Thread by @AlexandraErin

So Republicans purport to want to know what's the difference between Democrats and other politicians talking about "let's get out there and fight" and when Trump does it, and the answer is simple:

Trump has put in the work with his base so they'll understand him to mean violence

Early on in his political career, Donald Trump spoke glowingly of police roughing up suspects. He's directed violence towards protesters and reporters in his crowd. He's spoken about the need to "get tough" and made it clear he means physically.

It's true, there is a lot of metaphorical and hyperbolic talk about fighting in politics, and maybe post-Trump we'll see people back off from that for a bit, I don't know. Couldn't say.

But Trump took the time to clarify over the years that he's not being metaphorical.

And meanwhile elements in his base have been steadily building up a narrative of actual literal war that they were engaged in or preparing for, and Donald Trump spoke to these ideas just enough to let us know that he definitely knows about them, and encourages them.

"But he didn't call for violence. He asked for the opposite of that."

Sure, and the nice gentleman in the pinstripes who is selling his own homemade fire insurance specifically said it would be a shame if anything happened to your store. What's your point?

Donald Trump boosted the January 6th gathering on multiple occasions. It is beyond the scope of possibility that no one close to him was aware of the confluence of violent plans. He encouraged and embraced the gathering and never once decried those plans.

So he helped make it happen and then he went and watched it on TV, enthralled that it was happening, and didn't lift a finger to stop it.

In what world is he not culpable?