RIGOLO wrote: » You think Trump a Republican is the arsonist for an event (Mr Floyds death) in a Democrat city , in a Democrat state (since 1932), with a Democrat Senator , Democrat House Rep, Democrat mayor, Democrat AG, Democrat Police Chief. I cant counter that logic.
RIGOLO wrote: » A strong case can easily be made that post-race riots , Republican Presidential candidates do well. History has already been written on that.
RIGOLO wrote: » White armed militia storm government buildings to force government to OPEN UP BUISNESS.. Black militias storm their neighbourhoods to burn down their neighbours businesses. Seems to be a difference in their agendas.
Foxtrol wrote: » And these lovely bunch of white vigilantes in Philly yesterday that the police let stroll around threatening protesters with baseball bats and axes and even stopped to take photos with them laterhttps://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1267605738844717056?s=20https://twitter.com/llchristyll/status/1267798618947358721?s=20
RIGOLO wrote: » A strong case can easily be made that post-race riots , Republican Presidential candidates do well. History has already been written on that. During Johnsons term 63-69 we had major race riots ,albeit connected to the civil rights movement but violent protests none the less, from 63 in Birmingham AL, thru 64 NJ, 65 LA Watts riots, 66 Chicago, 67 NJ+NY to name but a few and culminating in the wide spread riots in 68 after MLKs assaination. America was in flames across over a hundred cities. 1969 Richard Nixon won in a LANDSLIDE ! When theres pandemonium on the streets, when the Democrats have come out on the side of violent rioters , I think middle of the road voters will turn to the candidate that represents law and order and not the party that represents everyone sharing the same bathroom.
fullstop wrote: » Oh yeah the race argument is totally lazy. I mean if the guy in this clip, rocking up to confront protestors with a machine gun strapped across his shoulder, handgun in a holster and dressed in full combat gear, was black, the police would totally have a quiet word and ask him to go home like they did here. Totally.https://twitter.com/taygang98/status/1267269447708028929?s=21
hotmail.com wrote: » If this was happening here, the party that ended the riots would receive popular acclaim. There certainly is an issue with US media race baiting and personalising it with Trump. Cheap analysis with no historical context. The usual lazy race conversation that will quickly move to another story once they get bored of it. Meanwhile, the poor black Americans live on in their poverty and exclusion, something that neither party cares about.
hotmail.com wrote: » Often the victims of riots and looting are other poor people.
Midlife wrote: » Without treating every peaceful protestor as a rioter. I think that was the point being made
Manic Moran wrote: » I A wonderful example of how an image can show something out of context. It looks like the cop's aiming a tear gas launcher right in the guy's face, right? Yet follow their eyes. They're actually looking off to the left, at something outside of camera frame.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Because the armed and masked militias who invaded government buildings in Michigan a month ago were white. Imagine if they were black? Shudder.
Manic Moran wrote: » It's not the peaceful protestors that they're thinking about. The government use of force against people who are causing mayhem and violence is not something with which they have a problem. There is no hypocrisy or dichotomy in this attitude. Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem.
A wonderful example of how an image can show something out of context. It looks like the cop's aiming a tear gas launcher right in the guy's face, right? Yet follow their eyes. They're actually looking off to the left, at something outside of camera frame. That doesn't deny that it's an impactful photograph, but it's impactful for how it's commonly interpreted, not for what it's actually showing.
Manic Moran wrote: » Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem. .
RIGOLO wrote: » Yes you got me , Trump was stoking black American racial tensions by getting them back to work, getting them buisnesses to run, and tax incentives for minority community investment. Someone else decided to light this particular bonfire, Trump as President just has the job of putting it out. He will gain votes when he does, and hte Democrats are losing votes everytime a window gets smashed, a business is burned to the ground. Its too late for Dems to change tack, they nailed their colours to the mast long time ago. They cant come out and condemn any action by a minority individual or group now cos the party is so stuck up its identity politics tree.
Manic Moran wrote: » It's not the peaceful protestors that they're thinking about. The government use of force against people who are causing mayhem and violence is not something with which they have a problem. There is no hypocrisy or dichotomy in this attitude. Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem. A wonderful example of how an image can show something out of context. It looks like the cop's aiming a tear gas launcher right in the guy's face, right? Yet follow their eyes. They're actually looking off to the left, at something outside of camera frame. That doesn't deny that it's an impactful photograph, but it's impactful for how it's commonly interpreted, not for what it's actually showing.
Leroy42 wrote: » You are of the opinion that race tensions, even riots, actually benefit the GOP. Are we then supposed to believe that Trump, like you, doesn't see this as a win win. Stoke tensions, drive the military onto the streets, rile up the protesters all so he can look the tough guy. Given that Covid is a disaster, his economy is in the toilet, he needed something. This is the spark So race tensions are good but they wouldn't use them? That is what you are trying to suggest. That a man as politically savvy as Trump, that has used attacks and divisions as his main weapon, is somehow against using this to his advantage. If you believe that it is win win, then you must also accept that Trump is actively working on that very strategy
Foxtrol wrote: » I'm not sure if you fall into that category but it is good to see the mask slip off the 'don't tread on me' folk, who have for years claimed they had some sort of moral code that they wanted to hold guns for fear of government overreach but now are supporting the government in attacks on peaceful protesters, mobilizing the army, and curfews.
https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/s...289474048?s=20
RIGOLO wrote: » Like I said its a win win for Trump. If he handles the riots well and they subside then he wins, If the riots continue for much longer and get closer to the DNC or GOP conventions then most certainly American middle of the road voters will lean towards Trump. I dont make the rules, but this is how the game is played. Once more the Democrats and main streamn media are fueling the fires that will get TRump elected. They have been race-baiting the populace for 4 years . They are the ones increaing race tensions and have done nothing to contain them . Come November voters will decide if they want Joe Biden who has come out and said the police were heavy handed in dealing with rioters, or vote for Trump who said the police need to get tougher with the rioters and protect property, livelihoods and jobs.
Foxtrol wrote: » You have failed repeatedly to give any justification for why people would vote for an arsonist to put out the fire. As for Biden, he has images like this that the world are seeing to back up his comments about the police and due to Trump stupidly deciding he wants to try to look like a strongman Biden can also demand for rioting/looting to stop and calling for unity.https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/status/1267523353289474048?s=20
looksee wrote: » I just watched a report showing a few cases where police tried to show a bit of solidarity with the peaceful protesters, walk with them, talk with them and generally act in a more civilised manner than has been demonstrated in most places. Then there is footage of troops - National Guard - arriving at the White House. Both Barr and Trump are talking up more action, stronger responses and creating a sense of threat and panic from the top. Is this a deliberate attempt to foment civil war? Do they have any justification in their own minds for doing this? What is going on in their heads? Is it some sort of deliberate attempt to tear the country apart?
Leroy42 wrote: » So this is, politically speaking, a good thing for the GOP and Trump. Lets look at that. What you are suggesting is that increasing race tensions, the inevitable explosion and subsequent put down by state bodies such as the police has, historically, been advantageous for GOP. Yet we are also supposed to believe that the GOP and Trump are the best party to run America?
