First off, "unrest in the streets" means protesting. Second, no, she did not "call for targeting of GOP officials with 'unrest in the streets.'"

This stuff from people on the right just absolutely sickens me. You all did this earlier in the week with Pelosi, too. https://twitter.com/ArthurSchwartz/status/1299016317991825409

On Monday, Pelosi was talking about the Trump administration's efforts to hinder vote-by-mail efforts, and said that Trump and Republicans in congress were acting as enemies of our voting system, using the context of the oath members of Congress have to take.

("...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"). She was saying that in the context of *why legislation was important*, and added "enemies of the people" at the very end of her statement. Was it a bit intense? Sure.

But the amount of pearl clutching that went into the right-wing response to Pelosi saying that the group trying to suppress voting were enemies of our voting system was amazing... ESPECIALLY when it was IMMEDIATELY followed by apocalyptic RNC speeches https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/pro-trump-medias-outrage-over-pelosis-domestic-enemies-laughable-rnc-rage-fest-carries

1. Here's an example of how people on the right take something that is maybe not an ideal thing to say and try to weaponize it by exaggerating. "And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system... are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with their allies in the Congress."

2. Okay, so maybe that's a bit much, but she very clearly specifies that she's referring to the president and Republicans *in Congress*

3. But that's not how they try to frame it. Look at the way McCarthy just fudges a few words here and there.

"Nancy Pelosi calls all Republicans 'domestic enemies.'"

Except she didn't. He tries to make it sound like she's attacking voters.

4. And McCarthy makes clear what he's trying to do: he's trying to create a new "Deplorables" moment. They were successful in hijacking that one, where they took a comment about how yes, a big chunk of Trump's support came from sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. people, but

5. that it didn't mean to just write Trump voters off entirely, as there were just as many good people with legitimate concerns, etc. who support him.

6. A normal person would have heard the "Deplorables" comment and gone, "Yeah, there are some bad people who support this guy, alt-right and whatnot. That doesn't describe me, so I must be in the other half."

But no. They kept insisting that she was saying that "about you"

7. The "Deplorables" quote was about how Trump was elevating some of the worst most extreme voices with retweets and whatnot (remember the "sheriff's star" *wink wink*?), but that it was important to understand that there were good people who supported him, too.

8. There was a concentrated campaign to convince *all* Trump voters that Clinton was talking *specifically* about *them.* And it was effective. It's why 4 years later, you still have people addicted to self-victimhood with Twitter names like "DeplorableJim" or whatever.

9. And this isn't specifically about what Pelosi said or about what Clinton said. I bring all of this up because it gives a bit of a look into how political opportunists repeat a distortion so often that large portions of the public believe it as the truth.

But yeah, meanwhile, you've got this on the other side https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1215447835753185280

And yeah, seems this is going to be the GOP strategy from here on out: to take quotes of people encouraging protest (which is a good thing!) and pretend it's people encouraging riots (which is not) https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1299013980711784448

The absolute funniest example of this was when Tim Kaine said people should "fight in the streets" for what's right (or something along those lines), and they tried to make it out to be him (TIM KAINE... of all people) calling for actual street fights.

Or Obama when he quoted a line from The Untouchables about not bringing a knife to a gun fight, they were like, "omg, Obama is telling his supporters to pull guns on Republicans!" which was clearly not what he did.

Or Biden will sometimes refer to things like fighting for a piece of legislation as a "brass knuckle fight," for instance. The same people who are fine with Trump *actually* using violent rhetoric pretend that's what he was doing. Example: https://www.mediamatters.org/mark-levin/right-wing-media-push-false-narrative-biden-called-physical-revolution

Or this https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-friends/todays-dumbest-controversy-idea-eric-holder-wants-democrats-literally-kick

GOP messaging is projection. When they go on and on about "voter fraud," it's projection. When they pretend to care about "heated rhetoric" (before giving a speech about how Biden's America will be an unsafe hellscape or whatever), it's because they know they're over the top.

But anyway, I'm pretty sick of the right doing this, "Ah, you SAY you support protests... so that means you're in favor of rioting and looting!"

Like... wtf even? They're 2 different things. Support for one isn't support for the other, and at minimum, we should all support one.

I'm in favor of protest. Whatever your cause, if you want to get out there and protest for it, I'm in favor of you doing that. Because I support free speech. This is why the people who tried to parse Cotton's nyt op-ed by saying, "But he's referring to RIOTERS, not protesters!"

were naive. It's been clear for a long time that any dissent is considered equally unacceptable by this administration. They don't differentiate. They roll everyone who doesn't support them into the label of "antifa"

And it's never been clearer than it is right now as messengers on the right really try to hammer home this idea that people encouraging protests are encouraging riots. They're trying to flatten reality.