2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Chris_Heilong

ChikiChiki wrote: »

So the Republic Convention is getting the people who pointed guns (rightly or wrongly) at BLM protestors and the kid who had words with a Native American to speak.

The optics of this are absolutely terrible. An increased effort to create divisions if anything.

They were both victims of the bias media.

Akesh

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The suggestion of a connection to "fake news" in relation to Nick Sandmann has some merit , although I'd argue it's less about "fake" news and more about the mad rush to be 1st with a story in the Internet age meaning that due diligence is no longer applied properly.

But is has absolutely nothing to do with the McCloskeys.

First off, they weren't "Rioters" , Secondly - at no point did anyone set foot on property owned by the McCloskeys yet they came running out of their house with guns to point them at people walking past , something none of the other neighbours in the area felt it necessary to do interestingly enough.

I have read up a small bit on the McCloskeys and they do seem like strange people but nonetheless, at the time there was BLM rioting across the US. How do you know they weren't rioters? How were the McCloskeys supposed to know? There was rioting in St. Louis from BLM at the time so I don't think you can blame some people for opting to proactively defend their porperty. What the neighbours did is irrelevant.

They didn't come running out of the house, they were standing on their own property. No need to be so fictitious to emphasise a point just because you don't agree with them.

Chris_Heilong

This is amazing that it is actually a part of Trumps campaign ads, I know both sides had some really over the top adverts years ago but this one takes the biscuit.

Fiery mutant

Akesh wrote: »

The kid was demonised by the media for doing absolutely nothing wrong and the gun owners are examples of people protecting their property, if I was in the situation they were in I would have done the same thing to protect my family and property from rioters.

It all plays into the narrative of fake news media, which in both cases is true.

That's not saying they should be speaking at a political convention but US politics is nothing but optics anyway.

As far as I’m aware, there was no threats made to these people or their property. The protestors just walked by the property on their way to protest at someone else’s. And you call them rioters, when there is no such evidence they engaged in any riot.

And when you automatically add In ‘fake news media’ to a post, it just delegitimises a lot of what you say.

ohnonotgmail

however much Trump is paying his media team it is too much. awful stuff altogether.

Akesh

Fiery mutant wrote: »

As far as I’m aware, there was no threats made to these people or their property. The protestors just walked by the property on their way to protest at someone else’s. And you call them rioters, when there is no such evidence they engaged in any riot.

And when you automatically add In ‘fake news media’ to a post, it just delegitimises a lot of what you say.

Firstly, I didn't call the protesters 'rioters', I said they were protecting their property from rioters because rioting was happening in St. Louis at the time, that doesn't mean the people walking by, whom by all accounts did nothing wrong, are rioters. Perhaps try and read it again because you seem very quick to jump to a conclusion without paying attention to what I wrote.

Secondly, you must have missed the word 'narrative' for your second point. Again, a bit of reading would have solved that problem for you.

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't call the protesters 'rioters', I said they were protecting their property from rioters because rioting was happening in St. Louis at the time, that doesn't mean the people walking by, whom by all accounts did nothing wrong, are rioters. Perhaps try and read it again because you seem very quick to jump to a conclusion without paying attention to what I wrote.

Secondly, you must have missed the word 'narrative' for your second point. Please read something entirely before jumping to a nonsense response because you don't agree or understand.

there was no rioting happening at that location at that time so they were not protecting their property from rioters. they only came out when the protestors started walking past.

Quin_Dub

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

This is amazing that it is actually a part of Trumps campaign ads, I know both sides had some really over the top adverts years ago but this one takes the biscuit.

Anyone can create anything they want - The Lincoln project haven't been shy about their Trump stuff , so if this is from a similar "non affiliated" group that's one thing , but if it's an official campaign video it's an appalling indictment of the state of US politics.

I suspect it isn't though as official stuff usually has the "I'm Candidate X and I approve of this message" rider at the end so hopefully it isn't.

Leroy42

Akesh wrote: »

Firstly, I didn't call the protesters 'rioters', I said they were protecting their property from rioters because rioting was happening in St. Louis at the time, that doesn't mean the people walking by, whom by all accounts did nothing wrong, are rioters. Perhaps try and read it again because you seem very quick to jump to a conclusion without paying attention to what I wrote.

Secondly, you must have missed the word 'narrative' for your second point. Again, a bit of reading would have solved that problem for you.

What, based on that logic everyone should be out protecting their property because some crime is happening somewhere!

The problem with calling out a narrative is that Trump has excelled at that very policy the last 5 years. Narratives are simply made up and then it becomes true and something that needs to be defended against.

The lastest, mail in fraud, there isn't a shred of evidence to back it up. There is in fact far more evidence of foreign interference in the electoral system but Trump ignores that.

He has repeatedly demonised people over quotes taken out of context, pictures without explanation. He throws some mud (X is crazy etc) and then lets the pieces fall down where they will.

So whilst I gree that the narrative on a lot of these stories is poor and usually comes with a particular slant, then main cultrip is the person currently pretending to be POTUS.

WrenBoy

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was no rioting happening at that location at that time so they were not protecting their property from rioters. they only came out when the protestors started walking past.

I'd say when the crowd destroyed the gate to gain access to the street the noise and act itself would have been fairly frightening when you've watched your city burning for the past few days on TV.

ohnonotgmail

WrenBoy wrote: »

I'd say when the crowd destroyed the gate to gain access to the street the noise and act itself would have been fairly frightening when you've watched your city burning for the past few days on TV.

the gate wasn't destroyed when the protestors passed through. any damage to the gate was done later. they seen some black people and immediately reached for their gun. not only did they produce guns they kept their fingers on the triggers while sweeping them across the protesters passing by. why they weren't charged with reckless endangerment i dont know.

Quin_Dub

WrenBoy wrote: »

I'd say when the crowd destroyed the gate to gain access to the street the noise and act itself would have been fairly frightening when you've watched your city burning for the past few days on TV.

That didn't happen - There's video of the protesters going through the gate.

A person can seen seen holding the gate open while the people come through. The gate was not damaged when they opened it , nor was it damaged when they walked through.

They did not go back that way either , they continued to move forward to their destination - The house of a local council member I think?

The gate was damaged at some time later , but not during the incident where the McCloskeys waved their guns at people.

Who might have had reason to damage the gate later on after the protesters had left?

Akesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there was no rioting happening at that location at that time so they were not protecting their property from rioters. they only came out when the protestors started walking past.

Why are you lying? The protesters destroyed the gate to get onto a private road.

What would you call that? A welcome invitation? You seem to be missing a lot of facts here, almost all the facts I would say to suit your own agenda.

Leroy42 wrote: »

What, based on that logic everyone should be out protecting their property because some crime is happening somewhere!

The problem with calling out a narrative is that Trump has excelled at that very policy the last 5 years. Narratives are simply made up and then it becomes true and something that needs to be defended against.

But that is only what has happened inside of your own head. Protesters broke into a gated community and destroyed the gate, all in the context of BLM protesters rioting in St. Louis and the US. It's not rocket science why some people would feel threatened by protesters breaking into their area but I suspect you can't comprehend that.

BattleCorp

Fiery mutant wrote: »

As far as I’m aware, there was no threats made to these people or their property. The protestors just walked by the property on their way to protest at someone else’s. And you call them rioters, when there is no such evidence they engaged in any riot.

The protesters broke down a gate that led into the gated community. That's criminal damage and trespassing right there.

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Why are you lying? The protesters destroyed the gate to get onto a private road.

What would you call that? A welcome invitation? You seem to be missing a lot of facts here, almost all the facts I would say to suit your own agenda.



But that is only what has happened inside of your own head. Protesters broke into a gated community and destroyed the gate, all in the context of BLM protesters rioting in St. Louis and the US. It's not rocket science why some people would feel threatened by protesters breaking into their area but I suspect you can't comprehend that.

in the footage of the protestors the gate was not damaged. you have no idea who damaged that gate or when.

ebbsy

Democratic Convention in progress.

Trump brings in the postal service distraction to keep him in the headlines.

#Genius

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

in the footage of the protestors the gate was not damaged. you have no idea who damaged that gate or when.

how did they get on to the private road then ?

Carfacemandog

Akesh wrote: »

Why are you lying? The protesters destroyed the gate to get onto a private road.

They are not lying. Look at the video in this link - https://www.riverfronttimes.com/newsblog/2020/06/29/couple-who-pointed-guns-at-protesters-release-statement-in-support-of-protesters

8 seconds in you see the gate in perfect condition, being held open by a black guy in a hat as protesters peacefully walk through. 22 seconds in you see the Mccloskeys beginning to wave their guns around and the person recording stare 'he has a gun'.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

how did they get on to the private road then ?

they opened the gate. not difficult to understand. I presume you are going to pretend again that something else happened and there are definitely links out there that prove what you say and then later come back to say you cant find them.

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they opened the gate. not difficult to understand. I presume you are going to pretend again that something else happened and there are definitely links out there that prove what you say and then later come back to say you cant find them.

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

so you admit that the gate wasn't damaged when they produced firearms? can we at least try and get some way to the truth. the people who they pointed guns at were not threatening them. and i am curious what you mean by

the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots

do you mean they are mostly black or you using some other criteria to compare them?

Akesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they opened the gate. not difficult to understand. I presume you are going to pretend again that something else happened and there are definitely links out there that prove what you say and then later come back to say you cant find them.

https://twitter.com/alexiszotos/status/1277607426934616065

Are you suggesting they destroyed it themselves? There is no suggestion that the people holding open the gate are the people in question who caused the damage anyway so that video proves absolutely nothing, although I suspect that may be lost on you.

Eric Cartman

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you admit that the gate wasn't damaged when they produced firearms? can we at least try and get some way to the truth. the people who they pointed guns at were not threatening them. and i am curious what you mean by

do you mean they are mostly black or you using some other criteria to compare them?

I only asked how they got onto the private road, I never said they damaged the gate.
Just because there isn't an effective barrier doesn't mean you have the right to enter private land.

I mean they are holding placards, have scarves and bandanas over their faces and they have placards/flags with anti police / anti capitalist slogans. If you lined up the rioters next to these protestors (some of whom may also be rioters) there would be no way to separate them visually.

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

'Appear to look the same' - in what way? I see peaceful protesters chanting and playing the drums. The person in the expensive suit right at the start that just walks by with zero issues appears to be a resident there (it's not what people wear to protest, and they are not participating/interacting), they don't seem threatened even remotely.

And how come you've had nothing to say on the fake news you were spreading earlier re Susan B. Anthony?

ohnonotgmail

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I only asked how they got onto the private road, I never said they damaged the gate.
Just because there isn't an effective barrier doesn't mean you have the right to enter private land.

I mean they are holding placards, have scarves and bandanas over their faces and they have placards/flags with anti police / anti capitalist slogans. If you lined up the rioters next to these protestors (some of whom may also be rioters) there would be no way to separate them visually.

very easy way to separate. by how they behave. the protesters presented no threat to them. the guns appear a few seconds after they walk through the gates. are you trying to say that pointing guns at the protesters with your finger on the trigger is a proportionate response?

Carfacemandog

Akesh wrote: »

Are you suggesting they destroyed it themselves? There is no suggestion that the people holding open the gate are the people in question who caused the damage anyway so that video proves absolutely nothing, although I suspect that may be lost on you.

There was zero damage to the gate when the Mccloskeys pulled out their guns.

Hence, the claim the Mccloskeys pulled out their guns because they were terrified due to "rioting" in their neighbourhood and damage to the gate is utterly false.

Quin_Dub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

riots in the city, the people who appear to look the same as the people responsible for the riots show up en masse and access a private road. I don't for one second blame that couple for feeling incredibly intimidated.

What was it that made them "appear" to look the same I wonder?

Also - It's not actually a private road. It's a public street that residents have put a gate on.

They have absolutely ZERO legal basis to deny people access to the street - Their property , yes but not the street and at no point did anyone step on their property.

Akesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they opened the gate. not difficult to understand. I presume you are going to pretend again that something else happened and there are definitely links out there that prove what you say and then later come back to say you cant find them.

Imagine being so blinded by politics that you can say that bit in bold. You must have missed many BLM protesters rioting in cities across the US, including in St. Louis the city in question. :pac:

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Are you suggesting they destroyed it themselves? There is no suggestion that the people holding open the gate are the people in question who caused the damage anyway so that video proves absolutely nothing, although I suspect that may be lost on you.

i have no idea who destroyed it apart from it wasnt destroyed at the point that guns were produced. using the damage to justify the use of guns is completely arse about face.

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

Imagine being so blinded by politics that you can say that bit in bold. You must have missed many BLM protesters rioting in cities across the US, including in St. Louis the city in question. :pac:

i was referring to erics posts from last night. apologies if that went over your head.