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

WrenBoy

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They are indeed Racist , Homphobic , Land stealing dickheads , who also point guns at people to make a point and not just "when in fear for their lives".

Absolutely ZERO sensationalism involved.

Cant go into the links at the minute, what did they do that was Racist and homophobic? I only know them from the story about the mob at their house.

mcmoustache

namloc1980 wrote: »

What didn't take long? That particular video was published in November 2018. Nice attempt though to try to make it about poor little Donald.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlQn2_ehMU8

Why would someone misrepresent a video like that? Eric posted that video as if it was a reaction to the Trump pardon. But if the video was made before the pardon, it would be difficult for it to be a reaction - cause and effect and all that.

So, was Eric simply misled by some dodgy right-wing source in his media bubble or did he know this already and posted it anyway in an attempt to deceive people for internet points?

ohnonotgmail

mcmoustache wrote: »

Why would someone misrepresent a video like that? Eric posted that video as if it was a reaction to the Trump pardon. But if the video was made before the pardon, it would be difficult for it to be a reaction - cause and effect and all that.

So, was Eric simply misled by some dodgy right-wing source in his media bubble or did he know this already and posted it anyway in an attempt to deceive people for internet points?

seems to be the start of a pattern if last night is anything to go by.

Quin_Dub

WrenBoy wrote: »

Cant go into the links at the minute, what did they do that was Racist and homophobic? I only know them from the story about the mob at their house.

They sued their housing association (which are common organisations in American Suburbs) looking to have a gay couple removed from the area as they claimed it was against the "charter of the association.

In terms of the Racist bit - Outside of their claims relating to the current incident there's not a lot. So in the absence of a result of those courts cases I'll concede that they are perhaps not racist , but they certainly do not like "different".


I think the fundamental point here though is about the suitability or impact of having them at the GOP convention.

Compare the story lines of the "real" people seen at conventions

The Democrats had that woman whose father died of Covid talking about that tragedy and it's impact on their family.

The Republicans are going to have a Rich guy complaining that black people trampled his flowerbeds (they didn't).

At a time when ~175k people are dead and at a stage where pretty much everyone in the US at least knows of someone that has been hospitalised by the virus.

Which story is likely to resonate with more people?
Which story shows more empathy and compassion?

mcmoustache

mcmoustache wrote: »

Why would someone misrepresent a video like that? Eric posted that video as if it was a reaction to the Trump pardon. But if the video was made before the pardon, it would be difficult for it to be a reaction - cause and effect and all that.

So, was Eric simply misled by some dodgy right-wing source in his media bubble or did he know this already and posted it anyway in an attempt to deceive people for internet points?

In fairness, the original account put up the video again. The odder part is that he has no interest in considering the legitimate criticisms and instead gets outraged... For a guy who tends to complain about snowflakes a lot, it's amusing. :P

Cody montana

Any predictions for gop convention speakers?

Quin_Dub

Cody montana wrote: »

Any predictions for gop convention speakers?

By all accounts the whole agenda for the thing is still in flux..TV station still have not been given any details

This article has the latest list it would seem.

• Mike Pence
• Nikki Haley
• Melania and the Kids
• Various Senators/Congress people
• The McCloskeys as already mentioned
• Nick Sandmann ( The MAGA hat kid from the incident in Washington)
• Abby Johnson (Anti-Abortion activist)
• Andrew Pollack (Parkland shooting victim father)

Notable by their absence - No GW Bush , No Romney etc.

So none of the previous Presidents or nominees to speak.

Akesh

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.

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.

ohnonotgmail

Quin_Dub wrote: »

By all accounts the whole agenda for the thing is still in flux..TV station still have not been given any details

This article has the latest list it would seem.

• Mike Pence
• Nikki Haley
• Melania and the Kids
• Various Senators/Congress people
• The McCloskeys as already mentioned
• Nick Sandmann ( The MAGA hat kid from the incident in Washington)
• Abby Johnson (Anti-Abortion activist)
• Andrew Pollack (Parkland shooting victim father)

Notable by their absence - No GW Bush , No Romney etc.

So none of the previous Presidents or nominees to speak.

I'm sure Melanias delivery will make Michelles speech sound even better than the original

Quin_Dub

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.

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.

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.