The entire pushback was simply that they disagreed with him.
That's not true. Here's one I happened to see
https://twitter.com/mattnegrin/status/1349718942579830786?s=21It very aptly calls him a bad-faith Republican, and notes there a few objectively false claims (I added some)
1)
'Republicans believe that Democrats and the overwhelmingly liberal media see impeachment as an attempt to cudgel them collectively by lumping them in with the Capitol rioters thanks to their support for Trump' How in the world would Republicans voting for impeachment lump them with Trump? It would show the diametric opposite that they are opposing him.
(I guess he probably meant they are impeaching Trump only to hurt other Republicans even though they vote against it, since he's from their party, but that's a poor argument, he acknowledges Trump was responsible so it is incumbent of the Republicans to distance him from the party)
2)
Sen. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.) suggested this week at NBCNews.com that the only way to prevent a repeat of the Capitol riot was endorsement of a full slate of Democratic agenda items.He did not say a full slate of Democratic agenda items, only a full slate of democratic
voting right related agenda items . Yes that's jumping on the political bandwagon, but it isn't at all such an outrageous response to Trump voter believing the country belongs more to them even when the majority vote against them.
3)
'Unity looks a lot like “sign onto our agenda, or be lumped in with the Capitol rioters.”'
As far as I noticed, the democrats aren't calling for unity now. Biden called for Unity before the Capitol siege, but since then it's mostly Republicans calling for it, including Trump in his message to calm tempers, and Republican lawmakers in a letter to Biden asking him to call off the impeachment in a name for unity, not to mention the threats of more violence if impeachment goes through. Democrats are simply pointing out in response the keys to unity lie in Republicans lap.
4)
It doesn’t matter whether you held your nose when voting for Trump; it doesn’t matter if you denounced his prevarications about a “stolen election”Of course it does matter. Look at how Cruz & Hawley are singled out as opposed to others.
5)
If you supported Trump in any way, you were at least partially culpable, the argument goes. It’s not just Trump who deserves vitriol — it’s all 74 million people who voted for him.If you acknowledge Trump is responsible, I don't see how can you argue voting for him doesn't share in his responsibility, if minimal. His character was very well known, Lindsey Graham predicted it fairly well. Most here are saying they still think it was worth it.
6)
No such consequences ever attended Democrats who winked and nodded — and sometimes more — at civil unrest around the nation emerging from Black Lives Matter protests and antifa violence over the summer.Not a single prominent democrat did anything remotely as heinous as promoting the Big Lie. BLM called for a legal outcome, Stop The Steal called for overthrowing the election. Democrats should have done more to root out violence, but they aren't remotely similar.
Many of these donors are Republicans, the pressure on all but a few was insignificant if at all existent, yet they themselves decided to cut off Republicans. It proves the diametric opposite of his claim - even large GOP supporters see the Big Lie & Capitol siege as much worse, and it isn't merely democrat hyperbole.
7) Stacey Abrhams claiming she lost the election unfairly because of voter suppression is not remotely similar to Donald Trump insisting he actually won the election by a landslide.
Claiming Trump's inflammatory rhetoric is commonplace is ridiculous.
9) Accusing Bernie Sanders of similar rhetoric which ended in violence is pure libel
10)
If anyone expects Americans to come together once the Trump era is over, that’s a pipe dream.Maybe true, but not the smartest thing to write
I respect Ben Shapiro as a business person, and I think refuting fallacies is a lot more effective than silencing them, but this isn't the 'other side', it's propaganda fiction peppered with a few valid points. The zip tie comment was also very inappropriate when they were very clearly professional restrainers and not household zipties, the perp is ex military, and the DOJ already argued in court that he was attempting to take hostages. (ETA: On the day of the Capitol Siege, he said “Patriots on the Capitol. Patriots storming. Men with guns need to shoot their way in.”)
How would you feel if somebody published an op-ed excusing one of the terrorists who opened fire in a shul? Personally I would find it fascinating, but most would find it extremely offensive. Doing it with obviously false arguments would make it even more incendiary.