Ferguson, MO

[Thumb]

It wasnt park police...it was military police. Video below. The guy getting bashed with a riot shield at 52 seconds seemed pretty peaceful to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqcSnDSEa8M

You're wasting your time hughes, he is going to counter-argue it was not tear-gas, but smoke (because he was there and sniffed it), and that the national guardsmen pushing protesters back were just park police and they didn't know Trump was coming, because they could not afford radios after the budget was depleted on riot shields, smoke canisters, gigantic pepper spray dispensers, and harmless rubber bullets.

No matter how many videos or news sources report the exact same things, they are all wrong, and he is always right. After all, he lived in Australia for 6 months.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Gonna have to respectfully disagree with your second line - you can't be redundant in the very sentence where you claim to be more concise.

That?s what makes it funny.

 

[tigermud]

This defund the police movement is driving reasonable dems away..If trump wasn’t such a twitter twit he’d win in a landslide

 

[sggatecl]

This defund the police movement is driving reasonable dems away..If trump wasn’t such a twitter twit he’d win in a landslide

Biden faces balancing act as activists call to 'defund the police'

“I don’t support defunding the police,” Biden said afterwards in an interview with CBS. “I support conditioning federal aid to police, based on whether or not they meet certain basic standards of decency and honorableness.”

Biden had previously called for a $300 million investment in policing, contingent on officers mirroring the diversity of their communities. In a statement, his campaign said he supports funding for better training, body cameras and community policing.

Trump on Monday said on Twitter that, “Radical Left Democrats want to Defund and Abandon our Police” despite low crime rates. “Sorry, I want LAW & ORDER!”

I think you're reaching. The polls (2016 yadda yadda) have been telling a far different story. Your boy might be blowing his chance at a second term.

 

[mhughes0021]

This defund the police movement is driving reasonable dems away..If trump wasn?t such a twitter twit he?d win in a landslide

Reasonable Republicans have all sworn off trump. So where does that leave voters? You all saw the video... independent dwayne the rock Johnson! Can you smellllaaaallllalllllloooowwww....

 

[sggatecl]

It?s my differentiating one, and it?s not that much of an extension to other ?issues? that usually accompany it.

So you're a single issue voter. That's what I said. You can call it whatever you'd like, it's your prerogative. But don't deny it or try to paint it another way.

Keep in mind that preserving this ?issue? is the #1 priority of the agents who are sponsoring this social unrest.

The Deep State is coming after your unborn children! OOoooOooOoOoooooo

 

[tinselwolverine]

So you guys think...that it was MERE coincidence that the president was about to walk to a church. And about 100 cops all moving together in a coordinated attack to block off entire streets and to push back PEACEFUL protestors that were kneeling on the ground just HAPPENED to happen at the same time? And it just so HAPPENED to create the SAME exact path needed for the president to be able to walk to the aforementioned church he doesnt go to.
Are you really...no...no....you cant be that fucking dumb. You cant be....i have more faith in you guys than that.

I’m not bothered that a partisan Trump hater on the Internet assumes the worst of Trump – that’s what Trump haters do.

I’m bothered when professional journalists report opinions as fact.

You scoff at the notion that it could be coincidence – well, how does a reporter know that it isn’t? Coincidences happen.

It is not a fact that people were teargassed for Trump to have a photo op. It is an opinion.

Actual real reporters did get responses from the White House and the police, and it is a fact that the police and the White House deny that the police action was unwarranted - they claim there was violence in the park, and the the police again, claim they were unaware of the Trump visit.

Now, this by no means means that the reporter should assume that what the police and White House are saying is, in fact, a fact - the reporter should take that with the same grain of salt that the reporter should take speculation by people who have zero legitimate claim to know what happened claiming to know what happened.

Actually, the whole tear gas/not tear gas thing has my spidey senses tingling a little - couple things - in a link I posted, Politico reports that the CDC classifies the agent the police claimed was not tear as tear gas. My response is, so what if it is? If the police action was warranted, so what if it is? Which makes me think “if the police action was warranted, so what if it is?” I’m having maybe a little Hamlet, “methinks the lady doth protest too much” reaction.

So if I’m a reporter investigating this story - I’m gonna ask the police and the White House this question.

This all said, the Politico article I linked to reports that a number on Capitol Hill, led by Jerry “got ‘em by the Nadler“ are calling for a full on Congressional investigation into all this.

So we might all be treated to yet another entertaining impeachment procedure by the end of summer.

 

[byco42]

So you're a single issue voter. That's what I said. You can call it whatever you'd like, it's your prerogative. But don't deny it or try to paint it another way.

Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

The Deep State is coming after your unborn children! OOoooOooOoOoooooo

This is a mystery to you?

 

[Spartanmack]

It wasnt park police...it was military police. Video below. The guy getting bashed with a riot shield at 52 seconds seemed pretty peaceful to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqcSnDSEa8M

so that's your proof that it was 100% peaceful? well done.

 

[Spartanmack]

You're wasting your time hughes, he is going to counter-argue it was not tear-gas, but smoke (because he was there and sniffed it), and that the national guardsmen pushing protesters back were just park police and they didn't know Trump was coming, because they could not afford radios after the budget was depleted on riot shields, smoke canisters, gigantic pepper spray dispensers, and harmless rubber bullets.

No matter how many videos or news sources report the exact same things, they are all wrong, and he is always right. After all, he lived in Australia for 6 months.

I didn't say they were wrong, I said their reporting on the major aspects of the story (the reason for police action, the methods and the tenor of the protest) is unverified by the videos and directly contradicted by the quotes from officials asked about the actions.

first you say I know it wasn't tear gas because I was there and smelled it, then you admit your argument is based on "1,000 videos" that can't possibly prove it was in fact tear gas, but somehow they disprove the official word from the people who fired the cannisters. It doesn't matter how many news sources report the exact same (UNVERIFIED) thing - they're all drawing from the same source, your "1,000" videos - which is probably more like 4 or 5 but quantity but is totally irrelevant. And, as Tinsel said, so what if it was tear gas? The bigger issue is whether or not the action was warranted - none of your "1,000" videos show the police before this action was taken, there's no evidence at all that their actions weren't justified by violence from some of the protestors. And you completely disregard the fact that police were there because arsonists set fire to the site the night before. You just accept the fact that despite the place being the target of violence, the protest was 100% peaceful. But you're probably right, afterall played video games late at night with a multicultural group of gamers.

Edit: In post #898, I did say they were at least partially wrong - I suppose it is possible that there were no errors in their reporting but as I've indicated over the last several pages, much of it is unverified. To be clear I have my doubts that it is even mostly accurate.

 

[mhughes0021]

I?m not bothered that a partisan Trump hater on the Internet assumes the worst of Trump ? that?s what Trump haters do.

I?m bothered when professional journalists report opinions as fact.

You scoff at the notion that it could be coincidence ? well, how does a reporter know that it isn?t? Coincidences happen.

It is not a fact that people were teargassed for Trump to have a photo op. It is an opinion.

Actual real reporters did get responses from the White House and the police, and it is a fact that the police and the White House deny that the police action was unwarranted - they claim there was violence in the park, and the the police again, claim they were unaware of the Trump visit.

Now, this by no means means that the reporter should assume that what the police and White House are saying is, in fact, a fact - the reporter should take that with the same grain of salt that the reporter should take speculation by people who have zero legitimate claim to know what happened claiming to know what happened.

Actually, the whole tear gas/not tear gas thing has my spidey senses tingling a little - couple things - in a link I posted, Politico reports that the CDC classifies the agent the police claimed was not tear as tear gas. My response is, so what if it is? If the police action was warranted, so what if it is? Which makes me think ?if the police action was warranted, so what if it is?? I?m having maybe a little Hamlet, ?methinks the lady doth protest too much? reaction.

So if I?m a reporter investigating this story - I?m gonna ask the police and the White House this question.

This all said, the Politico article I linked to reports that a number on Capitol Hill, led by Jerry ?got ?em by the Nadler? are calling for a full on Congressional investigation into all this.

So we might all be treated to yet another entertaining impeachment procedure by the end of summer.

ok..answer me one question. How does MILITARY police show up right before he begins to move. Actually answer another question....even if all the evidence points to trump did it. Would you ever admit it? If the answer is no, just let me know so i can stop posting evidence lol.

 

[mhughes0021]

so that's your proof that it was 100% peaceful? well done.

Thats not the point lol. Its already proven it turned out to be 100% not peaceful cause these trump military thugs showed up to clear everyone out for a photo op. How is this going over your head?

 

[tomdalton22]

my guess is both are true. The protesters were not all peaceful and the cops were ordered to clear them for the photo op.

 

[tinselwolverine]

ok..answer me one question. How does MILITARY police show up right before he begins to move. Actually answer another question....even if all the evidence points to trump did it. Would you ever admit it? If the answer is no, just let me know so i can stop posting evidence lol.

What do you mean by “military police?” Don’t military police patrol military bases?

All the accounts I’ve seen report that it was the United States Park Police, and I’ve already posted about a half dozen links to reports of that, I’m done.

Go back and read my posts and review the links to evidence I’ve already provided if you want to.

I don’t care if I convince you of anything, and if you haven’t sussed it yet, the only dog I have in this fight is credible journalism and journalistic responsibility and integrity, which has been sorely lacking.

EDIT: One last thing...as far as “Trump did it...” I haven’t denied that the space was cleared for the reason some claim. I’ve neither agreed nor disagreed. If I’m a reporter covering this story, I’m leaving no stone unturned, and let the chips fall where they may.

My problem is with news agencies reporting opinion as fact - Journalism 101.

 

[tinselwolverine]

my guess is both are true. The protesters were not all peaceful and the cops were ordered to clear them for the photo op.

Maybe.

Investigative journalists should follow every lead to get to the truth, and report that.

 

[byco42]

Maybe.

Investigative journalists should follow every lead to get to the truth, and report that.

They are out there, but not likely in the corporate-owned media world.

 

[tinselwolverine]

They are out there, but not likely in the corporate-owned media world.

Maybe not.

Maybe the big dogs at Fox, CNN, MSNBC and the other key players get together behind the scenes to decide what contentious, conflicting narratives to go forward with, and screw the truth.

I was going to say fuck the truth but then I remembered it was you.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This may seem a little crass, but all this George Floyd funeral crap, on heels of months of coronaincarceration followed by the riots makes my heart yearn for the simpler, long ago time when all we had to endure was the neverending memorial celebrations for Kobe Bryant and his daughter.

 

[sggatecl]

Maybe.

Investigative journalists should follow every lead to get to the truth, and report that.

No way someone is reporting on a week old story that the public has already formed an opinion on. That ship sailed.

This is why your mainstream report and opinion feed networks are king. They get the narrative out there fast. After that, the majority don't care, they're on to the next outrage. It's a bipartisan issue (some of you will argue it's not, you're wrong) that is not going anywhere.

 

[tinselwolverine]

No way someone is reporting on a week old story that the public has already formed an opinion on. That ship sailed.

Probably not.

Posted a Politico link, as I said a few posts ago, that reported, among other things, that Trump?s old Big Apple buddy, Judiciary Committee chair Jerry Nadler was calling for an inquiry into the event...but I?m not finding anything reported since then.

Could be just part of ongoing gamesmanship that seems to be going on for some time between Nadler and AG Barr.