He's excusing and minimizing. The principle issue is not being refuted, the employment of violence in the streets in the furtherance of a political goal. That he doesn't address, because he supports it. He instead seeks to excuse it, and argue that it really isn't a big deal. It's just a little bit of domestic terrorism, and when you don't have principles to get in the way, the only thing that matters is how bad it looks, or how minimal you can make it look.clubgop wrote:Notice how he doesn't deny him supporting the violence of his allies while supporting the disarming of his political opposition. We see you.GrumpyCatFace wrote:Whole mess of terrorists there. Luckily, we have a GOP-created carte-blanche decree to tap all of their phones and execute on sight.
Funny how he'll draw a contrast between two things, that are the same thing, when he wants them to be different, by pointing out the difference in measure, but then he'll turn around and compare two things that are miles apart, like a travel ban being the same thing as extermination camps.
