The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
That's an extremely literal interpretation of his words. Most people would interpret that phrase to mean "you better think twice before looting because I'm not going to sit idly by and let you do it" but in the form of a vaguely threatening, yet catchy rhyme.
> Headley, who was chief of police in Miami for 20 years, said that law enforcement was going after “young hoodlums, from 15 to 21, who have taken advantage of the civil rights campaign. ... We don't mind being accused of police brutality."
This is where the quote comes from.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/where-does-phrase-...
Edit:
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-quotes-cop-sparked-rac...
> The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence found that Headley's remarks and policing policies had been a significant factor in sparking the riots.
> Headley died four months after the riots. The Times in its obituary noted his policies had caused "growing resentment" among black Miami residents.
Our President fully understands the gravity of those words. This is what he wanted to say. This is what he meant. This is what he believes. This is WHO HE IS.
Yes, which is better than a reasonable interpretation of his words would show them to be, because going beyond a mere literal reading to consider the deliberate historical reference and the implicit subtext makes the statement worse, not better.
What do you base the knowledge of how most people will have interpreted this statement on?
The historical experiences of different classes of people can have a profound impact on the perspectives they have in relation to the government. An 80 year old black man might have a very different relationship with governmental authorities than a 30 year old Latino, or a 40 year old Caucasian.
Even if you're right, which you're not, what is "Most" here? 51%? 63%? 90%?
Are you saying that it's bad if the majority of people are riled up to engage in violence following his tweet, but OK if 40% do? 10%? 1%?
He's really not a mastermind genius playing 4-D Chess. He is openly calling for violence, and has already inspired terrorists to mail bombs to prominent politicians, and people are choosing to play dumb about how evil he is.
Previous US presidents were careful with their words, as they know people will interpret them in different ways if they aren't crystal clear. Trump just does stream-of-through -> keyboard -> twitter, and we get to see the results. Which tends to leave lots of what he says open to interpretation based on the perspective of the reader.
People are choosing to grant him deniability even when it is rather implausible because (insofar as race is relevant, there's other things that work similar for some that aren't race-related) they are white racists and his deniability on that point is also their deniability when he is speaking to their interests.
No, Trump did this on purpose. The simplest explanation is the most likely.
This I disagree with, particularly since he doesn't have to consciously "know" or acknowledge anything explicitly for him not to understand the basic import of the statement.
I don't think anyone's saying he's capable of giving a brief one paragraph statement for an SAT question concerning Civil Rights activism in mid-20th century Florida, cause biases and prejudices don't need that much formal verification to commerce
He knew what he was saying. But, coward that he is, he’s claiming to not know where the words came from now that a reporter asked him.
I remembered that admittedly tasteless joke because (a) it rhymes and (b) it’s pretty violent and offensive, which makes it somewhat vivid. And honestly, “when the looting starts, the shooting starts” hits the same notes.