🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

At least they try

@freemo I am following you with 3 of my accounts. So there is that. 😛

@photography

Some photos from when I got caught in the middle of a buffalo stampede in Yellowstone National Park. I was being kind of stupid and had time to run off before they got to me like everyone else but I was more focused on taking pictures than my life, which in retrospect was kinda stupid. The stampede ran around me and I didnt get hurt, partly due tot he fact that there were only a dozen or so of them. I got luck.

But hey, I didn't die, and I got some **AMAZING** photos, so I will take it as a win.

#Photography #Photos #Animals #Buffalo #Nature #Yellowstone #Winter

@Zoohouse

TL;Dr Trump is an idiot and no way in hell he should be president. But no he did not make a call to action for those riots, ultimately other factors created the riots when tensions were already high.

> he did actually, he told them that they had to fight. That's a call to action.

Thats a **huge** stretch to claim its a call to action.. The term fight is not and never has been exclusive to physical violence.. "I will fight to stay alive", "you need to fight to keep your rights"... none of this implies "you must be violent".. it does mean you need to take action, not violent action, and I think you know that.

Biden/Harris has used the term fight **many** times none of which I would consider a call to action but by your definition would be, and therefore he should be in jail by your reasoning.. things like "

"I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him,[Trump]’” (in this case he is using fight to mean literal violence)

harris: "The task is to fight for the soul of our country,"

But I know better, I know someone saying "you have to fight for xxx" does **not** imply physical violence. I think you know better too but are just desperately trying to justify a weak position. The phrasing does **not** imply violence and you know it.

> He told the same people that the intelligence community, that briefs the present, suspected that might become violent.

Due to typos here its hard to understand what your saying.. Sounds like your saying some people told president trump his followers could maybe become violent... Sure, but that doesnt change anything. It makes the people who became violent wrong, and made people sure. But it doesnt make Trump legally responsible for it all the same.

Do you hold it to the same standard in reverse, we had 4 years of extreme violence from the left too, my own town was on fire for days, black smoke was in the sky and it smelled horrible, all thanks to liberal anti-government riots. Do we blame Biden for that simply because he rallied his fan base to hate the government and became volatile before finally snapping? I don't.

> While the riots were going on, he didn't do anything for an hour.

Absolutely false, I watched the riots live. The moment there was an inkling of violence he got on the TV and told them to go home. It took him the same amount of time to get on TV and make a statement as it took Biden to do the same... lets not make things up the facts are bad enough.

> When he finally told them to go home, he tells them that he loves them. They left the moment he told them to go home.

So his tactic of telling him he loved them worked and they went home? So whats the problem them, sounds like him using that phrasing was effective.

> It's pretty obvious they, it wasn't just Trump enticing their supporters, knew what they were doing and the outcome of it.

Well its not quite that simple. There were different groups in the crowd reacting to different things in different ways. As I can see it from watching every video of the day from every angle I could find there were 3 groups responding to three different things:

1) There were the very small minority of the group who legitimately wanted to overthrow the government and had delusions of grandeur they were going to start a coup. They were largely unorganized but were random people who made some indication online of having some violent intent. This seems to be something like 1% of the crowd.

2) There were the peaceful onlookers who never rioted and generally were appalled by the violence that took place. They mostly just peacefully sat there and did nothing. This was the bulk of the crowd, probably around 74% or so, certainly a majority, hard to say the exact percentage.

3) there were the people who rioted in the spur of the moment in response to the police brutality taking place shortly before the barricades were overrun.

Watching video from behind the barricades or nearby we see scenes of cops pulling people from the crowd, pulling them off to an open space and repeatedly beating them even once they were subdued and handcuffed. In one such scene that took place shortly before the crowd became riotous we see a cop beating a man handcuffed and in the fetal position on the ground while another cop is called over, pulls out his baton and continues the beating. The crowd is screaming in anger and you hear the crowd screaming things like "we should beat you!" and "stop beating him!!!" Since this was behind the barricades and in a clearing it was in clear view of almost the entire crowd that at the time was barely being held back by the barricades. Moments later the crowd turns riotous and break through the barricades charging.

It certainly didnt help that shortly after the crowd became riotous one of the small percentage from group #1 was trying to make their way to the chamber. While they were breaking windows and otherwise acting hostile you see in earlier video they were completely non-violent against individuals, as well as unarmed. For example when they wanted to break through the window a single policeman stood between her and the crowd behind her of a few dozen. They screamed at him but did not assault him in anyway. It wasn't till after he moved out of the way and she started breaking down the window that she was shot and killed. Now while what she didn wasnt right, the fact that she was non-violent towards people and unarmed, yet was shot to death was an unacceptable response and it further drew the crowd to anger. Shooting and killing an unarmed protestor turned rioter is never acceptable nor will it quell the riots, it will usually make it worse.