and outrageous things trump could do that would have me fearful of him.

But I've become somewhat desensitized to 4 years of my media saying he's a nazi and the anti-christ and every time one fact checks it then it's usually exaggerated.

Classic example was the article I read here about Trump calling for the rounding up and incarceration of his enemies. I thought "fuck, he really has turned into hitler". Article goes on to say he called for Hillary to be arrested. Found the speach. Played it back. Trump brings up 'crooked' hillary - audience yells "lock her up"...trump hears them say it...laughs gives it a dismissive wave and mumbles 'lock them all up' and goes back to saying how much better he is than whatever. No one sane would interpret that as an actual plan to jail political enemies when it's obviously facetious. So after many years of this I'm now curious to hear both sides whenever they start telling me he's the devil again.

That said he CAN and MIGHT do things that upset me. An actual call for violence would be one of them. But despite everyone saying it happened the other day...there doesn't seem to be footage where it really did. As soon as I see some I'll grab my pitch fork and come for the guy too.

Until then...I'm not getting on board that the tech billionaires should censor the elected government and i'm not ending people's career for using a phrase like "trial by combat" clearly as a metaphor for an important legal battle.

I'm not a trumper and I'm not a republican, I'm just someone asking for some of this to make sense on either side.