Election 2020

[DMT]

This video is a great example of what democratic cities and states look like but the left blames 3-years-in Trump for America's problems. pelosi, schitf, and many other career lefty's have been around for decades getting rich while they destroy the nation. but people are waking up to the sickness of leftism, and it is going to be another 4 years of President Trump...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neh7ZzrnTBw

Sorry MAGAt, Americans disagree.

https://www.newsweek.com/george-floyd-protests-increase-support-biden-over-trump-poll-1508025

[frae]

A collection of men and women who are afraid to be critical of the President, some of these excuses and avoidance are amazing, but then there is Ted Cruz who goes all in on the President being in the right. Hunt was asking Senators as they passed by what their thoughts were on the President using force against peaceful protesters... here are some of the inspiring answers from your Republican leaders...

Here is a link to the thread, but these are all direct quotes...

https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1267863275548663808?s=20

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the president’s photo op at St. John’s last night: “Didn’t really see it.”

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., does not respond when asked if what the president did last night was appropriate. Her spokesman handed me his card.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. “I don’t have any comment on that.”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., does stop to talk and says “we all could” do better when asked if POTUS could do better.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. “I didn’t watch it closely enough to know.”

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.: “Sorry, I’m late for lunch.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., walks by without saying anything.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: What we saw last night “was not the America that I know.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska: Walks by with no response.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio: “I’m late for lunch.”

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., doesn’t stop at cameras here on the Hill. Told reporters he’s already “said too much,” per
@LACaldwellDC

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont.: “I was grateful for the president’s leadership.” Says George Floyd was murdered but looting is not acceptable.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, when asked if what we saw at the White House last night was an abuse of power: “By the protestors, yes.”

The only one who got near being critical was Murkowski and she was so vague she could backtrack and say she meant the protesters or something insane. Daines and Cruz went all-in on backing Trump. Two US Senators had lunches more important and a number of them were too uninformed to have an opinion 16 hours later on the biggest story of the night. What a joke that they are all so scared of him that they can't even must the most tepid of criticism.

[nots]

A collection of men and women who are afraid to be critical of the President, some of these excuses and avoidance are amazing, but then there is Ted Cruz who goes all in on the President being in the right. Hunt was asking Senators as they passed by what their thoughts were on the President using force against peaceful protesters... here are some of the inspiring answers from your Republican leaders...

Here is a link to the thread, but these are all direct quotes...

https://twitter.com/kasie/status/1267863275548663808?s=20

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., on the president’s photo op at St. John’s last night: “Didn’t really see it.”

Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., does not respond when asked if what the president did last night was appropriate. Her spokesman handed me his card.

Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. “I don’t have any comment on that.”

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., does stop to talk and says “we all could” do better when asked if POTUS could do better.

Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah. “I didn’t watch it closely enough to know.”

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.: “Sorry, I’m late for lunch.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., walks by without saying anything.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska: What we saw last night “was not the America that I know.”

Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska: Walks by with no response.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio: “I’m late for lunch.”

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., doesn’t stop at cameras here on the Hill. Told reporters he’s already “said too much,” per
@LACaldwellDC

Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont.: “I was grateful for the president’s leadership.” Says George Floyd was murdered but looting is not acceptable.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, when asked if what we saw at the White House last night was an abuse of power: “By the protestors, yes.”

The only one who got near being critical was Murkowski and she was so vague she could backtrack and say she meant the protesters or something insane. Daines and Cruz went all-in on backing Trump. Two US Senators had lunches more important and a number of them were too uninformed to have an opinion 16 hours later on the biggest story of the night. What a joke that they are all so scared of him that they can't even must the most tepid of criticism.

There is some pushback to the story from sources in the US Park Police.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-police-say-protesters-near-trump-speech-were-cleared-for-attacks-on-cops/

[GwynnInTheHall]

There's an eerie silence, but a vibe of everyone just stunned and thinking What next--It's visceral--Will protestors defy Trump, will the police, National Guard or military shoot them (again) Will it all die down or will it get way worse--this is the brink and right now--it really feels like people are deciding which way to take this. Strange to know that from what was such innocuous times only 3-4 years ago, we've arrived at a moment in our Nation's history which will be remembered for a long, long time.

[frae]

There is some pushback to the story from sources in the US Park Police.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-p...tacks-on-cops/

These are tweets going at the source in your story and if you go read his tweet replies he still only has one source and the Secret Service won't confirm or deny what it may or may not have done as a policy on all issues.

[umjewman]

There is some pushback to the story from sources in the US Park Police.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-p...tacks-on-cops/

I wouldn't put it past Trump to have someone loyal in the US Park Police leak that to the NY Post, a friendly outlet. Obviously, I can't prove that, but it just seems like something Trump or someone in his inner circle would do. I also find it hard to believe that the Park Police would have had no coordination with the Secret Service if Trump was coming through in just a few minutes. Seems unlikely to me, especially with a crowd of protesters in the area. I doubt the Secret Service would just let Trump take a leisurely stroll right next to protesters. The area had to be cleared so Trump could walk through. The timing is awfully convenient.

[nots]

I wouldn't put it past Trump to have someone loyal in the US Park Police leak that to the NY Post, a friendly outlet. Obviously, I can't prove that, but it just seems like something Trump or someone in his inner circle would do. I also find it hard to believe that the Park Police would have had no coordination with the Secret Service if Trump was coming through in just a few minutes. Seems unlikely to me, especially with a crowd of protesters in the area. I doubt the Secret Service would just let Trump take a leisurely stroll right next to protesters. The area had to be cleared so Trump could walk through. The timing is awfully convenient.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I’m choosing to let things flesh out a bit more.

[GwynnInTheHall]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I’m choosing to let things flesh out a bit more.

Really? Even after 3 and a half years of Lies and bullshit by Trump, his Admin and everyone/thing that supports/surrounds him? I love ya brother, but that's just being willfully naïve.

[nots]

Really? Even after 3 and a half years of Lies and bullshit by Trump, his Admin and everyone/thing that supports/surrounds him? I love ya brother, but that's just being willfully naïve.

Speaking only of this specific incident. A (semi) important paper has posted an article that contradicts some of what was reported yesterday. NY Post is putting their credibility on the line by going with that story, so I’d like to hear some more reporting. If no one else from the US Park Police backs them up, that’s a tremendous black eye for the Post, no? And if it turns out to be accurate, you would want to be informed of that, no?

[frae]

Speaking only of this specific incident. A (semi) important paper has posted an article that contradicts some of what was reported yesterday. NY Post is putting their credibility on the line by going with that story, so I’d like to hear some more reporting. If no one else from the US Park Police backs them up, that’s a tremendous black eye for the Post, no? And if it turns out to be accurate, you would want to be informed of that, no?

The Post isn’t reporting it first hand they are citing Neal Augenstein tweeting it and he works for wtop news which I think is a DC news outlet with about 280k followers on twitter whereas the post has 1.6 million. So if it is wrong the post will just shrug and say they were reporting what another source had. No risk here just Trump getting some plausible deniability for his base to run with.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Speaking only of this specific incident. A (semi) important paper has posted an article that contradicts some of what was reported yesterday. NY Post is putting their credibility on the line by going with that story, so I’d like to hear some more reporting. If no one else from the US Park Police backs them up, that’s a tremendous black eye for the Post, no? And if it turns out to be accurate, you would want to be informed of that, no?

I want the truth and I don't accept the Post as one of those sources--It supports Trump and frankly anything/anyone who supports Trump is suspect or have you found a good Trump supporting source you know to be unbiased and honest because I haven't and I've looked. You do this a lot. You soft pedal criticism of Trump and the Right, I don't know why you continue to do so--You say it's in the name of accuracy of information, but seriously--how much more do you need before you acknowle3dge a pattern here?

I'm going to believe the people who were gassed, like the Priest and half a dozen other people at the scene who were injured or should I trust the system/Administration and their cronies who have turned this Nation into a police state?

I've said it before--you are smarter than this.

[umjewman]

Speaking only of this specific incident. A (semi) important paper has posted an article that contradicts some of what was reported yesterday. NY Post is putting their credibility on the line by going with that story, so I’d like to hear some more reporting. If no one else from the US Park Police backs them up, that’s a tremendous black eye for the Post, no? And if it turns out to be accurate, you would want to be informed of that, no?

I'm not saying it didn't happen - I'm just saying the NY Post is clearly a friendly outlet for Trump to leak this story and I would not put it past Trump to have a loyalist supply this information. There are aspects of the story that don't make sense to me, particularly the Park Police not knowing that the President of the United States would be walking through an area filled with protesters minutes later, which just so happened to be the same time that they were clearing the area with force. Just seems awfully convenient and fishy for me.

Not to mention, this brings up a question as to these tactics and proportionality. According to the source, some police were hit with water bottles and protesters climbed atop a structure that had been burned the day before. Does that make it a violent protest and would that warrant the response which was done?

If I'm proven wrong, so be it. But based on the last few years, I think one of these two scenarios is more believable:

A. Just a few moments before the President was, unbeknownst to the Park Police, walking through an area filled with protesters, the protesters started climbing burnt structures and throwing water bottles at the police, necessitating an overwhelming response to clear the protesters from the area. The response did not include tear gas, but only smoke canisters.

B. The President wanted to go in front of the church to have his photograph, especially given that sources were reporting that he was upset at how he was being portrayed when he went to the bunker. Secret Service told the Park Police to clear the area for security reasons (which I would expect Secret Service to do for any President). Park Police then proceeded to do so as quickly as possible, which is the overwhelming response which has been seen.

Doesn't mean that Trump ordered the Park Police to use these specific measures, but I think B is far more likely.

[nots]

I want the truth and I don't accept the Post as one of those sources--It supports Trump and frankly anything/anyone who supports Trump is suspect or have you found a good Trump supporting source you know to be unbiased and honest because I haven't and I've looked. You do this a lot. You soft pedal criticism of Trump and the Right, I don't know why you continue to do so--You say it's in the name of accuracy of information, but seriously--how much more do you need before you acknowle3dge a pattern here?

I'm going to believe the people who were gassed, like the Priest and half a dozen other people at the scene who were injured or should I trust the system/Administration and their cronies who have turned this Nation into a police state?

I've said it before--you are smarter than this.

I guess I’m not smarter than this because I disagree with a lot of what you just wrote.
I read the NY Post (skews right) and the Philadelphia Inquirer (skews left) every single day. The both have their pluses and minuses and both have an undeniable, partisan lean ( I also read the Honolulu Star Advertiser most days, but certainly not all. They skew left as well). I have come not to trust any news source completely and have learned to wait before rushing to judgement, especially on an issue as flammable as this is. In your world that makes me dumb—I guess I will have to live with that.
Love you too (in fact, I was just talking to TW in PM about how I respect your consistency even if I disagree with most of what you say).

[GwynnInTheHall]

I'm not saying it didn't happen - I'm just saying the NY Post is clearly a friendly outlet for Trump to leak this story and I would not put it past Trump to have a loyalist supply this information. There are aspects of the story that don't make sense to me, particularly the Park Police not knowing that the President of the United States would be walking through an area filled with protesters minutes later, which just so happened to be the same time that they were clearing the area with force. Just seems awfully convenient and fishy for me.

Not to mention, this brings up a question as to these tactics and proportionality. According to the source, some police were hit with water bottles and protesters climbed atop a structure that had been burned the day before. Does that make it a violent protest and would that warrant the response which was done?

If I'm proven wrong, so be it. But based on the last few years, I think one of these two scenarios is more believable:

A. Just a few moments before the President was, unbeknownst to the Park Police, walking through an area filled with protesters, the protesters started climbing burnt structures and throwing water bottles at the police, necessitating an overwhelming response to clear the protesters from the area. The response did not include tear gas, but only smoke canisters.

B. The President wanted to go in front of the church to have his photograph, especially given that sources were reporting that he was upset at how he was being portrayed when he went to the bunker. Secret Service told the Park Police to clear the area for security reasons (which I would expect Secret Service to do for any President). Park Police then proceeded to do so as quickly as possible, which is the overwhelming response which has been seen.

Doesn't mean that Trump ordered the Park Police to use these specific measures, but I think B is far more likely.

Exactly, just moments after telling the nation he was going to meet protesters with force--He demonstrated it. He wanted to look like the Dictator he is--This is his world and he'll do whatever he wants and fuck you.

This is how he's been the entire time in office (and his entire life actually)

Giving Trump or his cronies the benefit of the doubt--EVER--is just folly.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I guess I’m not smarter than this because I disagree with a lot of what you just wrote.
I read the NY Post (skews right) and the Philadelphia Inquirer (skews left) every single day. The both have their pluses and minuses and both have an undeniable, partisan lean ( I also read the Honolulu Star Advertiser most days, but certainly not all. They skew left as well). I have come not to trust any news source completely and have learned to wait before rushing to judgement, especially on an issue as flammable as this is. In your world that makes me dumb—I guess I will have to live with that.
Love you too (in fact, I was just talking to TW in PM about how I respect your consistency even if I disagree with most of what you say).

Not Dumb, just naïve. Every job I've had in my life has been evaluating human behavior and making decisions based on that evidence. Predictive behavioral analysis is my thing. I don't know math, I don't know code, I don't know how to change my own oil--but I know people. I know motivation and intent and the behaviors that predicate those things. Sure these things may seem open to interpretation and an inexact science, but they're really not. I applaud your open-mindedness, but have to say--It's wasted in this instance.

Trump's intent is clear, his methods are obvious. His support system is lock step with him and it's been that way since shortly after he was elected. Those who are not in line, get removed or quit.

But ok, you take your time--go through the motions you seem to think you need to to get to the truth and I'll be right here when you come back saying--Damn Brian--You were right!