2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Which part is a lie?

That the protesters were peaceful and that tear gas was used. It's not true:

Statement from United States Park Police acting Chief Gregory T. Monahan

On Monday, June 1, the USPP worked with the United States Secret Service to have temporary fencing installed inside Lafayette Park. At approximately 6:33 pm, violent protestors on H Street NW began throwing projectiles including bricks, frozen water bottles and caustic liquids. The protestors also climbed onto a historic building at the north end of Lafayette Park that was destroyed by arson days prior. Intelligence had revealed calls for violence against the police, and officers found caches of glass bottles, baseball bats and metal poles hidden along the street.

To curtail the violence that was underway, the USPP, following established policy, issued three warnings over a loudspeaker to alert demonstrators on H Street to evacuate the area. Horse mounted patrol, Civil Disturbance Units and additional personnel were used to clear the area. As many of the protestors became more combative, continued to throw projectiles, and attempted to grab officers’ weapons, officers then employed the use of smoke canisters and pepper balls. No tear gas was used by USPP officers or other assisting law enforcement partners to close the area at Lafayette Park. Subsequently, the fence was installed.

That's not peaceful protesting.

It's pathetic ass-covering and gas-lighting.

The only gaslighting going on is that being done by the left, claiming America has a President who hates black people and wants a race war.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

Has this story been verified by another source?

Seems to be. I've read a couple of articles. Google... "white house police smoke bomb crowd."

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't care what the White House says, in addition to the show of solidarity a photo op was involved.

I believe the reporting, even if you don't.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-police-say-protesters-near-trump-speech-were-cleared-for-attacks-on-cops/

duploelabs wrote: »

Has this story been verified by another source?

The only people saying there were attacks on the police are the Parks Police (the same people denying that they used Tear Gas) and other than "saying" it they still haven't "shown" a scrap of evidence to support their position. Not a single Photo or piece of Video to prove their story.

On the other side though are countless videos showing the tear gas being deployed , photos of the empty gas canisters on the ground , video of them opening fire without warning etc.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The only people saying there were attacks on the police are the Parks Police (the same people denying that they used Tear Gas) and other than "saying" it they still haven't "shown" a scrap of evidence to support their position. Not a single Photo or piece of Video to prove their story.

On the other side though are countless videos showing the tear gas being deployed , photos of the empty gas canisters on the ground , video of them opening fire without warning etc.

You have every right to believe what you want. You weren't there, I wasn't there. I believe the police reports. There were body cameras on the police, no? I'm sure they'll be released soon. Police reports almost always hold up in a court of law.

hetuzozaho

Here they are attacking a camera man:

https://twitter.com/lilsblu/status/1267737876126523392

And from his perspective! He should not have been touching their guns :pac:

https://twitter.com/ASB_Breaking/status/1267596043870486528

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

You have every right to believe what you want. You weren't there, I wasn't there. I believe the police reports.

Luckily the public have cameras in their pockets at all times these days!

notobtuse

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Luckily the public have cameras in their pockets at all times these days!

So? Body camera's from the police perspective carries a lot more weight.

hetuzozaho

notobtuse wrote: »

So?

I meant with people believing what they are told by the police that it's lucky people are able to get video footage so they can get justice

Body camera's from the police perspective carries a lot more weight.

So? :pac: I'm all for videos and would love to see the footage of the protestors trying to take the weapons. I'm not saying it didn't happen but I can't for sure say it did.

I can say the Police smacked that Australian reported though.

Timberrrrrrrr

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't care what the White House says, in addition to the show of solidarity a photo op was involved.

I believe the reporting, even if you don't.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-police-say-protesters-near-trump-speech-were-cleared-for-attacks-on-cops/

Unless you can copy/paste from their site, then edit what you have copied to make it look like you wrote it yourself you mean?

notobtuse

Tear gas was reported by all the biased mainstream media. Do they not know, or do they not care, that we’re smart enough to realize that if the police used tear gas they would have been wearing gas masks? Or that they would not have used tear gas in an area that the president of the US would be walking through minutes later? Or does the media think you’re just stupid? I'm betting on stupid.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

You have every right to believe what you want. You weren't there, I wasn't there. I believe the police reports. There were body cameras on the police, no? I'm sure they'll be released soon. Police reports almost always hold up in a court of law.

So , you believe the police reports but not the actual Videos that completely totally and utterly refute the claims they make.

So , would you have believed the report that Derek Chauvin would have submitted after he murdered George Floyd saying that his actions were justified even though the Video evidence would have shown it to absolutely not be true?

There's also a reason why "Police reports almost always show up in Courts" when related to cases of Police Brutality in the US.

It's called "Qualified Immunity".

Basically if you can't show that a Police officer has been found guilty of EXACTLY the same offence as the one you are trying to get justice for , the Office gets immunity.

Here’s how the doctrine works: if a civil rights plaintiff can’t identify a case “clearly establishing” that the police conduct in question is against the law, then courts will grant the defendant police officers immunity from prosecution - or, “qualified immunity.” And this precedent establishing police misconduct must have considerable specificity. For instance, if a correctional officer pepper sprayed an inmate in a prison without cause, the case cited to rebut that officer’s qualified immunity can’t be one finding that police officers may not tase someone at a traffic stop for no reason.

Believe it or not, a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an officer qualified immunity in this exact scenario in McCoy v. Alamu earlier in 2020. The court found that the plaintiff alleged facts that a reasonable jury could find that excessive force was used. But the court went on to grant qualified immunity anyway because the right not to be pepper sprayed for no reason was not “clearly established” despite case law in the Fifth Circuit holding that a prison guard may not punch an inmate for no reason and that a police officer may not tase a nonthreatening arrestee at a traffic stop. As Judge Costa put it in his dissent, “Despite recognizing that an unprovoked assault violates the Constitution, the majority grants the guard immunity because we have not decided a similar case involving pepper spray.”

So when a Prison guard pepper-sprayed an inmate for absolutely no reason, he was acquitted because no one had ever been found guilty of "pepper-spraying" someone before - They have for punching and tasing , but NOT Pepper-sparying.

This is why it's so hard for people to get justice in the US against abuse of authority and why people are so exasperated.

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Tear gas was reported by all the biased mainstream media. Do they not know, or do they not care, that we’re smart enough to realize that if the police used tear gas they would have been wearing gas masks? Or that they would not have used tear gas in an area that the president of the US would be walking through minutes later? Or does the media think you’re just stupid? I'm betting on stupid.

They were though



But I guess we'll have to wait for the body cam footage before you "believe" this too.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So , you believe the police reports but not the actual Videos that completely totally and utterly refute the claims they make.

So , would you have believed the report that Derek Chauvin would have submitted after he murdered George Floyd saying that his actions were justified even though the Video evidence would have shown it to absolutely not be true?

There's also a reason why "Police reports almost always show up in Courts" when related to cases of Police Brutality in the US.

It's called "Qualified Immunity".

Basically if you can't show that a Police officer has been found guilty of EXACTLY the same offence as the one you are trying to get justice for , the Office gets immunity.



So when a Prison guard pepper-sprayed an inmate for absolutely no reason, he was acquitted because no one had ever been found guilty of "pepper-spraying" someone before - They have for punching and tasing , but NOT Pepper-sparying.

This is why it's so hard for people to get justice in the US against abuse of authority and why people are so exasperated.

Actually, it appears the police body cam footage was used to upgrade the charge against officer Derek Chauvin to first-degree murder.

https://thegrio.com/2020/05/31/george-floyd-derek-chauvin-body-cam/

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They were though



But I guess we'll have to wait for the body cam footage before you "believe" this too.

Call me crazy but I count a bunch of officers without gas masks. Or has our government covertly developed invisible gas masks? Nobody tells me nothing!

eagle eye

notobtuse wrote:

Since the civil lawsuit involving Trump went through the court system, why do you have a problem with the Biden accusations not going through some system like congressional hearings?

I think both should go through congressional hearings.

notobtuse

eagle eye wrote: »

I think both should go through congressional hearings.

You don't think if Nancy Pelosi didn't think if would come back to bite the democrats, she wouldn't have already instituted House congressional hearings?

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

Call me crazy but I count a bunch of officers without gas masks. Or has our government covertly developed invisible gas masks? Nobody tells me nothing!

The bottom line is - They fired projectiles containing chemicals designed to cause skin and throat/breathing irritation , that they are trying to split hairs over the specific brand of device used is telling of how bad they knows this looks for them.

They fired "Skin/Breathing" irritant devices at peaceful protesters as well as Rubber Bullets - a projectile that even it's inventors , the British Army in Northern Ireland stopped using years ago because of how unnecessarily dangerous they are.

It's indefensible , please stop trying.

dark crystal

notobtuse wrote: »

By all means let's ignore all the many concerns and vote for Biden based on one well read speech?

Many concerns about Biden? Oh, he's dementia ridden, riiight.

No concerns whatsoever about Trump, then? None at all?

Well, He's not much younger than Biden, in worse physical shape, makes incendiary speeches instead of unifying ones, lies pathologically, alienates your country's allies who are laughing at him, is clearly racist, praises dictators, doesn't believe in climate change, pathetically pretends to read the bible to pander to evangelicals, chose a VP who is blatantly homophobic, said white supremacists were 'fine people', engages in nepotism by putting his unqualified children and in-laws into positions of power while they rake in the money(drain that swamp!), cheated with a porn star while his third wife was pregnant, is a fraudster (Trump University), suggests his citizens (millions of whom don't have adequate healthcare) ingest disinfectant and take potentially dangerous medicines during a deadly pandemic because he doesn't like to listen to experts who know more than he does, calls the free press 'enemies of the people'....oh, and that whole impeachment thing too.

I won't even get into the state of the US right now.

But Biden is the problematic one in this race, yeah?

eagle eye

notobtuse wrote:

You don't think if Nancy Pelosi didn't think if would come back to bite the democrats, she wouldn't have already instituted House congressional hearings?

What part of I think both should have congressional hearing don you not understand?
I don't wish to get into discussions about something I've no information about.

notobtuse

eagle eye wrote: »

What part of I think both should have congressional hearing don you not understand?
I don't wish to get into discussions about something I've no information about.

I understood and merely expanded on the premise.

Billy Mays

dark crystal wrote: »

Many concerns about Biden? Oh, he's dementia ridden, riiight.

No concerns whatsoever about Trump, then? None at all?

Well, He's not much younger than Biden, in worse physical shape, makes incendiary speeches instead of unifying ones, lies pathologically, alienates your country's allies who are laughing at him, is clearly racist, praises dictators, doesn't believe in climate change, pathetically pretends to read the bible to pander to evangelicals, chose a VP who is blatantly homophobic, said white supremacists were 'fine people', engages in nepotism by putting his unqualified children and in-laws into positions of power while they rake in the money(drain that swamp!), cheated with a porn star while his third wife was pregnant, is a fraudster (Trump University), suggests his citizens (millions of whom don't have adequate healthcare) ingest disinfectant and take potentially dangerous medicines during a deadly pandemic because he doesn't like to listen to experts who know more than he does, calls the free press 'enemies of the people'....oh, and that whole impeachment thing too.

I won't even get into the state of the US right now.

But Biden is the problematic one in this race, yeah?

I'll have to correct you there. Melania wasn't pregnant when he bare backed Ms Daniels. Baron was a few weeks old so more than likely she was at home nursing him.

You also left out the time he mocked someone's disability cos they were mean to him.

Igotadose

eagle eye wrote: »

I think both should go through congressional hearings.

Why? Not the topic, but what basis in law is their for there to be congressional hearings on private citizens behavior?

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Its true though. Trump didn't kill anyone. Obama was a black president yet made zero real change. He had riots during his presidency and nothing was done.

More Americans than ever were gainfully employed under Trump before the global pandemic. Black folk included .

In fact Obama oversaw significant police reform especially pertaining to the use of body cameras. It’s either disingenuous or ignorant to state nothing was done.

eagle eye

Igotadose wrote:

Why? Not the topic, but what basis in law is their for there to be congressional hearings on private citizens behavior?

In the interests of the entire electorate.

ELM327

Overheal wrote: »

In fact Obama oversaw significant police reform especially pertaining to the use of body cameras. It’s either disingenuous or ignorant to state nothing was done.

Yeah, Obama really left a great legacy of uniting race.
Oh wait, no, less than a couple years after his administration, we have race riots.

Brian?

HDMI wrote: »

I know but it's the first time since 1998 that Republicans have taken a seat from a Democrat, she may not have had it long but I think they expected to keep it.

They weren't expected to keep it. The polling wasn't even close. I don't understand why you think this. The surprise was the Dems taking it 2018.

Igotadose

eagle eye wrote: »

In the interests of the entire electorate.

Again, what legal basis? "Interests of the electorate" isn't law. It's interesting (to some I suppose.) How much meddling do you want Congress to do in the 'interests of the electorate.' If there's a law been violated that the courts can't/aren't handling (unlikely), you might have a legal leg to stand on. But, this is just a publicity stunt you're asking for. FWIW, Congress was legally justified in investigating, say, Benghazi, since that was a perceived failure of governance.

But, this is private citizens behavior. Plenty of channels to enforce the law there that don't involve Congress getting involved.

Madeleine Birchfield

Overheal wrote: »

In fact Obama oversaw significant police reform especially pertaining to the use of body cameras. It’s either disingenuous or ignorant to state nothing was done.

And Trump undid all of Obama's reforms.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

By all means let's ignore all the many concerns and vote for Biden based on one well read speech?

What concerns, that don’t apply equally to Trump?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden lying to the world saying Trump used tear gas on peaceful protesters just so he could stage a photo op:


https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1267828064924233733

Not much of a good lie seeing as how thats what was widely reported. They still used smoke and pepper bullets.

I didn’t know lies upset you this much judging from your adulation for Trump