I agree, I'm confused. He's urging against violence, but standing by his claims of fraud. But people are claiming that's not what he's "really" saying. OK.. so I can basically say the same thing about anyone saying anything. Who decides what he "really" means?
Just so I won't be downvoted, I'm not a fan of Trump.
We've had a full two months for election irregularities to be litigated in the courts, and scrutinized in the court of public opinion. The only results that bubbled to the top were the same oft-repeated grand claims, without much of anything backing them up. If there were substantive arguments to be made, Trump's legal team has failed to present them. At this point two months later, the "fraud" narrative is nothing more than a rallying cry. So yes, continuing to push the fake fraud claim is direct incitement of that mob.
I think the point is that after his supporters broke the law and stormed the capitol, interrupting a constitutionally mandated process for the peaceful transfer of power, he told them:
> "Remember this day forever!"
Thus approving of the actions that already occurred and telling them that the crimes that they committed would be justified by history looking back at what they have done. It in no way deescalates the risk of future conflicts.
That's honestly just an interpretation of it. He could just mean "remember this day of protest against the establishment". Everyone just reads everything he says with their own biases.
I don't think that's inherently wrong, just let's not ban people based on our own biases.
All of the intepretations of the events that happened yesterday could be equally uncharitably interpreted of BLM with the riots, violence, and protests across the country. I mean, they forcefully took over an entire city zone at one point.
Well that is the cleverness of most trump statements, toe the line, give a nod to your side, but also retain deniability. If you don't start interpreting, you get into a trap in which you will be outfoxed by anyone who can toe lines enough to not blatantly incriminate themselves.
As for BLM, personally I was never very sympathetic to the portions of protests/riots that caused violence.
Dog whistles work because they proved the fig leaf of plausible deniability. Trump's presidency has been a series of dog whistles. Why would it have stopped just because he lost an election?
Just so I won't be downvoted, I'm not a fan of Trump.