Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Options
1…201202204206207…331

Comments

  • Options
    #6092
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Why then is the camera active on the phone , which can be clearly seen in the video ? I suspect it's more likely that it was an attempt to video name tags , ID numbers and what not.

    Either way , the reaction from the police was inappropriate in the circumstances , he was pushed twice by two separate officers , both of whom could and should have dealt with the situation without resorting to physical confrontation.

    That's the reason they are suspended pending investigation , what the protester may or may not have been doing immediately prior to being poked in the chest with a baton and then shoved by another officer is utterly immaterial.

    The fact that there are people that don't understand that is a fundamental part of the problem that exists in the US in the relationship between the Police and the public.

    If I as a civilian shoved someone in the street because they were in my way or verbally abusing me and they then fell over and ended up in hospital I would quite rightly be arrested and charged with some category of assault charge. The fact that it wasn't intentional or that they fell harder than I expected is utterly irrelevant. A jury might acquit me given given the potentially mitigating circumstance, but I'm still getting charged and going to court.
    He was going after the communication device. He should not have tried to impede the police in the first place. I’ve read he’s an experienced protestor, who should have been wearing his helmet instead of carrying it, when he tried to stop the officers. I gather he knows that even if a single officer is impeded the entire line halts until the impediment is resolved. His actions in impeding the police was a crime (violation of Section 195.05 of the New York Penal Law). If you look at the shove it was obvious to anyone (level headed, anyway) that it was intended to merely move the protestor back. The force used by the police was measured and appropriate.

    And yes, to appease the mob they have suspended two officers without pay. But want to bet that when sanity is again restored the investigative commission will determine neither officer will be convicted of any charges, it will be determined the did nothing wrong, and they will be provided with all their back pay... as it should be.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6093
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    He was going after the communication device. He should not have tried to impede the police in the first place. I’ve read he’s an experienced protestor, who should have been wearing his helmet instead of carrying it, when he tried to stop the officers. I gather he knows that even if a single officer is impeded the entire line halts until the impediment is resolved. His actions in impeding the police was a crime (violation of Section 195.05 of the New York Penal Law). If you look at the shove it was obvious to anyone (level headed, anyway) that it was intended to merely move the protestor back. The force used by the police was measured and appropriate.

    And yes, to appease the mob they have suspended two officers without pay. But want to bet that when sanity is again restored the investigative commission will determine neither officer will be convicted of any charges, it will be determined the did nothing wrong, and they will be provided with all their back pay... as it should be.

    Oh give it up will you, you dont have to defend Trump for every stupid thing he says. Pick and choose your battles because no one takes you seriously when you defend him on his most stupid and downright vile tweets and this is one


  • Options
    #6094
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    notobtuse wrote: »
    He was going after the communication device. He should not have tried to impede the police in the first place. I’ve read he’s an experienced protestor, who should have been wearing his helmet instead of carrying it, when he tried to stop the officers. I gather he knows that even if a single officer is impeded the entire line halts until the impediment is resolved. His actions in impeding the police was a crime (violation of Section 195.05 of the New York Penal Law). If you look at the shove it was obvious to anyone (level headed, anyway) that it was intended to merely move the protestor back. The force used by the police was measured and appropriate.

    And yes, to appease the mob they have suspended two officers without pay. But want to bet that when sanity is again restored the investigative commission will determine neither officer will be convicted of any charges, it will be determined the did nothing wrong, and they will be provided with all their back pay... as it should be.

    Some genuine boot lickery going on there.

    Why should he wear a helmet approaching the police? Surely by showing them his face he had nothing to hide. More victim blaming.


  • Options
    #6095
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,599 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    He was going after the communication device. He should not have tried to impede the police in the first place. I’ve read he’s an experienced protestor, who should have been wearing his helmet instead of carrying it, when he tried to stop the officers. I gather he knows that even if a single officer is impeded the entire line halts until the impediment is resolved. His actions in impeding the police was a crime (violation of Section 195.05 of the New York Penal Law). If you look at the shove it was obvious to anyone (level headed, anyway) that it was intended to merely move the protestor back. The force used by the police was measured and appropriate.

    And yes, to appease the mob they have suspended two officers without pay. But want to bet that when sanity is again restored the investigative commission will determine neither officer will be convicted of any charges, it will be determined the did nothing wrong, and they will be provided with all their back pay... as it should be.

    What “communication device?” His tricorder? His space laser target designator? Ham radio? What are we talking about here. Real tinfoil hat stuff from you. Now you believe a 75-year old man is some super class A hacker who can disrupt the cops, somehow, with a cellphone. Lol. That’ll learn them!

    No really what’s the conspiracy here what was he going to achieve? Was this going to upload a virus to the police central supercomputer and shut all the police down like all the battle droids in Phantom Menace? Or was he just going to implant the nearest one with a virus in his earpiece to make him homosexual? Endless possibilities when you start from pure fantasy


  • Options
    #6096
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    Its looking like the lawyer for the Buffalo victim is lining up a defamation suit against none other than the President, just another day of bringing the office he holds into disrepute
    Does this make the count something like 513 times Trump has been hit with baseless lawsuits since becoming president? Perhaps the majority here can get together and initiate a class action suit against him for emotional distress. And why not, isn't suing Trump what all the cool snowflakes are doing these days?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6097
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,599 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Does this make the count something like 513 times Trump has been hit with baseless lawsuits since becoming president? Perhaps the majority here can get together and initiate a class action suit against him for emotional distress. And why not, isn't suing Trump what all the cool snowflakes are doing these days?

    Baseless?


  • Options
    #6098
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    Some genuine boot lickery going on there.

    Why should he wear a helmet approaching the police? Surely by showing them his face he had nothing to hide. More victim blaming.
    Isn't the better question why did he have a helmet with him in the first place if his intent was to be a peaceful protestor?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6099
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Does this make the count something like 513 times Trump has been hit with baseless lawsuits since becoming president? Perhaps the majority here can get together and initiate a class action suit against him for emotional distress. And why not, isn't suing Trump what all the cool snowflakes are doing these days?

    Hey, can you explain how he was intercepting highly encrypted WiFi and Bluetooth data? You've made the claim and technically it's not very feasible.


  • Options
    #6100
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,599 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Isn't the better question why did he have a helmet with him in the first place if his intent was to be a peaceful protestor?

    To return it to them..


  • Options
    #6101
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    Oh give it up will you, you dont have to defend Trump for every stupid thing he says. Pick and choose your battles because no one takes you seriously when you defend him on his most stupid and downright vile tweets and this is one
    They have a function here that allows keeps your eyes from being offended by my posts. It works rather nicely. And why do you even bother to respond to me if as you say... no one takes me seriously? It seems to be an awful waste of time and effort on your part if true.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6102
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Does this make the count something like 513 times Trump has been hit with baseless lawsuits since becoming president? Perhaps the majority here can get together and initiate a class action suit against him for emotional distress. And why not, isn't suing Trump what all the cool snowflakes are doing these days?

    So you call this baseless with mountains evidence showing that he just defamed him? I hope you are not a lawyer and if so I wouldnt want you representing me


  • Options
    #6103
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Hey, can you explain how he was intercepting highly encrypted WiFi and Bluetooth data? You've made the claim and technically it's not very feasible.
    The explanation given here makes it seem to be very plausible and feasible.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1268784881422786560.html

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6104
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,602 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Does this make the count something like 513 times Trump has been hit with baseless lawsuits since becoming president? Perhaps the majority here can get together and initiate a class action suit against him for emotional distress. And why not, isn't suing Trump what all the cool snowflakes are doing these days?

    How many people has Trump attempted to sue?


  • Options
    #6105
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    They have a function here that allows keeps your eyes from being offended by my posts. It works rather nicely. And why do you even bother to respond to me if as you say... no one takes me seriously? It seems to be an awful waste of time and effort on your part if true.

    In truth people like you fascinate me, you are obviously intelligent but have some real blindspots and you cannot see any logic whatsoever when it comes to these blindspots and frankly reading you defend the indefensible is highly amusing


  • Options
    #6106
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Does this make the count something like 513 times Trump has been hit with baseless lawsuits since becoming president? Perhaps the majority here can get together and initiate a class action suit against him for emotional distress. And why not, isn't suing Trump what all the cool snowflakes are doing these days?

    You're big into the law being upheld when it relates to alleged Democratic wrongdoing but when Trump regularly libels people on Twitter that's fine? Pure hypocrisy.


  • Options
    #6107
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,599 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The explanation given here makes it seem to be very plausible and feasible.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1268784881422786560.html

    There is no technical explanation provided at the link. No explanation for why anyone needs to slap an officer with a cellphone to scan police signals, when there are already police scanners for that and they work for 10s of miles.

    That you actually seem to believe this stuff is hardly surprising though given your reputation.


  • Options
    #6108
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    https://twitter.com/Eugene_Scott/status/1270336068466991106?s=19

    "Antifa provocateur"


  • Options
    #6109
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,599 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    extra gravy wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/Eugene_Scott/status/1270336068466991106?s=19

    "Antifa provocateur"

    “Ah but PUSH that’s obviously a clue!”


  • Options
    #6110
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The explanation given here makes it seem to be very plausible and feasible.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1268784881422786560.html

    Blog opens with:

    Watch the old guy's right hand...

    And ends with:

    ...looks like what the dude in the video...

    What age is the "plausible and feasible" author? 13?


  • Options
    #6111
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    So you call this baseless with mountains evidence showing that he just defamed him? I hope you are not a lawyer and if so I wouldnt want you representing me
    The only mountain of evidence I've seen from the video is that police officers acted accordingly. And why is it you harp on first amendment rights to protect the media and politicians except when it comes to Trump?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6112
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    extra gravy wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/Eugene_Scott/status/1270336068466991106?s=19

    "Antifa provocateur"
    You forgot "could be."

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6113
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    kilns wrote: »
    In truth people like you fascinate me, you are obviously intelligent but have some real blindspots and you cannot see any logic whatsoever when it comes to these blindspots and frankly reading you defend the indefensible is highly amusing
    I'll be here all week... don't forget to tip your waitress.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6114
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    notobtuse wrote: »
    The only mountain of evidence I've seen from the video is that police officers acted accordingly. And why is it you harp on first amendment rights to protect the media and politicians except when it comes to Trump?

    Can you defame someone under the 1st amendment? I am not an expert


  • Options
    #6115
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,599 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    kilns wrote: »
    Can you defame someone under the 1st amendment? I am not an expert

    Defamation is excluded from the protection of the first amendment.


  • Options
    #6116
    extra gravy
    Registered Users Posts: 22,625 ✭✭✭✭extra gravy


    notobtuse wrote: »
    You forgot "could be."

    Do you think Trump is above the law and should be allowed to regularly defame people on Twitter?


  • Options
    #6117
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    Blog opens with:

    Watch the old guy's right hand...

    And ends with:

    ...looks like what the dude in the video...

    What age is the "plausible and feasible" author? 13?
    Call me crazy but I think anyone, who after reading the explanation, would question if the author's age is around 13, would come from someone even younger than that.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6118
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    extra gravy wrote: »
    Do you think Trump is above the law and should be allowed to regularly defame people on Twitter?
    I think you defame him here all the time, and the same goes from people on Twitter. And everyone gets away with it. Do you not think he deserves to be treated on social media the same as everyone else?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #6119
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users Posts: 14,375 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Call me crazy but I think anyone, who after reading the explanation, would question if the author's age is around 13, would come from someone even younger than that.

    I don't think you're crazy. Considering you're defending Trump's vicious tweet and a criminal assault on a 75 year old man, I think you're very misguided.


  • Options
    #6120
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,470 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    notobtuse wrote: »
    I think you defame him here all the time, and the same goes from people on Twitter. And everyone gets away with it. Do you not think he deserves to be treated on social media the same as everyone else?

    calling somebody an idiot is protected under the first amendment. Trump is an idiot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6121
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    I don't think you're crazy. Considering you're defending Trump's vicious tweet and a criminal assault on a 75 year old man, I think you're very misguided.
    Thank you for that. Truly. Being called misguided to what I'm normally called here is a pleasant surprise.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement