Social Trump punks the media that said he hide in a bunker

[LangfordBarrow]

Like a wannabe dictator.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

If he had gone another safer route away from the crowds, you'd be calling him a coward.

Enough with pretending that there is anything he can do that will satisfy you. He went to the church the way he went. Get the fuck outta the way, or see what happens. You want puff your chest out to the secret service? Don't cry when you get what's coming to you.

Or don't have the photo op ...

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Yes, the ability to monopolize force is what makes a First World Country a First World Country. What did you think it was, sweet ass malls?

1st World= Western liberal democracies
2nd Word = Communist 1 party regimes
3rd World = The Developing World

Glad I could clear that up for you

 

[skysolo]

If I have this straight, you secondment rights goofs are just fine with the president shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at his own citizens and you are just fine with the military patrolling your streets?

Can you tell me, why aren't your first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights just as important as your second?

 

[nostradumbass]

If your position wasn't so weak you wouldn't have to misrepresent the facts.

I don't, which is why I'm not the one who has to constantly scramble and pivot to my team's new position like the orange man bas coalition does.

Just on this topic alone, we've gone from "they're peaceful protests" to "omg, Drumpf is so weak and incompetent that people are tearing cities apart and he's not stopping them and is in hiding", back to "I can't believe the orange man would break up these peaceful protestors".

The whole topic is quite a departure from just a week ago, when protesting or congregating at all was going to kill granny, protests where nobody was hurt and nothing was destroyed and they even cleaned up after themselves were called dangerous, reckless, and was going to kill tons of people, now suddenly orange man is a big jerk face for clearing out rioters.

You guys have had to do so many about faces I can't even keep track.

 

[HereticBD]

Or don't have the photo op ...

I know, you guys would much rather prefer he stayed hidden away. Well, he didn't choose to do so. Too bad.

 

[cincymma79]

Lol. Are you unaware of what the protesters were doing ?

You do understand 60 Secret Service agents were injured, right?

Those were peaceful injuries fuck face. People have a right to injure secret service

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If he had gone another safer route away from the crowds, you'd be calling him a coward.

Enough with pretending that there is anything he can do that will satisfy you. He went to the church the way he went. Get the fuck outta the way, or see what happens. You want puff your chest out to the secret service? Don't cry when you get what's coming to you.

No I wouldn't, stop acting like you can read minds and can speak of others' thoughts, it's a childish way to argue instead of admitting when you're wrong.

 

[lfd0311]

1st World= Western liberal democracies
2nd Word = Communist 1 party regimes
3rd World = The Developing World

Glad I could clear that up for you

Isn't it funny that all those Western Liberal Democracies also just so happen to be for the most part the most powerful countries militarily in the world, with the strongest and most centralized police and intelligence services? How do you suppose that happened? Because to allow a Western Liberal Democracy to grow, you must first stem a region from anarchy and lawlessness. To do that you must be able to monopolize force. It's literally a core concept of Western Liberal thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

But sure, that totally free of any context stuff that you just said, too.

 

[Richie Madano]

Like a wannabe dictator.

You’re just bitter he’s gonna put down your wannabe socialist revolution.

 

[SBJJ]

This ignorant , incorrect, uninformed post gets 24 likes ...

So peaceful protest are "criminal " and should be met with violence as long as they can be pigeon holes as Dems .

Unbelievable

Wah wah wah! Why did people like your posts.

Wah wah wah! Why did they move those peaceful protesters who burned a church, defaced buildings and monuments and injured 60 officers.

 

[lfd0311]

If I have this straight, you secondment rights goofs are just fine with the president shooting tear gas and rubber bullets at his own citizens and you are just fine with the military patrolling your streets?

Can you tell me, why aren't your first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights just as important as your second?

So rioters are simply exercising their First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights? Is that what you're going with?

 

[chiefwiggum]

The lethal cocktail of meth and fentanyl is ignored. Big uppers and fentanyl always
Acts like a downer as it’s so powerful. That will kill your ass

not defending the cop. But I’ll state the obvious

 

[Damien Karras]

The president should disperse the riots unless he does then he should not. Just because they burn d the church there doesn't mean they'll do it again so he shouldn't disperse them until they do and then he should have dispersed them before they did. People should Be allowed to protest with a permit unless they don't have one and then they should be allowed to storm the nation's capitol unless they do and trump should stop them unless he does then he's evil for doing it but not as evil as he would t have been had he not. Got it

You're misrepresenting the issue, and also what I said.
Violent protesters should be arrested. The right to assembly in peaceful protest should be maintained as a protected right in the United-States constitution. The protesters in front of the church were not violent or causing damage in any way. Instead, they were forced to move in order to accommodate the President's desire for a photo-op of him holding a bible in front of said church. The question raised here is "Does the President's desire to go to a specific non-government owned location supersede the protester's right to assemble at that location?" and "Is the President's use of military-police to scatter those protesters with brute force an example of abuse of power?". I would argue yes. If you showed me where in Federal law or the U.S constitution it says you have the right to assemble unless the President says you can't be there, then please show it to me.

No one spoke about protesters needing a permit. Not sure where that came from.

Also, that last sentence doesn't make sense. The President doesn't decide who can protest, who can't, and where they can or can't protest. What his critics are pointing out is his divisive approach to managing a crisis. He's not using dialogue, pleas to calm, or meeting with other leaders in a collaborative effort to restore peace and work towards long term solution. Even if he manages to strong-arm people into peace by mass arrests and military intervention, then what? Will he scream victory? Will the problem only go away? Or will it just mean the next crisis will be even more organized, more violent and result in more death and destruction? In short, is it just going to exacerbate the situation in the long term?

I have an opinion largely based on his personal approach to leadership due to malignant narcissism.

 

[Son of Ireland 34]

His supporters love him for his hypocrisy because anything done to further their nativist and xenophobic agenda is good.

I think a lot of people have lost the idea of objective truth. Objectivity should be our goal. Not dick riding a political party. I voted for the dude. Not ashamed to say it. I also am not afraid to say something if he does some fucked up shit like this.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I am curious... Has there been a single mention, in this thread, that this is what protestors outside the White House were doing two days ago?

"More than 60 Secret Service officers and agents were injured near the White House this weekend

From CNN’s Jason Hoffman

More than 60 US Secret Service Uniformed Division officers and special agents were injured starting Friday night through Sunday morning near the White House as protests rocked Washington, DC, following the death of George Floyd last week, according to a statement from the Secret Service.

The officers and agents were injured when protesters threw “projectiles such as bricks, rocks, bottles, fireworks and other items,” according to the statement. “Personnel were also directly physically assaulted as they were kicked, punched and exposed to bodily fluids.”
CNN teams were on hand for much of the protests and witnessed protesters throwing objects at officers and pulling temporary fencing away from them.

Eleven Secret Service employees were transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

The Secret Service said no one crossed the White House fence and no one being protected was ever in danger.

Officers made one arrest near the White House on Saturday night."

https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-new...s-05-31-20/h_cb459ab077b164295d8d61d80987e3fb

Or is the pretense that this isn't a serious consideration for the safety of the president?

Or are we going to continue with this ridiculous catch 22, where if the President stays in the White House after a violent outbreak just outside of it he's a coward, and if he leaves past "peaceful" protestors who refuse to move, he's a fascist/Monarch/Nazi/whatever I'm seeing thrown around here? Madmick ain't wrong here - if two days after violent protestors injuring dozens of secret service officers around the White House you block the way of a presidential entourage and refuse to make way when asked, what the hell are you expecting? This is a group that is (by admission) extremely hostile to this president in a general environment that is very violent, just two days after people were physically assaulting secret service agents to get at the guy. To pretend like this isn't a consideration is dishonesty by omission of the full context.

I find this goon of a president odious. Frankly, it makes my stomach turn that I find myself in a position where I'm even halfway defending him as I'm increasingly finding myself in. This "BUT HOW COULD HE DO THIS!" hand wringing routine is ridiculous though. Let's face it - a majority of the people here who are criticizing the force of this action would be criticizing the weakness of the response if anything else had happened. At the point where I don't believe there is anything that the man can do that will garner anything but histrionic criticism, the complaints become ridiculous because the objections are not to what he does but who he is, and are simply aired whenever he does anything. That's when fence sitters and fair minded people who are generally against him say "Well, he may be an asshole, but you're being wantonly unfair to this asshole." Many of you would do well to consider what fruits this might bear come November.

So that would make it a lousy route to take unless you were interested in a show of force.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

Wow.

So the president should gas protesters so that he can take a needless photo op? What the fuck is wrong with you?

This is really the crux of the issue .

 

[lfd0311]

This ignorant , incorrect, uninformed post gets 24 likes ...

So peaceful protest are "criminal " and should be met with violence as long as they can be pigeon holes as Dems .

Unbelievable

What is unbelievable is that people like you can look at what is going on in our country right now, put forth the "peaceful protesters" narrative and still look at yourself in the mirror.

 

[cincymma79]

You're misrepresenting the issue, and also what I said.
Violent protesters should be arrested. The right to assembly in peaceful protest should be maintained as a protected right in the United-States constitution. The protesters in front of the church were not violent or causing damage in any way. Instead, they were forced to move in order to accommodate the President's desire for a photo-op of him holding a bible in front of said church. The question raised here is "Does the President's desire to go to a specific non-government owned location supersede the protester's right to assemble at that location?" and "Is the President's use of military-police to scatter those protesters with brute force an example of abuse of power?". I would argue yes. If you showed me where in Federal law or the U.S constitution it says you have the right to assemble unless the President says you can't be there, then please show it to me.

No one spoke about protesters needing a permit. Not sure where that came from.

Also, that last sentence doesn't make sense. The President doesn't decide who can protest, who can't, and where they can or can't protest. What his critics are pointing out is his divisive approach to managing a crisis. He's not using dialogue, pleas to calm, or meeting with other leaders in a collaborative effort to restore peace and work towards long term solution. Even if he manages to strong-arm people into peace by mass arrests and military intervention, then what? Will he scream victory? Will the problem only go away? Or will it just mean the next crisis will be even more organized, more violent and result in more death and destruction? In short, is it just going to exacerbate the situation in the long term?

I have an opinion largely based on his personal approach to leadership due to malignant narcissism.

You have an opinion entirely based on orange man bad

 

[lfd0311]

The lethal cocktail of meth and fentanyl is ignored. Big uppers and fentanyl always
Acts like a downer as it’s so powerful. That will kill your ass

not defending the cop. But I’ll state the obvious

The autopsy paid for by the family determined it to be death caused by restriction of blood flow to the brain, or something along those lines.