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
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.
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.
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: » Nobody is 'treading on' these militias or just the conservative armed citizenry right now, because they aren't part of the immediate problem. .
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.
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.
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.
Midlife wrote: » Without treating every peaceful protestor as a rioter. I think that was the point being made
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Foxtrol wrote: » The president is the leader of the nation, it is his job to try to unify it but he has chosen to throw petrol on the fire. Despite how he refuses to accept it, he is responsible for how things are going. He let a spark grow into a fire and is now fanning the flames for his own ego. Don't take my logic, polls are already showing an all time low in people being happy with the direction the country is going and that was prior to the president attacking peaceful protesters for photo ops last night or rolling out the army into cities. Look at that jump from republicans and independents.https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1267879242949328896?s=20
Professor Moriarty wrote: » You make things seem so simple.
RIGOLO wrote: » Thanks for posting that picture, its been a while since Ive seen a photo of civilians standing near a police vehicle that they werent beating the crap out of and trying to set on fire. The internet is awash with photos of people protecting their property , and being supported by the police, and photos of people destroying other peoples property and getting the wrong side of the police.
So you'd be comfortable with a police officer firing that close to your child? Do you think it would be deemed acceptable in Ireland for Garda to do that or do you think they'd have proper training and be more cautious?
I followed his eyeline and gunline. They're both squarely aimed at the adult with the child on their shoulders. Seriously - look at the photo! It's as clear as it can be without a face-on photo over the shoulder of the man being aimed at.
RIGOLO wrote: » All that poll shows is that a majority of people on both sides think the countrys major cities being under curfew is a bad path. Theres no poll on who is to blame or who is the solution. Npvember will be the important poll on that. Polls are pretty meaningless in thsi day and age , before anyone makes an honest answer now adays htey consider is this being recorded and will it come back to haunt me and what is the correct identity politics answer to give. Ive over a hundred polls from 2015 that says TRump would lose the election.. you see, like I said polls are meaningless in this day and age, they are just conversation punctuation. .
Manic Moran wrote: » I don't need to. Here, have an armed black militia "invading" a legislature.https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/03/31/15480412/5/rawImage.jpg At the height of the civil rights era, no less, when blacks -really- made people nervous.https://capweekly-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Black-Panther-with-shotgun-634x321.jpg The State Police officer here seems rather unconcerned.https://i.redd.it/k15zbfs130921.png Too old? How about last month? A couple of days after the predominantly white folks showed up at the Michican legislature with guns, so did some black folks.https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c57493fd06ee5c9751b9d9f58472e7150eb03f48/0_1731_3024_2147/master/3024.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2& Be peaceful, obey the law, nobody gets into trouble. Seems a rather simple concept devoid of race. Don't forget Rule 1 of Chris Rock's "How not to get your ass beat by the police" video. It is an entirely unrelated and separate incident. I wouldn't be, but apparently that dad is OK with the possibility, or he wouldn't have brought the child along. Rubbish. Here's the larger version. https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/status/1267523353289474048/photo/1 Wonder why the father/child are in perfect focus yet the policeman supposedly right in front of him isn't? They cannot be about the same distance from the camera. He's looking exactly the same direction as the man to his right, also out of frame. The only person who might be looking at dad/daughter is the chap in the background, his head turned towards the left.
Manic Moran wrote: » I don't need to. Here, have an armed black militia "invading" a legislature.https://s.hdnux.com/photos/73/03/31/15480412/5/rawImage.jpg At the height of the civil rights era, no less, when blacks -really- made people nervous.https://capweekly-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Black-Panther-with-shotgun-634x321.jpg The State Police officer here seems rather unconcerned.https://i.redd.it/k15zbfs130921.png
Be peaceful, obey the law, nobody gets into trouble. Seems a rather simple concept devoid of race. Don't forget Rule 1 of Chris Rock's "How not to get your ass beat by the police" video. It is an entirely unrelated and separate incident.
I wouldn't be, but apparently that dad is OK with the possibility, or he wouldn't have brought the child along.
Manic Moran wrote: » I Rubbish. Here's the larger version. https://twitter.com/richardgrant88/status/1267523353289474048/photo/1 Wonder why the father/child are in perfect focus yet the policeman supposedly right in front of him isn't? They cannot be about the same distance from the camera. He's looking exactly the same direction as the man to his right, also out of frame.
