Yes, every feasible interpretation. That doesn't mean you can't say anything without multiple interpretations, but it _does_ mean that, if you are called on another interpretation of your words, then you spoke unclearly. You need to clarify your meaning and apologize if it was flagrant.

Yes, that is a lot of overhead for communicating. That's what I believe we should expect of our elected leaders. Sadly, nearly half of voting Americans don't seem to agree with me.

Please point me to something Obama said that could be interpreted as inciting deadly vigilante violence.

I’ll wait.

I believe there’s a suitable MLK speech in which it explains property violence in response to human violence is an attempt to push the majority to action using loss of property when it is clear loss of life means nothing.

Given that it’s clear literal loss of life meant very little to people but property damage gets multiple multiple news coverage and POTUS coverage etc etc. it’s hard to consider burning down a police station when the police killed someone on camera to be completely improper. All attempts to appeal peacefully to the people who are supposed to deliver justice have failed, and in fact, those who are supposed to deliver justice have done the unjust thing...

Well of course it isn't "more thuggish." The use of "thug" was done on purpose. It is a known racist dog whistle. Trump's racist followers know exactly what he means when he says "These THUGS are..." They replace that with the n word. It's just as a society we don't allow them to say the n word any more, so they've replaced it with a myriad of dog whistles.

What I'm saying is that, in their minds, every single person in that mob is a "thug," and everything they're doing is (in your words) "thuggish."

But the mob of white folks in Charlottesville? Nothing thuggish there. That's just white folks protesting against being oppressed by minorities.

When I think of thugs, I think of premeditated stick ups, protection money rackets, and intimidation.

A riot is dangerous, unpredictable, and unwise (imo), but I wouldn't characterize it as thuggish. It's clear to me the reason that word was used was to appeal to his base, who are eager to put a label on these protestors as a way of dehumanizing them.

https://theconversation.com/thugs-is-a-race-code-word-that-f...

FWIW, even in the most far-right audiences I know of, I don't recall a single instance of people taking issue with the "rioters'" reactions against the police force.

I see a focus on the looting and destruction of private property that is unaffiliated with the police: a Target and an Autozone in particular. If anything, I'm seeing broad support for what's happening with regard to the MLPD.

This is not a simple partisan issue. Not even close.