Trump: Whiny Loser or Mad Genius?

[UsefulIdiot]

I think I was quite specific in my criticism of your remarks. You repeated the idea that BLM riots were treated more harshly than the Capitol hill riot and I called you on that. But I am glad to hear that you don't support everything from the Dem side.

Both sides are just about equally culpable when it comes uttering falsehoods. The problem is that the Democratic side is almost wholly supported by the vast majority of media and ALL big Tech platforms. When you see one side being held to rule of law while we make excuses for the other, then obviously the side that's getting the short end of the stick is going to lose faith in media and make it's own "truth". The media could not have betrayed itself more completely than it has.

We can both agree that justice and enforcement of law should be applied equally in all cases. We still disagree on how BLM protests/riots have been treated by law enforcement versus right leaning protests/riots. The armed siege of the Michigan statehouse is a prime example - justice eventually did happen for some, but the perpetrators were initially met with very little resistance. Compare that to what happened when protestors were "cleared" violently so that Trump could have a photo op in front of a church he has no affiliation with, holding a bible upside down he does not believe in. And for the record if Biden does the evil and irresponsible things that Trump has done I want him impeached and sidelined as well.

 

[sy barite]

We can both agree that justice and enforcement of law should be applied equally in all cases. We still disagree on how BLM protests/riots have been treated by law enforcement versus right leaning protests/riots. The armed siege of the Michigan statehouse is a prime example - justice eventually did happen for some, but the perpetrators were initially met with very little resistance. Compare that to what happened when protestors were "cleared" violently so that Trump could have a photo op in front of a church he has no affiliation with, holding a bible upside down he does not believe in. And for the record if Biden does the evil and irresponsible things that Trump has done I want him impeached and sidelined as well.

In the last year, MILLIONS have participated in BLM and Antifa protests, with many of those resulting in rioting. In Portland, the federal courthouse was the target of fire bombs for consecutive nights on end. People sitting in restaurants have been accosted and forced to repeat BLM slogans or face violence. Police have stood by and done nothing. Prosecutors have specifically said they would not charge people committing some pretty serious crimes. Most tellingly the number of people killed by police at these protests riots over the last year = ZERO. This versus one protest where a Trump supporter was shot and killed by police. So yeah, I'm going to have to challenge your interpretation of this.

 

[UsefulIdiot]

In the last year, MILLIONS have participated in BLM and Antifa protests, with many of those resulting in rioting. In Portland, the federal courthouse was the target of fire bombs for consecutive nights on end. People sitting in restaurants have been accosted and forced to repeat BLM slogans or face violence. Police have stood by and done nothing. Prosecutors have specifically said they would not charge people committing some pretty serious crimes. Most tellingly the number of people killed by police at these protests riots over the last year = ZERO. This versus one protest where a Trump supporter was shot and killed by police. So yeah, I'm going to have to challenge your interpretation of this.

I do not know if anyone on the side of BLM has been killed by police during riots/protests, Maybe not. But there have been major injuries inflicted by police on those protesters (lost eyes, broken limbs, fractured skulls, etc.) as well as mass arrests of peaceful people for minor infractions like shouting at a police station, and the use of pepper balls, clubs, rubber pellets and bullets against peaceful protesters. By the way, rubber bullets and pellets are supposed to be used is to aim them at the feet and legs where they cause nasty bruises and force people to disperse, but some police have been aiming at peoples heads and torsos where major damage can be inflicted.

 

[sy barite]

Have you not seen the year's worth of businesses being burned, stores being looted and people being accosted or beaten? I mean, I have to ask, because a comment like you just made implies you have not. How can there not be some injuries? Given the scale and scope of criminal behaviour we've seen it is a miracle there was not more force used by police and the fact they didn't kill anyone while quelling riots is a miracle. If you're not familiar with Heather MacDonald's work on police use of force and race, you really owe it to yourself to watch any of her presentations.

Look, I will acknowledge that police do on average use more force in encounters with black people than they do with whites. I am not contradicting myself here. This stat has been firmly established. But context is everything and it is lazy thinking to explain that fact by attributing the cause to racism. You have to understand the wider truth of why police are coming into contact with black people at a much higher rate than they do whites, or latinos or asians. 90% of black murders are committed by blacks. The stats for other violent crimes are comparable--and the murder rate in the black community is more than double that of other racial groups. How the fuck do you expect there to not be disproportionate police contact with the black community and consequently more opportunity for things to go wrong?

 

[UsefulIdiot]

Have you not seen the year's worth of businesses being burned, stores being looted and people being accosted or beaten? I mean, I have to ask, because a comment like you just made implies you have not. How can there not be some injuries? Given the scale and scope of criminal behaviour we've seen it is a miracle there was not more force used by police and the fact they didn't kill anyone while quelling riots is a miracle. If you're not familiar with Heather MacDonald's work on police use of force and race, you really owe it to yourself to watch any of her presentations.

Look, I will acknowledge that police do on average use more force in encounters with black people than they do with whites. I am not contradicting myself here. This stat has been firmly established. But context is everything and it is lazy thinking to explain that fact by attributing the cause to racism. You have to understand the wider truth of why police are coming into contact with black people at a much higher rate than they do whites, or latinos or asians. 90% of black murders are committed by blacks. The stats for other violent crimes are comparable--and the murder rate in the black community is more than double that of other racial groups. How the fuck do you expect there to not be disproportionate police contact with the black community and consequently more opportunity for things to go wrong?

Are we disagreeing about what we agree on? My issue is how police have reacted to and contained peaceful protests. I have no sympathy for those who take advantage of protests to vandalize and steal from businesses or commit acts of violence, whatever cause they have or pretend to have. Convict the criminals whichever ever side they say they are on. There are extremists on both sides (although on the right they seemed to be better organized, more tactical and better armed). If someone breaks windows in the aftermath of a hockey game then they should be arrested and charged, but the rest of the crowd should be controlled but unmolested by police.

As for the dysfunctional relationship between poor minority communities and police, the wounds are deep and making real change is really hard to do, and will take a lot of effort and time. Community based policing seems to be the best approach, but no guarantee. Whatever does work will probably take a couple of generations to work.

By the way, I appreciate how you are debating me. We disagree, but we are talking and each of us is trying to make a case for what we think is reasonable. Our conversation has not devolved into shit posting, unlike other discourse on this forum. For the first time, and hopefully last time, I put another poster on ignore - he tried to drown me with bullshit postings from fake news and constantly changed subjects ("Gish Gallop"), turning a disagreement into a shouting match. In my frustration I insulted him quite a bit, which is not behavior I am proud of.

 

[sy barite]

I think we are talking past each other here because we haven't really quantified and qualified.

Let's say that "right wing" protests include every Trump supporter protest, every white supremacist gathering, and whatever else you want to include. Let's compare that to just the protests that happened because of George Floyd's death. The latter absolutely dwarfs the former, whether you wish to measure it by the number of protests or by participation. BLM alone in 2020 staged thousands of protests attended by anywhere from 14 to 25 million people. When you add the nightly escapades of Antifa that have gone on for 8 months, you really are comparing events of different magnitude. However, even with that disparity, you have a police shooting death only at the Trump protest.

I have heard the claim that police treated peaceful BLM protesters roughly, and I don't doubt there were such incidents. It would be strange if given the size and scope of those protests there were not some poice excesses. But proof of police systemically abusing peaceful protestors? Sorry, that does not exist.

BLM is habitually counter factual. They want only to push their narrative of victimhood and they don't give a shit if Black people suffer because of it. Witness the "defund the police" movement that Blm champions. Most black people do not want cops defunded or rendered unable to police their communities. They want cops, by a recent poll 81% of them want MORE police presence, but our media doesn't report that.

You've said a few times that you decry violence no matter who commits it. I take it then that you must also wonder why with the MUCH greater acts of violence being committed at BLM and Antifa events, we do not hear condemnations from the media. Is that not an issue for you?

 

[LazyBoy]

Kudos @UsefulIdiot and @sy barite for proving that it's possible to have a candid discussion on a hot topic and not have it break down into a flame war. I can't comment on your discussion because honestly, I don't feel I have all the facts. One thing I will say is that we (society) spend way too much time dwelling on the mistakes of the past and not enough time learning from them.

 

[Sybarite]

As usual, our opinions turn out to be as similar as our handles.

I guess I differ only in the degree to which it is supposed these morons who stormed the Capitol knew what they were doing. Maybe I flatter myself in believing I'm taking a dispassionate view of the whole thing, but I just can't see that they had any serious intention of revolting against the Government. In their minds, they were trying to right a wrong and were acting patriotically. They thought a show of numbers and enthusiasm would stop a legal proceeding. That's not a defense, but I think it is more accurate than what we see on the news--and more importantly I don't see how it's so different from what activists have done in the past, except for perhaps the number of people involved and the building they invaded.

Question for you, are you comfortable with the degree to which conservatives are now being openly censored in the U.S.? Every major platform has now banned the pipsqueak conservative version of Twitter, Parler. There are muffled reports today of Antifa marching in major American cities, openly armed, no report of that in the news. Is that a good thing because these people are anti-Trump? Just wondering where the outrage is for that.

Complicated question. Above and beyond the problems of when speech crosses the line to encouraging, plotting and glorifying violence, we're also getting to a stage where misinformation and disinformation are causing some really serious problems in modern society.

The fact that such a small number of companies effectively dominate the internet in myriad ways, let alone their outsized control on one's ability to communicate to a larger audience, is an issue that's even bigger than free speech. As much as some people hate government, these are larger problems that ultimately only government can effectively mitigate, in my opinion.

But I digress. Leaving the problem of the enormous scale of major tech companies aside, I don't have an issue with private entities moderating the forums of their users. I personally feel there are a large number of outlets for conservatives to communicate and express their opinions. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if one door is closed they will find another to open.

To the degree that they are howling about censorship however, I think it's wise to do some soul searching about the problems that are created in free and democratic societies that we hopefully all treasure when, for example, you are telling people the person who won the election actually lost the election and you should be outraged and fight like hell because your country is being stolen from you, or that the people running the government are actually a ring of pedophiles dedicated to the cannibalization of children in keeping with their Satanic faith, etc.

 

[LazyBoy]

Off topic but just had to get it off my chest...

@sy barite and @Sybarite any chance one or both of you could use a different handle or distinguish your handle a bit more? A difference of a capital letter and a space isn't enough for me to figure out who is posting sometimes!

Much obliged! Cheers!

 

[altaguetta]

 

[sy barite]

The fact that people brought zip ties, guns, dressed up in army gear and had walkie talkies on shows this was not just a bunch of bums.

I take the exact opposite view.

 

[sy barite]

Off topic but just had to get it off my chest...

@sy barite and @Sybarite any chance one or both of you could use a different handle or distinguish your handle a bit more? A difference of a capital letter and a space isn't enough for me to figure out who is posting sometimes!

Much obliged! Cheers!

Heh, I hear you. He writes and reasons so well that I too often mistake him for me.

What if I call myself Sybarite4? That would be consistent with my email and differentiate us a bit more.

 

[sy barite]

Complicated question. Above and beyond the problems of when speech crosses the line to encouraging, plotting and glorifying violence, we're also getting to a stage where misinformation and disinformation are causing some really serious problems in modern society.

Until relatively recently, we had societal consensus about what you could and could not say. The problem is that the topic has been politicized. If speech is violence, as one side claims, then you legitimize the use of actual violence to combat speech. Beliefs matter, and bad beliefs like the one I've just cited explain how we've arrived at a point where you are banned from Twitter for voicing the opinion that you think sex and gender are the same, but if you're an Ayatollah you preach actual death to infidels and not be banned.

I don't want to see Twitter and Facebook etc., regulated, because that would simply lead one type of public opinion being censored, which is what we're seeing right now. I would like to see those companies receive an assurance that except for enforcing the law where actual threats of real violence are at issue, they will NOT be regulated. If that were the case, I believe some measure of free speech could be restored. If Twitter has a choice between allowing free speech or encouraging the birth of a competitor, they'll choose the former. But if the situation is "regulate yourself or we'll do it for you", (as is the case today), then they will come down hard on the side of whoever the political master of the day happens to be.

 

[UsefulIdiot]

You've said a few times that you decry violence no matter who commits it. I take it then that you must also wonder why with the MUCH greater acts of violence being committed at BLM and Antifa events, we do not hear condemnations from the media. Is that not an issue for you?

The mainstream and left wing media have been suspiciously quiet about what has happened in Portland and Seattle. They seem to not want to either criticize it or support it. Right wing media have done a lot of fear mongering about the threat of BLM and AntiFa. Billionaires and monstrous corporations in the background are playing games with our view of the world.

The causes of BLM and AntiFa has been sullied many times by outside opportunists, agent provocateurs, right wing infiltrators, as well as there being small numbers of extremists within the movements themselves. The same is probably true for Trump supporters on January 6 - tens of thousands screamed and shouted, but only perhaps a thousand stormed the Capitol Building trying to kill Pelosi, Pence and other members or congress. I really think justice and full investigation is the best way to approach the matter, not just mass arrests and violent put downs. Arrest and investigate individuals who commit acts of vandalism and violence, whichever side they are on, and then find out whether they acted randomly or where coordinating with each-over, find and expose the influence and power behind the scenes, and charge those people also. Pursue the generals, not just the enlisted.

To repeat observations made by others (Robert Evans, etc.), we could be in the early stages of Fascism. What happens when a younger, smarter, savvier and more energetic version of Trump comes along? The lesson of history is that at no point should leaders make alliances or compromises with such dangerous individuals whose ambitions are not bounded by any kind of morality.

For those my age and older, do you remember life in the seventies? Just before the oil crisis and hyper inflation, most people could make an okay living. A humble security guard could rent an apartment, own a second hand car, have a stay at home wife and a couple of kids, and have a little money left for entertainment, all on one income. He did not have a great life, but he got by. Average guys with unionized factory jobs actually did quite well. Things have changed quite a bit. Average working people are really struggling to get by, even with both spouses working, have been robbed of their dignity, and their future prospects are not good (robotics, self driving trucks, etc.). And they are in debt up to their eyeballs. Fertile ground for charismatic fascists. To avoid another demagogue gaining power and influence these basic economic problems need to be addressed. And no, wealth re-distribution/communism is not what I am suggesting. Unions have their problems, but people did better when union membership was much higher. The billionaire class has successfully convinced most of the public that unions are bad. It is the 1930s again. America suffered, went with FDR and did very well in the decades to come. Europe made different choices and did not do so well. The "ownership class" hated FDR and have done everything possible to undo all that he accomplished. America needs a new FDR. People really wanted Obama to be such a figure, but he is way too establishment.

 

[AthleticAF]

Puppet.
Now everyone is going to see how shit won't change under Biden.
He said if himself.

This is all one big script.

And now the reports of imminent protests/attacks on all the State Capitol buildings on Inauguration Day...........what next ??

Nice, planting seeds of fear, up the military presence all over, good optics for people to get used to in the future.

 

[Sybarite]

Until relatively recently, we had societal consensus about what you could and could not say.

I'm super curious to know what the commonly agreed rules were about what could not be said.

I've just cited explain how we've arrived at a point where you are banned from Twitter for voicing the opinion that you think sex and gender are the same

Who was banned from Twitter for this? I'm not saying it didn't happen... I'm just unaware... could you please post a link to some info about that?

I don't want to see Twitter and Facebook etc., regulated, because that would simply lead one type of public opinion being censored, which is what we're seeing right now.

But wouldn't it have to be regulated regardless? You began your post by saying everyone previously agreed that certain types of speech should not be permitted.

I would like to see those companies receive an assurance that except for enforcing the law where actual threats of real violence are at issue, they will NOT be regulated. If that were the case, I believe some measure of free speech could be restored.

Why only violence and nothing else? Not hatred? Should it be totally "free speech" say to post on Facebook or Twitter the way "Back in Toronto" posts?

Would it be "free speech" for someone to post your full real name, address, family photos etc on this website, or those of a sex worker, since there's no violence involved?

What about Tweeting false information to manipulate a stock price?

What about false information that arguably harms the public good, e.g. telling people vaccinating children will give them autism, or telling people that the vaccinations we need to end this endless pandemic are actually a way of Bill Gates putting microchips into your arms, etc. etc.

Really it seems like there are a lot of different potential reasons why certain types of speech arguably should be regulated on mass communication platforms.

 

[stripfan]

The public is already imposing a penalty on Twitter as many people move to new social media free from crybaby BLM- worshippers and anal censorship fanatics. When it starts significantly affecting their revenue, maybe Twitter will rethink its censorship policy. If Trump starts his own social media, literally millions would sign up just because they like him. Perhaps our time is the era of the crybaby.

 

[Magicmon]

I take the exact opposite view.

So the zip ties, guns, pipe bombs, bullet proof vests were just just a sign of endearment?

 

[stripfan]

View attachment 139882

What do Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Wojcicki have in common? They are all Jewish billionaires and the top donors to the Dems. Zuckerberg donated 500M to facilitate cheating at election centres. America has been taken over by Jewish billionaires who are doing their best to suppress dissent through their control of the media.

 

[kittyhound69]

Blm Antifa. Social and political justice demos
Trumps demo. Sedition, a coup of an democratic elected government by trump
No difference right ?