I’m voting Trump! Who’s with me?!

[Archie Moses]

I just watched this video. My take on it is pretty simple. There was a curefew set in place because of all the crazy rioting, violent destruction and mayhem. The protestors were literally shouting "no peace" at the riot officers and were the first ones to incite violence. Lazy journalism saying they could only find videos of it being bottle water. After that, the protestors get ****ed up.

What did you expect to happen or want to happen? Serious question.

Yeah, peaceful protestors got injured but it's like saying if you're hanging out with people robbing a bank and you're just there as a friend and not stealing anything or you don't have the gun then you should be ignored as a a criminal. I know, a lil extreme but it goes back to the same thing everyone knows. Surround yourself with good people, not people chucking rocks at riot police and chanting threats of no peace at them.

I don't understand what people wanted. Maybe the rioters should have been left alone to destroy the place?

Last thing I will say, I'm against the tear gas and rubber bullets unless you're shooting the guy throwing rocks, glass bottles, and bricks at you then **** that guy. Isn't tear gas banned from wars or why am I think this?

 

[One Brow]

It would be fair to say that you, Wes, Fishonjazz, and One Brow all more or less agree that you strongly dislike Trump and would like to see him replaced by any Democrat on the ticket. (I don't really know Red.)

There's only one Democrat on the ticket right now, but I don't see a VP candidate likely to be worse than Trump.

There are also several Republicans I would prefer to Trump (although theocrats like Pence I'm not so fond of).

I don't mind other people having other viewpoints or opposing viewpoints. There is often an insinuation on this board that if someone doesn't outright hate President Trump, that person must be some kind of backwater racist or misogynist. I don't agree with that view.

To me, the real danger of Trump is the self-interest-above-all-else and the veer toward the cult of personality and fascism, more than any individual policy or position.

 

[One Brow]

There was a curefew set in place because of all the crazy rioting, violent destruction and mayhem.

The time of the curfew had not yet been reached.

The protestors were literally shouting "no peace" at the riot officers and were the first ones to incite violence.

The video points out that the Secret Service acted first, trying to push into the group.

Last thing I will say, I'm against the tear gas and rubber bullets unless you're shooting the guy throwing rocks, glass bottles, and bricks at you then **** that guy. Isn't tear gas banned from wars or why am I think this?

Chemical warfare like mustard gas or Sarin is forbidden.

 

[NAOS]

First of all, it's "you're." Second of all, I'm not flailing, nor am I a "bitch," which shows your level of maturity and civility.



It would be fair to say that you, Wes, Fishonjazz, and One Brow all more or less agree that you strongly dislike Trump and would like to see him replaced by any Democrat on the ticket. (I don't really know Red.) That perspective has been conveyed for years in the General Discussion board. That's not a false equivalence. That's fair equivalence in this context. If any of you disagree, you're welcome to say so. I used the term "you snowflakes" a bit flippantly, as is the tone of this entire thread.



I'm not blaming others for anything. I'm pointing at you for simply ridiculing without making a coherent statement of your own.

Let’s get into typos. Ok. Done with that.

I’ve made plenty of coherent comments/arguments about the inadequacies of this administration over the years. If you can’t remember them, should I apologize? Should we all reprise our most ornamental and well-thought arguments for you right now?

Also, just because two organisms arrive at the same apparent solution doesn’t make them equivalent in substance. That’s not how biology works at any scale. The gulf between myself and the posters I mentioned is significant. But those significances aren’t likely to matter to anyone who’s ready to discredit any idea the moment he/she finds one person or one example that fails to meet the standards of the over-riding reason that they brought into the discussion. Those kind of people are ready to rediscover the same premises they started out with. Reason jails them.

For example, the way you’ve failed at understanding the breadth and intelligence in the “defund the police” argument. Your pattern on this, from what I can tell, has been unchanged for weeks. Anyone is certain to find people flailing wildly at this issue on social media or in front of some camera; and you, Catchall, certainly have found some. But the real question is What’s the point in engaging with these videos? It’s clear that your efforts are about discrediting rather than understanding. And then you’ll go out and find a video and pull it wildly out of context. Again, why? There is, in fact, a valid and important conversation on this topic happening out there, where people are exploring different solutions for different regional problems. Can you actuallllllly believe that, bro? Or are you too busy thinking that “defund” equals, ultimately, ZERO police coverage?

So what’s the point of explaining to you the significance of differences that you elide? There probably isn’t any reason at all. But you should know that you’re creating false equivalences at an incredible (and pitiful) rate. There you go. The most obvious sign of why there isn’t any point in breaking them all down for you is that you’re flailing like a bitch.

 

[Archie Moses]

The time of the curfew had not yet been reached.



The video points out that the Secret Service acted first, trying to push into the group.



Chemical warfare like mustard gas or Sarin is forbidden.

1.) It hadn't. The riot police gathered to prepare to enforce it, I imagine. I'm sure once it turned 7 PM all of those protectors were gonna go home and weren't looking for trouble.

2) I'd have to go back and watch it, but bet anything the people started throwing **** at the police. The video says this although alludes to it being just water bottles. Not a smart thing to do imho.

3) does that include tear gas?

 

[Avery]

Came to this thread expecting a dung-heaving dungshow and I was not disappointed.

 

[fishonjazz]

This entire thread is itself a sarcastic rant against Donald Trump. It follows in the tradition of "Lets all impeach Trump!" and the Election 2020 thread, which is 90% endless liberal railing against Trump. Don't act stupid (unless, of course, it's not an act). See if Wes agrees, or if he really enthusiastically plans to vote for Trump.

If you want to use the word "diatribe" instead of "rant," I'm okay with that. I'm happy to dish at you guys if I've got the time.

If people think this thread is becoming too hot to handle, then lock it.

Colton isn't a liberal. Neither am I.
Hating trump doesn't equate to being a liberal. That's something a snowflake would presume.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

First of all, it's "you're." Second of all, I'm not flailing, nor am I a "bitch," which shows your level of maturity and civility.



It would be fair to say that you, Wes, Fishonjazz, and One Brow all more or less agree that you strongly dislike Trump and would like to see him replaced by any Democrat on the ticket. (I don't really know Red.) That perspective has been conveyed for years in the General Discussion board. That's not a false equivalence. That's fair equivalence in this context. If any of you disagree, you're welcome to say so. I used the term "you snowflakes" a bit flippantly, as is the tone of this entire thread.



I'm not blaming others for anything. I'm pointing at you for simply ridiculing without making a coherent statement of your own.

I wouldnt like to see trump replaced by any Democrat on the ticket. Any Democrat or Republican or any American at all would be fine.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I don't mind other people having other viewpoints or opposing viewpoints. There is often an insinuation on this board that if someone doesn't outright hate President Trump, that person must be some kind of backwater racist or misogynist. I don't agree with that view.



I won't disagree. I think people of similar race do have common political interests in certain situations (especially as we re-examine the state of civil rights), but at the same time, there is incredible variance and diversity within groups of people within the same race. (For example, rarely would it make much sense to generalize about Asians, since Asians are comprised of literally billions of different people in all kinds of situations.) One subtle form of racism is to assume all black people must think the same, or should think the same, or that they should be treated as political capital or as a political quantity by either political party.

There are indeed situations where white people are unaware or unempathetic towards the life experience of other races. I'll own that. The larger, lingering question of how Europeans colonized the west is also a fair, though complicated discussion.

I appreciate your comment here. Constructive and insightful. Respect.



It is a contemptuous and derogatory term. I shouldn't use it to describe anyone, so that's my mistake.

There is an insinuation by you that if you don't love trump then you are liberal who prefers communism to democracy

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I just watched this video. My take on it is pretty simple. There was a curefew set in place because of all the crazy rioting, violent destruction and mayhem. The protestors were literally shouting "no peace" at the riot officers and were the first ones to incite violence. Lazy journalism saying they could only find videos of it being bottle water. After that, the protestors get ****ed up.

What did you expect to happen or want to happen? Serious question.

Yeah, peaceful protestors got injured but it's like saying if you're hanging out with people robbing a bank and you're just there as a friend and not stealing anything or you don't have the gun then you should be ignored as a a criminal. I know, a lil extreme but it goes back to the same thing everyone knows. Surround yourself with good people, not people chucking rocks at riot police and chanting threats of no peace at them.

I don't understand what people wanted. Maybe the rioters should have been left alone to destroy the place?

Last thing I will say, I'm against the tear gas and rubber bullets unless you're shooting the guy throwing rocks, glass bottles, and bricks at you then **** that guy. Isn't tear gas banned from wars or why am I think this?

I wanted a better president who could handle the situation better and who doesn't go to churches for photo ops during such a tumultuous time and use that photo op as a reason to unleash his police force upon people after recently making tweets about how the police and/or military should be ****ing up protesters.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Keefe]

Came to this thread expecting a dung-heaving dungshow and I was not disappointed.

A thank you would be nice.

 

[One Brow]

1.) It hadn't. The riot police gathered to prepare to enforce it, I imagine. I'm sure once it turned 7 PM all of those protectors were gonna go home and weren't looking for trouble.

2) I'd have to go back and watch it, but bet anything the people started throwing **** at the police. The video says this although alludes to it being just water bottles. Not a smart thing to do imho.

3) does that include tear gas?

Regardless of your guesses, do you really think it's a good idea to have police enforce the law before it gets broken?

I was referring to what the narration said, but feel free to bet.

According to Google, it seems to be one.

 

[Archie Moses]

I wanted a better president who could handle the situation better and who doesn't go to churches for photo ops during such a tumultuous time and use that photo op as a reason to unleash his police force upon people after recently making tweets about how the police and/or military should be ****ing up protesters.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

I agree, brother. I just don't think the protestors were all that peaceful or innocent. I guess I just don't get it.

 

[Archie Moses]

Regardless of your guesses, do you really think it's a good idea to have police enforce the law before it gets broken?

I was referring to what the narration said, but feel free to bet.

According to Google, it seems to be one.

I certainly don't want that - I'm just acknowledging the crowd was clearly chanting no peace, inciting violence and throwing **** at the riot police. I guess it's hard for me to feel bad for them like they were poor lil protestors who got picked on for no reason.

I've probably seen more videos than I should. ****ing people.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

There is an insinuation by you that if you don't love trump then you are liberal who prefers communism to democracy

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

This is partly true, because I'm counter-trolling in this thread. The Dems don't seem to have much direction though and still indulge some radical characters within their party. Their identity is that they like power and they hate Trump. It's a wishy washy platform, and people like Sanders, AOC, and Omar have a lot of influence. If you look at how the local governments in Seattle and Minneapolis have handled the riots, they've been pretty permissive to the detriment of their states and communities.

 

[fishonjazz]

I agree, brother. I just don't think the protestors were all that peaceful or innocent. I guess I just don't get it.

I don't the protesters were all that peaceful and innocent either. I just hold the ****ing president to a bit of a higher standard.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Red]

Trump always wanted to be a mob boss. Turns out the Presidency was close enough.

 

[Gameface]

I certainly don't want that - I'm just acknowledging the crowd was clearly chanting no peace, inciting violence and throwing **** at the riot police. I guess it's hard for me to feel bad for them like they were poor lil protestors who got picked on for no reason.

I've probably seen more videos than I should. ****ing people.

The punishment for what you've seen the protesters outside the White House do should be... ?

Death?

A teargas canister to the face?

Baton beatdown?

Riot shield knock down?

What I think it should be is a misdemeanor citation for either civil disobedience or curfew violation (if that had actually been allowed to transpire).

I think justice should be dealt out by judges in courtrooms.

What we saw was punishment being issued by our "peace officers" in the street, to life altering effect against protesters, 95%+ of whom were peaceful.

What we saw was brutality, not by protesters, a few of whom threw things, but by and large and in an overwhelming degree by the people we employ to maintain the peace.

What we saw was a military action.

What we saw was the combination of military and civilian forces being deployed against civilians.

You see it as being probably okay.

I see it as very bad use of military force against our fellow citizens.

I love you, man. But holy ****. I hope one day you see what this was. It was ugly, it was brutal and it was an abuse. I don't say that to talk down to you. I just can't understand how people can look at this and say to themselves that "yeah, that's what our police are for." And it wasn't just the police. There were military personnel there. The military is 100% NEVER AT ALL SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR DOMESTIC POLICING. NEVER. That's not what our military is for. Our military is for war, for military actions. They are not supposed to be used against their fellow citizens. Never.

 

[Red]

I've concluded that Trump is a better President than Joe Biden (or Kamala Harris), and I'm quite confident about it. He's accomplished a fair amount and stuck to the platform and agenda that got him elected, despite a significant amount of resistance. That's what I'm referring to when I use the word integrity.

I'm not obligated to argue with you about what you believe. You can choose what you care about and vote your conscience.

I've seen what you and others have posted on this board for years. I wouldn't say it's impressive.

@colton posted this link in the impeachment thread. I would love to see the transcripts of the phone calls described in this Carl Bernstein piece. I know it can be easy, and convenient if one likes and supports Trump, to simply dismiss reports like this when the sources remain anonymous. Yet, I find the national security personages that are identified here to be impressive, and their opinions of Trump damning, their conclusions describing a man who not only does not represent my nation well, but a man who evidently lacks integrity. A man who values authoritarian strong man style rule by leaders without integrity themselves, and who seeks favor with such leaders.

A wannabe mob boss cozying up to other mob boss-style leaders( and BTW, that’s exactly how Putin runs Russia, through an alliance of oligarchs, the Russian mafia, and the GRU). I myself have been pegged as someone blinded by my hatred of Trump. But, in fact, what some claim is my hatred of Trump is actually my love of country. This major piece by Carl Bernstein describes a man who has no business being America’s face to the world, a man who is a disgrace for the ages. A man who has brought a fascist strain, visible at many points in our history, directly into the Oval Office for the first time. Love of country simple leaves no room for tolerating what this man represents. I cannot love America and tolerate Trump as America’s face to the world. He really is a disgrace for the ages.....

 

[Keefe]

@Archie Moses @One Brow

Vote or take it elsewhere.