-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
Shit like this is why social media is a fucking poison. Every fluffybunny on it is going for clicks, shares, or some other fucking scam. But - and here is the thing - my parents, godfather etc. will share this type of shit because "it's better to share it, even if it's untrue, because if it is true, and I didn't share it, I'll feel bad". Or, "the person who shared it to us is pretty on to it, so it might be true, so I shared it just in case".
It's like chinese whispers gone wild x 1000
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response
What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?
Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??
The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.
There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?
Only thing I can think is that he's implying people start shooting when they start looting, rather than the military will shoot looters. If so, he's made a right Cummings of it.
-
It's such a poorly wooded statement it beggars belief. Trump does well in some areas, but he's been found severely wanting with his leadership for Covid, and he's way the fuck out of his depth when it comes to race issues. He's probably the last person you'd want in charge right now.
But honestly if these guys were arrested and charged when they should have been there wouldn't be such a big outcry. The system in the States looks badly broken from the outside in.
-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response
What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?
Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??
The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.
There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change
He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group
And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response
What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?
Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??
The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.
There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change
He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group
And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy
Sometimes it's hard to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely believe in the tripe you spout.
Here it is in more simple terms:
The President of the USA should not tweet messages that appear to support the shooting of people who loot, or any other criminal act for that matter.
Is that simple enough for you to understand?
There are a million ways the President could have tried to de-escalate this situation, and instead he went down an inflammatory path. Again.
Just disgraceful behaviour.
-
The bit that confuses me in this Floyd situation is why the cop wasn't arrested 'on suspicion' while they assembled evidence and a case.
Is that not part of the US justice system? It seems to cause a lot of problems and perspectives of inaction when they have to create a whole case with a high level of proof before acting.
I guess that in our system we can prove a prima facie case at a lower burden of proof, then progress from there (I think) -
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response
What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?
Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??
The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.
There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change
He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group
And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy
Sometimes it's hard to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely believe in the tripe you spout.
Here it is in more simple terms:
The President of the USA should not tweet messages that appear to support the shooting of people who loot, or any other criminal act for that matter.
Is that simple enough for you to understand?
There are a million ways the President could have tried to de-escalate this situation, and instead he went down an inflammatory path. Again.
Just disgraceful behaviour.
Name one mate.
Just for fun give one way to deal with those people stealing and destroying. One piece of communication that doesn't involve a threat of arrest. And yes of course firearms are used by the army, so yes, it's no surprise there'll be shooting. Its an incredibly serious breakdown of social order. That's what happens when you burn and steal from the innocent. What other options to stop that mob?
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@voodoo said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@canefan said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
It never occurred to me that anyone would assume that Trump was suggesting shooting (and maybe killing) the protestors. To me it just meant the NG would give a tough and firm response
What else can you take from "Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts?
Even if he didn't mean it literally, it isn't exactly a unifying or calming statement is it??
The USA has deep rooted racial problems that have been there forever. The George Floyd video is pretty damning, but I've seen similar stuff many times before.
There is a reason why most black americans seem to have a level of distrust of the Po Po, this is just one of numerous incidents, and nothing ever seems to change
He's addressing looters and rioters. Not a church group
And your post is confusing. Are you saying the George Floyd death justifies the looting and rioting so Trump should support them. Or let them be. Of course if he did the Trump haters would go even more crazy
Sometimes it's hard to know if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely believe in the tripe you spout.
Here it is in more simple terms:
The President of the USA should not tweet messages that appear to support the shooting of people who loot, or any other criminal act for that matter.
Is that simple enough for you to understand?
There are a million ways the President could have tried to de-escalate this situation, and instead he went down an inflammatory path. Again.
Just disgraceful behaviour.
Name one mate.
Just for fun give one way to deal with those people stealing and destroying. One piece of communication that doesn't involve a threat of arrest. And yes of course firearms are used by the army, so yes, it's no surprise there'll be shooting. Its an incredibly serious breakdown of social order. That's what happens when you burn and steal from the innocent. What other options to stop that mob?
Not your best post mate. You have named one alternative yourself, a reminder that they'll be arrested. And charged. He could also have said that he would push for a full investigation into the incident, and if guilty, an assurance that there will be justice. He could have said that now is not the time for violence, but for solidarity, to come together, that police violence is not going to be ignored, but that violent protests are not the answer3.
Any-fucking-thing except saying that you'll probably get shot, with no distinction between armed police or armed citizens
-
@voodoo ok fair enough.
Perhaps our differences lie in the ability or willingness of the rioters to respond to words from authority.
I also don't think the rioters were expressing support for George Floyd, so any reference to that incident doesn't deal with damage caused and violent behaviour.I don't think his poor choice of words compares to the behaviour of looters.
Thanks for the reply👍
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@voodoo ok fair enough.
Perhaps our differences lie in the ability or willingness of the rioters to respond to words from authority.
I also don't think the rioters were expressing support for George Floyd, so any reference to that incident doesn't deal with damage caused and violent behaviour.I don't think his poor choice of words compares to the behaviour of looters.
Thanks for the reply👍
Yeah, I dunno how effective anything he could say would actually be, but I do think his words could certainly have an inflammatory effect on the situation. Plenty of armed civilans would feel emboldened by those words.
As an aside, check this out for weird - I have had the book Infinite Detail next to my bed for the last 2 months, waiting for me to finish my current one. I just read the back cover 10mins ago, then randomly flicked it open. Landed on Page 100, which looks like this:
Trippy!!!
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@voodoo ok fair enough.
Perhaps our differences lie in the ability or willingness of the rioters to respond to words from authority.
I also don't think the rioters were expressing support for George Floyd, so any reference to that incident doesn't deal with damage caused and violent behaviour.I don't think his poor choice of words compares to the behaviour of looters.
Thanks for the reply👍
The rioters were absolutely scum taking advantage of a situation. But you can't make any reasonable argument for how Trump responded.
-
@canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.
On the hierarchy of offensive behaviour and speed of response , trumps tweet doesn't even rate.
Have the rioters stopped? If so, that's because of outstanding leadership from trump. Job done🙂
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.
How is it reasonable to suggest looters will be shot? In what country is that an acceptable response to a criminal but non-violent act? If he said looters will be locked up, sure. But instead his poor choice of words causes makes a delicate situation worse.
The fact is America is a deeply divided nation. Protesters taking over a police station and setting fire to buildings in a major city isn't a normal thing. Trump is not the cause of these actions, or this general situation. But at the same time you can't point to much he's doing to make things better.
I worry for the future of that nation.
-
From a mate in SanFran:
"Just had a beer with my neighbor who’s a cop in SF city. He’s a Sergeant and only been working one day a week since Covid started. He’s going back to full time as of tomorrow- all because of the Minneapolis backlash. He’s going straight into a demonstration planned for tomorrow. Fuck that"
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
@canefan if he meant the unlawful looters when he said " shooting starts" then that's a reasonable argument right there.
You don't really believe this do you? Based solely on my reading of your other posts over time,I can't believe you do
-
The cop will be punished but...................
Medical examiner: No evidence George Floyd died of strangulation
The medical examiner said Floyd had underlying health conditions, including coronary artery disease and hypertensive heart disease.
“The combined effects of Mr. Floyd being restrained by the police, his underlying health conditions and any potential intoxicants in his system likely contributed to his death,” the medical examiner reported."
US Politics