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

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Nope. I've never pointed any of my guns at a person. Ever.

But if I was over in the States, and in similar circumstances to the McCloskeys, I doubt I'd think twice about it if I felt my life or property was under threat.

You can't compare Ireland to the States because the BLM riots/protesting/looting/whatever you want to call it isn't happening here.

i call it protesting because that is what it was. there was no looting or rioting. there was no threat to life or property.

Tea drinker

Angry crowd who smashed gate = peaceful protestors
We've seen many many videos of of peacful riots and heartwarming scenes of destroyed neighbourhoods. Why would anyone be afraid of a large group of people?

Carfacemandog

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there we go so, its not a race thing, the guy is just mad for his 2nd amendment rights.

It's beginning to look like you're just sh*t posting at this point, to be honest.

You're still also avoiding fake news on opposition to Susan B. Anthony fake news you were spreading earlier I see. This is what people meant yesterday about you refusing to engage in any refutations of the nonsense you post sometimes. You denied it and played the victim about being asked to defend things trump said you never opined on. So go ahead and tell us why if you were duped by fake news, or if you were intentionally spreading it, because I am asking about what you posted, as have others, but you seem to be avoiding answering.

Timberrrrrrrr

Tea drinker wrote: »

Angry crowd who smashed gate = peaceful protestors
We've seen many many videos of of peacful riots and heartwarming scenes of destroyed neighbourhoods. Why would anyone be afraid of a large group of people?

Except this argument falls apart when it has already been proven beyond doubt that he pointed the gun at people on a public road who had walked through an open and undamaged gate.

Leroy42

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd have done the same as the McCloskeys if I was in their shoes.

And that is fine as it stands.

but there is no need to lie about the protestors, try to paint as rioters or trespassing or having damaged property.

They over reacted, and I can understand with tensions rising, not helped by Trump it must be said, that they felt under risk, but now that we all know that none of that is true then treating them as heroes, to be welcomed onto the stage of the GOP convention is really odd.

Billy Mays

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Except some of those protestors are white...

I knew well it would be drilled down to a race thing, its always got to be about race with the left

When you post day after day after day giving out about black and brown people, even calling for some of them to be murdered, you really shouldn't be surprised if people come to the conclusion it's a race thing

Carfacemandog

Tea drinker wrote: »

Angry crowd who smashed gate = peaceful protestors
We've seen many many videos of of peacful riots and heartwarming scenes of destroyed neighbourhoods. Why would anyone be afraid of a large group of people?

The video of the gate in pristine condition when the Mccloskeys pulled their guns out have been shown repeatedly. Going from your post, you have been reading the thread, so you already knew that.

Quin_Dub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there we go so, its not a race thing, the guy is just mad for his 2nd amendment rights.

Nothing to do with 2nd Amendment rights and more to do with specious claims of property rights.

So - At a time when the Pandemic and the response to it is the single most important issue for Americans , Trump thinks that having a solid gold arsehole who likes to wave guns at people who come anywhere near property he thinks he owns as a guest speaker at his parties National convention is a great idea.

Like I said earlier - Which "personal story" is likely to have greater impact ?

The woman talking about her fathers death from Covid at the Democrat convention or the Rich Bully talking about how poor people shouldn't be allowed to walk past his house?

ohnonotgmail

Tea drinker wrote: »

Angry crowd who smashed gate = peaceful protestors
We've seen many many videos of of peacful riots and heartwarming scenes of destroyed neighbourhoods. Why would anyone be afraid of a large group of people?

we have already established that the protesters did not smash the gate.

duploelabs

Funny how a lot of the trumpeters are harping back to situation in Saint Louis, thus directing away direction about the lackluster report on the senate investigation in to the Russian influence on the 2016 election

BattleCorp

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What circumstances were they in? How was their life or property under threat?

To be fair, you don't know how the McCloskey's felt when they saw a crowd of protesters outside of their property. They may well have felt that their property or life was under threat. Given that so many protests in the days before the incident had turned violent, I don't think it was an unreasonable reaction from them. Maybe they shouldn't have pointed their guns at the protesters but fear can make people do irrational things.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i call it protesting because that is what it was. there was no looting or rioting. there was no threat to life or property.

You are correct, it wasn't rioting or looting. I'd also call it protesting.

But that doesn't mean that there was no 'potential' threat to life or property as many of the previous peaceful protests turned violent. To use the motto of the scouts, 'always be prepared' or something like that.

Overheal

Irishman80 wrote: »

Since when did sworn testimony to a court from a witness saying she saw Clinton on the Island become hearsay evidence?

I don’t know if you just woke up in 2020 or what but do you remember the Impeachment?

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

To be fair, you don't know how the McCloskey's felt when they saw a crowd of protesters outside of their property. They may well have felt that their property or life was under threat. Given that so many protests in the days before the incident had turned violent, I don't think it was an unreasonable reaction from them. Maybe they shouldn't have pointed their guns at the protesters but fear can make people do irrational things.



You are correct, it wasn't rioting or looting. I'd also call it protesting.

But that doesn't mean that there was no 'potential' threat to life or property as many of the previous peaceful protests turned violent. To use the motto of the scouts, 'always be prepared' or something like that.

waving guns around is not being prepared. sitting in your house with a gun on your lap because you think there is a possibility of being attacked would be being prepared.

hotmail.com

These conventions are like something out of North Korea.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

waving guns around is not being prepared. sitting in your house with a gun on your lap because you think there is a possibility of being attacked would be being prepared.

Having the gun is being prepared.

Standing in front of your property holding your firearm is being prepared as it might discourage people from deciding to convert from a peaceful protest into a destroying property protest.

Pointing the gun at protesters was an error on their part.

weisses

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

waving guns around is not being prepared. sitting in your house with a gun on your lap because you think there is a possibility of being attacked would be being prepared.

Rocking chair on the porch is as far as I would go

hotmail.com

hotmail.com wrote: »

These conventions are like something out of North Korea.

They're more Americanised than European equivalents but similar tends to exist in most countries. Eg Ardfheises

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Having the gun is being prepared.

Standing in front of your property holding your firearm is being prepared as it might discourage people from deciding to convert from a peaceful protest into a destroying property protest.

Pointing the gun at protesters was an error on their part.

no ****. one without any consequences as well.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They're more Americanised than European equivalents but similar tends to exist in most countries. Eg Ardfheises

Europe has nothing like this.

All the broadcast media devote prime time to some of the speeches.

America really does live in a little propaganda bubble.

Chris_Heilong

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

The footage only shows it for a second, also it was shot by a member of that protesters so will only show what makes them look good.

Tea drinker

Carfacemandog wrote: »

The video of the gate in pristine condition when the Mccloskeys pulled their guns out have been shown repeatedly. Going from your post, you have been reading the thread, so you already knew that.

Yeah so the peaceful protesters smashed the gate later. Unless your conspiracy theory is the Mccloskey gang smashed it themselves?

Akesh

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The McCloskeys defence is that they came out with guns because rioters broke down the gate and were attempting to access their property.

That is a lie - No Ifs, No Buts, No Maybes.

What happened to the gate after that is entirely secondary to the McCloskeys defence.

They lied about the reason they came out with guns - Missouri has "the Castle doctrine" in their laws which allows the use of force in defence of property. But as no one actually entered their property, that does not apply here.

And again - It's NOT a private road , the McCloskeys would just like it to be.

Why don't you read the facts? Portland Place, where the McCloskeys live, is still a private street. Why are you making things up?

ohnonotgmail

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

The footage only shows it for a second, also it was shot by a member of that protesters so will only show what makes them look good.

the gate is clearly not damaged. you can hear the mccloskeys voice a few seconds later. you are trying really hard to justify pointing a gun at peaceful protesters and it has failed.

ohnonotgmail

Tea drinker wrote: »

Yeah so the peaceful protesters smashed the gate later. Unless your conspiracy theory is the Mccloskey gang smashed it themselves?

it doesn't matter who smashed the gate. people are trying to justify the waving of firearms by pointing to the smashed gate. as the gate was smashed when the guns were produced it cannot be a factor can it? or are you proposing some sort of temporal anomaly?

ohnonotgmail

"A mob of at least 100 smashed through the historic wrought-iron gates of Portland Place, destroying them, rushed towards my home where my family was having dinner outside and put us in fear of our lives," Mark McCloskey told News 4 on Monday.

people here continue to repeat the lie told by mccloskey despite all the evidence to the contrary. we are truly living in a post-fact world.

ollkiller

I would love if ye all shut the **** up about the gate.

Quin_Dub

Akesh wrote: »

Why don't you read the facts? Portland Place, where the McCloskeys live, is still a private street. Why are you making things up?

Did you read the article I linked to?

Under the law, it is not a private Street. The residents would like it to be and by having the gate etc. they try to make it seem that way.

But it is in fact a public Street that any one is allowed to walk down.

Why do you keep trying to refute things that people have provided hard evidence to support without providing ANY yourself??

Akesh

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

people here continue to repeat the lie told by mccloskey despite all the evidence to the contrary. we are truly living in a post-fact world.

You wrote the above but proceeded it by posting this:

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we have already established that the protesters did not smash the gate.

I like how from your bedroom, in Ireland, you have established, without a shred of a doubt, who smashed those gates in St. Louis as it wasn't the protesters according to you. What facts are you referring to here? or is it just facts that don't align with your own political views?

Timberrrrrrrr

Akesh wrote: »

You wrote the above but proceeded it by posting this:



I like how from your bedroom, in Ireland, you have established, without a shred of a doubt, who smashed those gates in St. Louis as it wasn't the protesters according to you. What facts are you referring to here? or is it just facts that don't align with your own political views?

Have you any proof as to who did break the Gates?

ohnonotgmail

Akesh wrote: »

You wrote the above but proceeded it by posting this:



I like how from your bedroom, in Ireland, you have established, without a shred of a doubt, who smashed those gates in St. Louis as it wasn't the protesters according to you. What facts are you referring to here? or is it just facts that don't align with your own political views?

by protesters i mean the protesters that the guns were pointed at. that should be clear. i am trying to make this as simple as possible for the trump supporters to understand but you dont make it easy.