White Lives Don't Matter - apparently

moke123 said:
What editing oversight? He re-tweeted someone elses clip.
Click to expand...
Did he do it directly? Anyway, why blow-up what would appear to be mistake?
 
By mistake do you mean he didn't know he did it? Or mistake that he shouldn't have done it cause it was wrong?
 
He probably didn't hear that particular detail in the video. was pointing it out with the intent to make him look bad appropriate?
 
moke123 said:
By mistake do you mean he didn't know he did it? Or mistake that he shouldn't have done it cause it was wrong?
Click to expand...
Trump is a very busy person. He may have simply overlooked it. Much like a typo.
 
Steve R. said:
Did he do it directly? Anyway, why blow-up what would appear to be mistake?
Click to expand...
I suspect he never played the video but just saw the initial picture of someone supporting Trump. He does so many tweets per day, I was astonished when I looked! It is easy to pick holes in any public figure who is under constant scrutiny. The left cry, "He should know better as he is the most powerful man in the world", and so on. Name a president who doesn't slip up. All presidents are human. All will make mistakes. They shouldn't? Well, you just don't understand reality then. It is human to err. "But he makes tons of mistakes!" If he makes so many, why is he president? "Because all Trump supports are ignorant deplorables!" And so we go on...
 
If you vote for Joe Biden are really saying you are voting for his running mate?

He quite possibly will not be able to complete his first term in office because of cognitive issues. His running mate becomes the person of interest. The Democrat party is virtue signaling this person has to be a women and a person of color. Not necessarily the best Democrat for the country just one who checks all their left wing ideology boxes.

Weekend at Bernie's
1593437412394.png
 
What's worse is that with Biden's health so precarious and with a running mate chosen for demographics rather than political acumen, impeachment might end up taking down the VP, the pres would go down for health reasons, and we would have Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, as president. This suddenly looks like one of HER deep ploys because she couldn't get elected normally.
 
I watched a couple of pundits discuss this on the news yesterday. One proposed that JB might not pick demographically (Harris - because she has too much baggage) and go with Warren instead.
 
Still on my tablet, so my typing will be off. Another example of antI-White bias. CBS news had this story: White couple aims guns at St. Louis protesters.

There is a fine line between legitimate non-violent protest and destructive violence. Given that we have seen so-called protesters occupy city blocks, destroy businesses, topple statues; it is actually surprising that we have not seen more similar videos of people defending their property or businesses with open displays of guns.

My issue with the story is that they never mention that the couple, if attacked, would have had a right to defend themselves and that they were possibly in fear for their lives. The implied theme, by CBS, is that the White couple was threatening the protesters. A biased viewpoint.
 
Going back a few posts to Trump's retweeting of a video with someone shouting White Power...

Steve R. said:
Trump is a very busy person. He may have simply overlooked it. Much like a typo.
Click to expand...

Jon said:
I suspect he never played the video but just saw the initial picture of someone supporting Trump. He does so many tweets per day, I was astonished when I looked! It is easy to pick holes in any public figure who is under constant scrutiny. The left cry, "He should know better as he is the most powerful man in the world", and so on. Name a president who doesn't slip up. All presidents are human. All will make mistakes. They shouldn't? Well, you just don't understand reality then. It is human to err. "But he makes tons of mistakes!" If he makes so many, why is he president? "Because all Trump supports are ignorant deplorables!" And so we go on...
Click to expand...

If I had a Twitter account with many followers, I would have found the two minutes needed to watch the video first as I would want to make sure that any video I retweeted matched my own opinions.
Oh wait, perhaps that's exactly what he did...

The tweet was removed after it was criticized publicly including by members of the Republican party.
Of course, one way to have properly distanced himself from any implication of supporting White supremacists would have been to have issued a clear apology for having retweeted the video and that it didn't reflect his own views. However, he did not do anything like that, thus leaving its intention subject to speculation and criticism.
 
isladogs said:
However, he did not do anything like that, thus leaving its intention subject to speculation and criticism
Click to expand...
Something tells me that when he does this sort of thing, he knows exactly what he's doing. Not sure if the behaviour is like that of a rascal child who just wants to stir up $4i* while impressing his gang, or if it's more like an arsonist who sets a fire then hides in the background to watch something burn.
 
Steve R. said:
Still on my tablet, so my typing will be off. Another example of antI-White bias. CBS news had this story: White couple aims guns at St. Louis protesters.

There is a fine line between legitimate non-violent protest and destructive violence. Given that we have seen so-called protesters occupy city blocks, destroy businesses, topple statues; it is actually surprising that we have not seen more similar videos of people defending their property or businesses with open displays of guns.

My issue with the story is that they never mention that the couple, if attacked, would have had a right to defend themselves and that they were possibly in fear for their lives. The implied theme, by CBS, is that the White couple was threatening the protesters. A biased viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Hmm. The couple were clearly not attacked and there is nothing to indicate that they had reason to be in fear of their lives.
I would therefore state that the slant placed on this story is 'a biased viewpoint'
 
Since when is the bias on any stories involving blacks, whites, protesters, and counter-protesters NOT biased?
 
The_Doc_Man said:
Since when is the bias on any stories involving blacks, whites, protesters, and counter-protesters NOT biased?
Click to expand...

I agree. That also applies to many if not all of the comments in this thread
 
Steve R. said:
Still on my tablet, so my typing will be off. Another example of antI-White bias. CBS news had this story: White couple aims guns at St. Louis protesters.

There is a fine line between legitimate non-violent protest and destructive violence. Given that we have seen so-called protesters occupy city blocks, destroy businesses, topple statues; it is actually surprising that we have not seen more similar videos of people defending their property or businesses with open displays of guns.

My issue with the story is that they never mention that the couple, if attacked, would have had a right to defend themselves and that they were possibly in fear for their lives. The implied theme, by CBS, is that the White couple was threatening the protesters. A biased viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Trump also retweeted that video.

Here's more about the story. https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/mark-patricia-mccloskey-st-louis-couple-guns-video/

I'm not okay with what they did.

I carry a gun every day. My gun stays hidden. My gun stays hidden even when I feel I'm in a bad situation which happens often. My gun will only come out when it is going to be used.

I have zero respect for irresponsible gun owners.
 
isladogs said:
Hmm. The couple were clearly not attacked and there is nothing to indicate that they had reason to be in fear of their lives.
I would therefore state that the slant placed on this story is 'a biased viewpoint'
Click to expand...
That is a false counter argument. It begs the question that once attacked it is too late to do anything. Furthermore they did not initiate any offensive actions against the protesters. So they were letting the protesters protest.

PS: Since posting, I realized that I'm drifting off the theme that the article has an anti-White bias.
 
Last edited:
That's a false argument. There was no reason to point a gun at the protestors just in case they were attacked...
... and why would they have been when the protests were specifically against the mayor?
Merely carrying their weapons, hidden, would have provided whatever 'protection' they may have felt they needed.
Did any of their neighbours behave in the same manner?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Steve R.
Believe All Women
Replies
1
Views
49
Pat Hartman
P
Jon
Harvard and its Fake Diversity
2 3
Replies
59
Views
2,697
Isaac
Isaac
Uncle Gizmo
Writing Practice...
Replies
1
Views
259
conception_native_0123
conception_native_0123
Jon
Prompt using a board of advisors
Replies
18
Views
433
Jon
Jon
J
Interesting artical about what government can and can't do. It's a bit longish, but worth the read.
Replies
19
Views
515
moke123
moke123

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom