Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

RIGOLO

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are of the opinion that race tensions, even riots, actually benefit the GOP.

Are we then supposed to believe that Trump, like you, doesn't see this as a win win. Stoke tensions, drive the military onto the streets, rile up the protesters all so he can look the tough guy.

Given that Covid is a disaster, his economy is in the toilet, he needed something. This is the spark

So race tensions are good but they wouldn't use them? That is what you are trying to suggest. That a man as politically savvy as Trump, that has used attacks and divisions as his main weapon, is somehow against using this to his advantage.

If you believe that it is win win, then you must also accept that Trump is actively working on that very strategy

Yes you got me , Trump was stoking black American racial tensions by getting them back to work, getting them buisnesses to run, and tax incentives for minority community investment.

Someone else decided to light this particular bonfire, Trump as President just has the job of putting it out.
He will gain votes when he does, and hte Democrats are losing votes everytime a window gets smashed, a business is burned to the ground.

Its too late for Dems to change tack, they nailed their colours to the mast long time ago. They cant come out and condemn any action by a minority individual or group now cos the party is so stuck up its identity politics tree.

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the peaceful protestors that they're thinking about. The government use of force against people who are causing mayhem and violence is not something with which they have a problem. There is no hypocrisy or dichotomy in this attitude. Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem.



A wonderful example of how an image can show something out of context. It looks like the cop's aiming a tear gas launcher right in the guy's face, right? Yet follow their eyes. They're actually looking off to the left, at something outside of camera frame.

That doesn't deny that it's an impactful photograph, but it's impactful for how it's commonly interpreted, not for what it's actually showing.

Because the armed and masked militias who invaded government buildings in Michigan a month ago were white. Imagine if they were black? Shudder.

RIGOLO

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because the armed and masked militias who invaded government buildings in Michigan a month ago were white. Imagine if they were black? Shudder.

White armed militia storm government buildings to force government to OPEN UP BUISNESS..

Black militias storm their neighbourhoods to burn down their neighbours businesses.

Seems to be a difference in their agendas.

hotmail.com

RIGOLO wrote: »

Yes you got me , Trump was stoking black American racial tensions by getting them back to work, getting them buisnesses to run, and tax incentives for minority community investment.

Someone else decided to light this particular bonfire, Trump as President just has the job of putting it out.
He will gain votes when he does, and hte Democrats are losing votes everytime a window gets smashed, a business is burned to the ground.

Its too late for Dems to change tack, they nailed their colours to the mast long time ago. They cant come out and condemn any action by a minority individual or group now cos the party is so stuck up its identity politics tree.

Often the victims of riots and looting are other poor people.

rockatansky

Manic Moran wrote: »

Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem.
.

Why would they be with one of their own in the White House.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's not the peaceful protestors that they're thinking about. The government use of force against people who are causing mayhem and violence is not something with which they have a problem. There is no hypocrisy or dichotomy in this attitude. Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem.

Yes, it was never about being against the concept of government overreach, it is selfish point of view of the government not overreaching on 'me' or 'people I agree with'.

I'm sure they would have stayed as quiet as they are now if Obama had tear gassed, charged with horses, and batoned a peaceful pro life demonstration so he could get outside for a photo-op.

It is pure hypocrisy.

A wonderful example of how an image can show something out of context. It looks like the cop's aiming a tear gas launcher right in the guy's face, right? Yet follow their eyes. They're actually looking off to the left, at something outside of camera frame.

That doesn't deny that it's an impactful photograph, but it's impactful for how it's commonly interpreted, not for what it's actually showing.

So you'd be comfortable with a police officer firing that close to your child? Do you think it would be deemed acceptable in Ireland for Garda to do that or do you think they'd have proper training and be more cautious?

I've already posted several videos of police brutality against peaceful protesters but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other examples out there from the last few days if you're choosing to nitpick this image.

Professor Moriarty

RIGOLO wrote: »

White armed militia storm government buildings to force government to OPEN UP BUISNESS..

Black militias storm their neighbourhoods to burn down their neighbours businesses.

Seems to be a difference in their agendas.

You make things seem so simple.

eire4

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because the armed and masked militias who invaded government buildings in Michigan a month ago were white. Imagine if they were black? Shudder.

I remember thinking that at the time that if those protestors some of them very heavily armed were Black there is zero chance IMHO that would in any way shape of form been tolerated and they would have been stopped with violence if necessary long before they got into the government buildings in Michigan.

moon2

Manic Moran wrote: »

I


A wonderful example of how an image can show something out of context. It looks like the cop's aiming a tear gas launcher right in the guy's face, right? Yet follow their eyes. They're actually looking off to the left, at something outside of camera frame.

I followed his eyeline and gunline. They're both squarely aimed at the adult with the child on their shoulders. Seriously - look at the photo! It's as clear as it can be without a face-on photo over the shoulder of the man being aimed at.

How is it that you can excuse everything wrong that the police are doing?

TomOnBoard

Midlife wrote: »

Without treating every peaceful protestor as a rioter.

I think that was the point being made

And that's the main problem with Trump"s 'handling' of the last week's events. In his eyes, everyone who is protesting (against generations of racial inequality and institutional racism in police forces across the country ) are seen as looters and rioters, whose heads should be cracked open at every opportunity.

Everything else is based on that perception, built on an innate entitled white man belief that the vast bulk of people in society are useful only as servants and least- cost factors of production.

On top of all that, he is a malignant narcissist with zero empathy and appalling personality defects who is waaaay out of his depth in the role of President.

Worst. President. Ever. failing to deal adequately with the worst racial protests since the 1960s on top of the worst health crisis for a century and the resultant worst economic crisis ever! Are we seriously surprised it's so bad?

Just get him out, already! And send his gang of kleptomaniac bullies out along with him. And then start to rebuild. That's America's only hope!

eire4

I would also mention it is very telling how many journalists have been shot at and hit during these protests. One reporter was left blinded in one eye after being shot in the face with a rubber bullet while taking photographs during the Minneapolis protests. According to the National Foundation for Journalism the police have targeted and or arrested Journalists more then 100 times since May 28th during these protests.
Not a surprise really since the president has spent the past 4 years describing the press as enemies of the people but very disturbing police activity nonetheless which I think should be getting highlighted more.

riclad

I think the problem is in some states its legal to carry
weapons almost anywhere this includes rifles and anyone
has the right to protest. I think biden is old and out of touch he would make a medicre president.
He is not in touch with ordinary people and he has non
of the charisma that Obama has, but in terms of being responsible and effective he is way better to a stupid
ignorant racist who has no sense of what it is to be an
ordinary working man in America
The police cleared out a peaceful protest with tear gas
so that trump could have a few photos taken outside a church. Trump knows he has to get the religious right to
support him in order to get elected again.

moon2

I want to expand on my previous post a little, but editing it again is probably not the right way to go.

I feel like in a normal functioning country it should be possible to support your government and also condemn them for mishandling events.

In America, and especially on this forum, this is an impossible combination. My recollections could be incorrect, but the vast majority of supporters seem to see nothing wrong with anything Trump does, and are happy to explain away every unmitigated disaster as "fake news". The utter rejection of anything demonstrating Trump's failures, even words coming from Trump's own mouth, is boggling.

The fact that one of the first reactions of a sitting president, in what is ostensibly *not* a dictatorship, was to express the desire to start shooting their own citizens is mind boggling.

How is that in any way defensible? And yet it has, and continues to be, defended.

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

If this was happening here, the party that ended the riots would receive popular acclaim.

There certainly is an issue with US media race baiting and personalising it with Trump. Cheap analysis with no historical context. The usual lazy race conversation that will quickly move to another story once they get bored of it. Meanwhile, the poor black Americans live on in their poverty and exclusion, something that neither party cares about.

As opposed to the cheap analysis above?

BonnieSituation

hotmail.com wrote: »

Often the victims of riots and looting are other poor people.

Some people say that...

fullstop

hotmail.com wrote: »

If this was happening here, the party that ended the riots would receive popular acclaim.

There certainly is an issue with US media race baiting and personalising it with Trump. Cheap analysis with no historical context. The usual lazy race conversation that will quickly move to another story once they get bored of it. Meanwhile, the poor black Americans live on in their poverty and exclusion, something that neither party cares about.

Oh yeah the race argument is totally lazy. I mean if the guy in this clip, rocking up to confront protestors with a machine gun strapped across his shoulder, handgun in a holster and dressed in full combat gear, was black, the police would totally have a quiet word and ask him to go home like they did here.

Totally.

https://twitter.com/taygang98/status/1267269447708028929?s=21

Foxtrol

fullstop wrote: »

Oh yeah the race argument is totally lazy. I mean if the guy in this clip, rocking up to confront protestors with a machine gun strapped across his shoulder, handgun in a holster and dressed in full combat gear, was black, the police would totally have a quiet word and ask him to go home like they did here.

Totally.

https://twitter.com/taygang98/status/1267269447708028929?s=21

And these lovely bunch of white vigilantes in Philly yesterday that the police let stroll around threatening protesters with baseball bats and axes and even stopped to take photos with them later

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1267605738844717056?s=20

https://twitter.com/llchristyll/status/1267798618947358721?s=20

aloyisious

RIGOLO wrote: »

A strong case can easily be made that post-race riots , Republican Presidential candidates do well. History has already been written on that.

During Johnsons term 63-69 we had major race riots ,albeit connected to the civil rights movement but violent protests none the less, from 63 in Birmingham AL, thru 64 NJ, 65 LA Watts riots, 66 Chicago, 67 NJ+NY to name but a few and culminating in the wide spread riots in 68 after MLKs assaination. America was in flames across over a hundred cities.

1969 Richard Nixon won in a LANDSLIDE !

When theres pandemonium on the streets, when the Democrats have come out on the side of violent rioters , I think middle of the road voters will turn to the candidate that represents law and order and not the party that represents everyone sharing the same bathroom.

Is that just a generic quote of your own design or do you have the names of Democrat Politicians who have come out on the side of "violent rioters"? It's good to see your "sharing the same bathroom" comment as a sort of clarification on your opinion of peoples social status. Re MLK's assassination, and the race riots you mentioned, what party was in power in the U.S then? If such acts don't benefit the party in power, what future is there theoretically for the party in power now?

RIGOLO

Foxtrol wrote: »

And these lovely bunch of white vigilantes in Philly yesterday that the police let stroll around threatening protesters with baseball bats and axes and even stopped to take photos with them later

https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1267605738844717056?s=20

https://twitter.com/llchristyll/status/1267798618947358721?s=20

Thanks for posting that picture, its been a while since Ive seen a photo of civilians standing near a police vehicle that they werent beating the crap out of and trying to set on fire.

The internet is awash with photos of people protecting their property , and being supported by the police, and photos of people destroying other peoples property and getting the wrong side of the police.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

White armed militia storm government buildings to force government to OPEN UP BUISNESS..

Black militias storm their neighbourhoods to burn down their neighbours businesses.

Seems to be a difference in their agendas.

That there sums up the Trump supporter, and I believe Trump's attitude.

It is inherently racist.

White people good, black people bad.

You certainly love your boxes to put people in.All the protesters are democrats and liberals. Which if true means that GOP supporters have no care for police brutality of minorities inequality.

But I thin k it gives a better understanding of your myopic support for Trump. You actually believe that the white person is being pushed out of America, that the white person is under siege. Given that I understand why you are willing to forego everything else since you think Trump is actively saving your way of life.

Igotadose

RIGOLO wrote: »

A strong case can easily be made that post-race riots , Republican Presidential candidates do well. History has already been written on that.

"It's the economy, stupid."

Worst economy since the Great Depression.
Bread lines.
Massive unemployment.

Bungled handling of Covid.

3, possibly soon 4, interventions to prevent the economy seizing up that dwarf the one Hank Paulsen asked GWB to implement. Inconceivably large deficits.

Now, endorsing riots. Teargassing priests and ministers to clear out a church park for a photo op.

It'll be a result like Reagan/Mondale except with the Democratic candidate winning in a landslide.

What was the state of the economy, in 1968? And, Nixon was a better candidate than Humphrey or McGovern- the latter was a dreadful candidate who couldn't get out of his own way. Humphrey wasn't great, and Nixon was well known.

One other goodie - there was a war on during 1968. Have you forgotten? If Johnson had decided to run (as you might recall, he won by a landslide in 1964), he'd have waltzed in, but he didn't and took his time about deciding not to run, as I recall. That didn't help.

Foxtrol

RIGOLO wrote: »

You think Trump a Republican is the arsonist for an event (Mr Floyds death) in a Democrat city , in a Democrat state (since 1932), with a Democrat Senator , Democrat House Rep, Democrat mayor, Democrat AG, Democrat Police Chief.

I cant counter that logic.

The president is the leader of the nation, it is his job to try to unify it but he has chosen to throw petrol on the fire.

Despite how he refuses to accept it, he is responsible for how things are going. He let a spark grow into a fire and is now fanning the flames for his own ego.

Don't take my logic, polls are already showing an all time low in people being happy with the direction the country is going and that was prior to the president attacking peaceful protesters for photo ops last night or rolling out the army into cities. Look at that jump from republicans and independents.

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1267879242949328896?s=20

RIGOLO

Foxtrol wrote: »

The president is the leader of the nation, it is his job to try to unify it but he has chosen to throw petrol on the fire.

Despite how he refuses to accept it, he is responsible for how things are going. He let a spark grow into a fire and is now fanning the flames for his own ego.

Don't take my logic, polls are already showing an all time low in people being happy with the direction the country is going and that was prior to the president attacking peaceful protesters for photo ops last night or rolling out the army into cities. Look at that jump from republicans and independents.

https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1267879242949328896?s=20

All that poll shows is that a majority of people on both sides think the countrys major cities being under curfew is a bad path.

Theres no poll on who is to blame or who is the solution. Npvember will be the important poll on that.

Polls are pretty meaningless in thsi day and age , before anyone makes an honest answer now adays htey consider is this being recorded and will it come back to haunt me and what is the correct identity politics answer to give.

Ive over a hundred polls from 2015 that says TRump would lose the election.. you see, like I said polls are meaningless in this day and age, they are just conversation punctuation. .

FatherTed

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

You make things seem so simple.

Simple Minds.

Great band.

FatherTed

RIGOLO wrote: »

Thanks for posting that picture, its been a while since Ive seen a photo of civilians standing near a police vehicle that they werent beating the crap out of and trying to set on fire.

The internet is awash with photos of people protecting their property , and being supported by the police, and photos of people destroying other peoples property and getting the wrong side of the police.

Exactly

https://twitter.com/ZKalium/status/1267653710265581568

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Because the armed and masked militias who invaded government buildings in Michigan a month ago were white. Imagine if they were black? Shudder.

I don't need to.

Here, have an armed black militia "invading" a legislature.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/03/31/15480412/5/rawImage.jpg
At the height of the civil rights era, no less, when blacks -really- made people nervous.
https://capweekly-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Black-Panther-with-shotgun-634x321.jpg
The State Police officer here seems rather unconcerned.
https://i.redd.it/k15zbfs130921.png

Too old? How about last month? A couple of days after the predominantly white folks showed up at the Michican legislature with guns, so did some black folks.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c57493fd06ee5c9751b9d9f58472e7150eb03f48/0_1731_3024_2147/master/3024.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&

Be peaceful, obey the law, nobody gets into trouble. Seems a rather simple concept devoid of race. Don't forget Rule 1 of Chris Rock's "How not to get your ass beat by the police" video. It is an entirely unrelated and separate incident.

So you'd be comfortable with a police officer firing that close to your child? Do you think it would be deemed acceptable in Ireland for Garda to do that or do you think they'd have proper training and be more cautious?

I wouldn't be, but apparently that dad is OK with the possibility, or he wouldn't have brought the child along.

I followed his eyeline and gunline. They're both squarely aimed at the adult with the child on their shoulders. Seriously - look at the photo! It's as clear as it can be without a face-on photo over the shoulder of the man being aimed at.

Rubbish. Here's the larger version. https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/status/1267523353289474048/photo/1 Wonder why the father/child are in perfect focus yet the policeman supposedly right in front of him isn't? They cannot be about the same distance from the camera. He's looking exactly the same direction as the man to his right, also out of frame. The only person who might be looking at dad/daughter is the chap in the background, his head turned towards the left.

Foxtrol

RIGOLO wrote: »

All that poll shows is that a majority of people on both sides think the countrys major cities being under curfew is a bad path.

Theres no poll on who is to blame or who is the solution. Npvember will be the important poll on that.

Polls are pretty meaningless in thsi day and age , before anyone makes an honest answer now adays htey consider is this being recorded and will it come back to haunt me and what is the correct identity politics answer to give.

Ive over a hundred polls from 2015 that says TRump would lose the election.. you see, like I said polls are meaningless in this day and age, they are just conversation punctuation. .

Keep on wishing there.

An all time high of direction of the country but the president will get no blame at all...

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't need to.

Here, have an armed black militia "invading" a legislature.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/03/31/15480412/5/rawImage.jpg
At the height of the civil rights era, no less, when blacks -really- made people nervous.
https://capweekly-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Black-Panther-with-shotgun-634x321.jpg
The State Police officer here seems rather unconcerned.
https://i.redd.it/k15zbfs130921.png

Too old? How about last month? A couple of days after the predominantly white folks showed up at the Michican legislature with guns, so did some black folks.
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c57493fd06ee5c9751b9d9f58472e7150eb03f48/0_1731_3024_2147/master/3024.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&

Be peaceful, obey the law, nobody gets into trouble. Seems a rather simple concept devoid of race. Don't forget Rule 1 of Chris Rock's "How not to get your ass beat by the police" video. It is an entirely unrelated and separate incident.



I wouldn't be, but apparently that dad is OK with the possibility, or he wouldn't have brought the child along.



Rubbish. Here's the larger version. https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/status/1267523353289474048/photo/1 Wonder why the father/child are in perfect focus yet the policeman supposedly right in front of him isn't? They cannot be about the same distance from the camera. He's looking exactly the same direction as the man to his right, also out of frame. The only person who might be looking at dad/daughter is the chap in the background, his head turned towards the left.

You need to fix your post. I didn't say most of that stuff. Also one of your links is broken. I'm assuming it's referring to armed black men accompanying a black politician who had been threatened - big difference to what the militia did. It's a bit sad that you have to go back 50 years to find black equivalence to what the white militias did 30 days ago.

Foxtrol

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't need to.

Here, have an armed black militia "invading" a legislature.
https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/03/31/15480412/5/rawImage.jpg
At the height of the civil rights era, no less, when blacks -really- made people nervous.
https://capweekly-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Black-Panther-with-shotgun-634x321.jpg
The State Police officer here seems rather unconcerned.
https://i.redd.it/k15zbfs130921.png

Didn't they change open carry laws in the state after that or similar event of black men carrying weapons?

Be peaceful, obey the law, nobody gets into trouble. Seems a rather simple concept devoid of race. Don't forget Rule 1 of Chris Rock's "How not to get your ass beat by the police" video. It is an entirely unrelated and separate incident.

They were doing that last night and yet Trump ordered the crowd attacked for a photo op.

Again, 'Don't tread on me' crowd would be still screaming about it if it happened to a group of them or their supporters. Complete hypocrites

I wouldn't be, but apparently that dad is OK with the possibility, or he wouldn't have brought the child along.

We aren't talking about the Dad, the cop showed complete negligence here with risking the child.

I show more concern about children when I throw a football in the park than that cop did firing that weapon.

Again, we see how poorly trained and completely incompetent many police officers are.

moon2

Manic Moran wrote: »

I


Rubbish. Here's the larger version. https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/status/1267523353289474048/photo/1 Wonder why the father/child are in perfect focus yet the policeman supposedly right in front of him isn't? They cannot be about the same distance from the camera. He's looking exactly the same direction as the man to his right, also out of frame.

You're reaching to find support for a narrative that objectively isn't there.

The reason the man and child are in focus and the policeman is not in focus is nothing to do with anyone's eyeline - the policeman is just further away. It's exactly like you described!

Eyeline focus, as much as can be determined from a side photo such as this, doesn't match your interpretation. You've used peoples physical positioning as a way to support eyeline focus in a way that makes no sense.