Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Toffee in Jandals]

For the record, I was referring to Taika Waititi and not Peter Jackson

What did our Taika ever do to you Prev? Piss on your chips?

 

[Prevenger17]

What did our Taika ever do to you Prev? Piss on your chips?

Soz, I have a particularly bitter feeling towards him because my missus loves his movies and makes me sit through them. I don't know how people can't see he's been dining out on the same joke in every film.

 

[Toffee in Jandals]

Soz, I have a particularly bitter feeling towards him because my missus loves his movies and makes me sit through them. I don't know how people can't see he's been dining out on the same joke in every film.

Just jokes pal. Personally I think he comes across as a bit of a douchebag. And in every movie he's ever directed it seems like he has to have the stereotypical cheeky Maori kid-type character in it.

It was funny and charming the first couple of times but now its just nauseating.

 

[Zatara]

Great original ideas there, they should make you their leader. Your friends cousin can be your chief advisor.

Trolling on every post to me because I (and others) have a different opinion.

On one thread you say the army or air force should come in and do this because thats how dangerous its become but here you want peaceful protestors do the policing haha!

Maybe the President could have addressed the peaceful crowd and calmed them and maybe he could have told the police to behave or got someone assigned maybe Jared to look into it.

I said the majority of peoples views i have spoken with were saying the military should come in.

Peaceful protestors outside the white house...

Yes Zat, people shouldn't protest because change is hard and unlikely. Effing hell, that would have been quite the approach throughout history.

"I had a dream.... ah nobody wants to hear about my dreams. I'll go, I'll go"

Perhaps i missed it but from what ive seen outside the white house there dont seem to be any 'leaders' or 'figureheads' leading speeches?

What ive seen are rioters/protestors throwing bricks at the secret service / police.

I dont consider what i saw at the white house to be peaceful.

Not sure why the president would come out to talk to people like that?

I really dont see what it achieves by attacking other human beings. Anyone throwing a brick or suchlike should be arrested.

There seems to be a lot of wealthy people who have said they will pay the bail of violent protestors/rioters/looters though...

Because the right to protest is protected in the constitution, because it isn't their job to confront violent criminals and because mob rule and vigilante justice are normally considered bad things.

The peaceful protestors arent doing any harm unless they are damaging the rights of others. Weve seen that in many towns and cities and apart from them being past curfew (surely an arrestable offence) heres not much theyre doing wrong.

What i am saying is that those who are at the white house 'protesting' who are acting violently (and there seems to be a huge % of them) are they supporting these rioters/looters in aĺl these cities?

If they are then they should be classed in a different category to 'peaceful protestors' and in which case the President shouldnt have to speak to them and they should be arrested.

If they dont support the rioters/looters and are outside the white house behaving in a peaceful manner then what are they doing there with all these violent people?

My comment about them protesting against rioters/looters was tongue in cheek.

I mean how is a countries leader going to speak to a violent armed mob?

I think its pretty clear (and this post adds to it), there are some people who will never support them

Support who though?

Im seeing the policeman arrested...im seeing demands for him to get life. Then threats if he doesnt...

So the legal system means nothing?

Then protests about BLM when there are rioters and looters on the streets chanting BLM etc...is it the same group? Is it an organised division of the same group?

There are armed militia who claim to be supporting the rioters/looters who the police are leaving on the streets.

Whats the message? What exactly do they want?

Is it a law change? What is it?

Is it against the police? Is that why they are attacking them?

Is it against white people? Read a lot of racist remarks on twitter about white people.

Is it against store owners / small businesses? Seen a lot of them looted and destroyed.

Is it against anyone who doesnt have a BLM sign on their store / house window? They get left alone.

I genuinely dont know who they are targeting for changes and what changes they want in the law?

 

[tsubaki]

Are you people saying you didn’t like Jojo Rabbit?

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

The peaceful protestors arent doing any harm unless they are damaging the rights of others. Weve seen that in many towns and cities and apart from them being past curfew (surely an arrestable offence) heres not much theyre doing wrong.

What i am saying is that those who are at the white house 'protesting' who are acting violently (and there seems to be a huge % of them) are they supporting these rioters/looters in aĺl these cities?

If they are then they should be classed in a different category to 'peaceful protestors' and in which case the President shouldnt have to speak to them and they should be arrested.

If they dont support the rioters/looters and are outside the white house behaving in a peaceful manner then what are they doing there with all these violent people?

My comment about them protesting against rioters/looters was tongue in cheek.

I mean how is a countries leader going to speak to a violent armed mob?

The protestors who were dispersed outside the white house so Trump could cross the street were 100% peaceful. That is not in dispute.

What you are talking about in classing anybody standing next to somebody throwing a stone as a violent protestor is called collective guilt and is against most codes in law. Protestors have no control over who shows up to their protest. Violence in protesting is not acceptable and those perpetrating it are in a minority.

 

[Walken]

Trolling on every post to me because I (and others) have a different opinion.




I said the majority of peoples views i have spoken with were saying the military should come in.

Peaceful protestors outside the white house...






Perhaps i missed it but from what ive seen outside the white house there dont seem to be any 'leaders' or 'figureheads' leading speeches?

What ive seen are rioters/protestors throwing bricks at the secret service / police.

I dont consider what i saw at the white house to be peaceful.

Not sure why the president would come out to talk to people like that?

I really dont see what it achieves by attacking other human beings. Anyone throwing a brick or suchlike should be arrested.

There seems to be a lot of wealthy people who have said they will pay the bail of violent protestors/rioters/looters though...





The peaceful protestors arent doing any harm unless they are damaging the rights of others. Weve seen that in many towns and cities and apart from them being past curfew (surely an arrestable offence) heres not much theyre doing wrong.

What i am saying is that those who are at the white house 'protesting' who are acting violently (and there seems to be a huge % of them) are they supporting these rioters/looters in aĺl these cities?

If they are then they should be classed in a different category to 'peaceful protestors' and in which case the President shouldnt have to speak to them and they should be arrested.

If they dont support the rioters/looters and are outside the white house behaving in a peaceful manner then what are they doing there with all these violent people?

My comment about them protesting against rioters/looters was tongue in cheek.

I mean how is a countries leader going to speak to a violent armed mob?



Support who though?

Im seeing the policeman arrested...im seeing demands for him to get life. Then threats if he doesnt...

So the legal system means nothing?

Then protests about BLM when there are rioters and looters on the streets chanting BLM etc...is it the same group? Is it an organised division of the same group?

There are armed militia who claim to be supporting the rioters/looters who the police are leaving on the streets.

Whats the message? What exactly do they want?

Is it a law change? What is it?

Is it against the police? Is that why they are attacking them?

Is it against white people? Read a lot of racist remarks on twitter about white people.

Is it against store owners / small businesses? Seen a lot of them looted and destroyed.

Is it against anyone who doesnt have a BLM sign on their store / house window? They get left alone.

I genuinely dont know who they are targeting for changes and what changes they want in the law?

You are the one who claimed that forming some form of miltia to counter act looters would align people with them.

As for the rest, do your own research

 

[SteveSC]

Trolling on every post to me because I (and others) have a different opinion.




I said the majority of peoples views i have spoken with were saying the military should come in.

Peaceful protestors outside the white house...






Perhaps i missed it but from what ive seen outside the white house there dont seem to be any 'leaders' or 'figureheads' leading speeches?

What ive seen are rioters/protestors throwing bricks at the secret service / police.

I dont consider what i saw at the white house to be peaceful.

Not sure why the president would come out to talk to people like that?

I really dont see what it achieves by attacking other human beings. Anyone throwing a brick or suchlike should be arrested.

There seems to be a lot of wealthy people who have said they will pay the bail of violent protestors/rioters/looters though...





The peaceful protestors arent doing any harm unless they are damaging the rights of others. Weve seen that in many towns and cities and apart from them being past curfew (surely an arrestable offence) heres not much theyre doing wrong.

What i am saying is that those who are at the white house 'protesting' who are acting violently (and there seems to be a huge % of them) are they supporting these rioters/looters in aĺl these cities?

If they are then they should be classed in a different category to 'peaceful protestors' and in which case the President shouldnt have to speak to them and they should be arrested.

If they dont support the rioters/looters and are outside the white house behaving in a peaceful manner then what are they doing there with all these violent people?

My comment about them protesting against rioters/looters was tongue in cheek.

I mean how is a countries leader going to speak to a violent armed mob?



Support who though?

Im seeing the policeman arrested...im seeing demands for him to get life. Then threats if he doesnt...

So the legal system means nothing?

Then protests about BLM when there are rioters and looters on the streets chanting BLM etc...is it the same group? Is it an organised division of the same group?

There are armed militia who claim to be supporting the rioters/looters who the police are leaving on the streets.

Whats the message? What exactly do they want?

Is it a law change? What is it?

Is it against the police? Is that why they are attacking them?

Is it against white people? Read a lot of racist remarks on twitter about white people.

Is it against store owners / small businesses? Seen a lot of them looted and destroyed.

Is it against anyone who doesnt have a BLM sign on their store / house window? They get left alone.

I genuinely dont know who they are targeting for changes and what changes they want in the law?

Firstly shame on those few in that grainy footage for attacking the press no matter who they are.

Secondly are you using that video plus what you saw and lumping it all in as the same event? There have been quite a few staged protests outside the white house now.

The day the president went to that church the majority of protesters were peaceful if not all of them. He and his people sent the police to forge a path by any means necessary for a photo op.

of course when peaceful protesters get pushed back and provoked some will decide to lash out. No excuse for violence from either party.

The press being attacked that day also by the cops was bang out of order.

Anything after that day is going to be different simply because of the way he treated them.

The majority (to use your words) will be peaceful but with any protest you will get a holes.

But please don't use one vid plus a couple of incidents to say that the other day was right and those protesters should have moved on and let him do what he wanted.

This is pure nonsense and whataboutism from you and quite frankly its not to bash a difference of opinion but more of a how on good morals and faith can you sit there and say what his people did was right. For a fecking photo op at a church he wasn't even invited too.

Before deciding to do a photo op and lashing out at groups maybe he tried to understand those who were protesting. Maybe invite the leaders of BLM or any group to talk about police violence.

instead he ignored the main protest to focus on anti facists and looting.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I remember once seeing an elderly man in a dressing gown, walking down the street with a determined look on his face. He had just walked out of the care home up the road. He was swiftly brought back after I popped in to let them know.
I’m always reminded of this every time @Zatara wanders out of the transfer thread and starts posting elsewhere.

 

[Zatara]

The protestors who were dispersed outside the white house so Trump could cross the street were 100% peaceful. That is not in dispute.

What you are talking about in classing anybody standing next to somebody throwing a stone as a violent protestor is called collective guilt and is against most codes in law. Protestors have no control over who shows up to their protest. Violence in protesting is not acceptable and those perpetrating it are in a minority.

I dont know about that particular day but there were 2 days where there was a fair bit of violence taking place.

What happens if trump goes outside to talks them and they charge the secret services and throw / fire ?

I highly doubt people would advise him to go out because one day seemed peaceful after 2 days of violence. Its going to be in the media and is a high risk situation...

You are the one who claimed that forming some form of miltia to counter act looters would align people with them.

As for the rest, do your own research

It was such a bad idea?

Firstly shame on those few in that grainy footage for attacking the press no matter who they are.

Secondly are you using that video plus what you saw and lumping it all in as the same event? There have been quite a few staged protests outside the white house now.

The day the president went to that church the majority of protesters were peaceful if not all of them. He and his people sent the police to forge a path by any means necessary for a photo op.

of course when peaceful protesters get pushed back and provoked some will decide to lash out. No excuse for violence from either party.

The press being attacked that day also by the cops was bang out of order.

Anything after that day is going to be different simply because of the way he treated them.

The majority (to use your words) will be peaceful but with any protest you will get a holes.

But please don't use one vid plus a couple of incidents to say that the other day was right and those protesters should have moved on and let him do what he wanted.

This is pure nonsense and whataboutism from you and quite frankly its not to bash a difference of opinion but more of a how on good morals and faith can you sit there and say what his people did was right. For a fecking photo op at a church he wasn't even invited too.

Before deciding to do a photo op and lashing out at groups maybe he tried to understand those who were protesting. Maybe invite the leaders of BLM or any group to talk about police violence.

instead he ignored the main protest to focus on anti facists and looting.

One of the BLM leaders, who are they?

Is this one of them

 

[Walken]

I dont know about that particular day but there were 2 days where there was a fair bit of violence taking place.

What happens if trump goes outside to talks them and they charge the secret services and throw / fire ?

I highly doubt people would advise him to go out because one day seemed peaceful after 2 days of violence. Its going to be in the media and is a high risk situation...



It was such a bad idea?










One of the BLM leaders, who are they?

Is this one of them

this reads like a shapiro twitter feed

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

this reads like a shapiro twitter feed

It absolutely does.

And for @Zatara

I absolutely agree that people would have advised Trump not to go out there. But he did it anyway... of course, he did on the proviso that peaceful protesters be tear-gassed and shot with rubber bullets...

And why? So he could go out there, look tough, use a church as a prop in a photo-opportunity and give a pseudo-authoritarian strongman speech.

But you go on thinking that people who have been driven to the end of their rope by a society which values them less than others, purely because of the colour of their skin.

Should people loot? No of course not. But is it understandable, given that society isn’t holding up its end for them? Absolutely.

Watch this, rather than scouring the dregs of Right Wing twitter and posting it up here as of from a credible source. You might learn something... or at least gain some measure of understanding and empathy.

 

[BirkenheadBlue]

Soz, I have a particularly bitter feeling towards him because my missus loves his movies and makes me sit through them. I don't know how people can't see he's been dining out on the same joke in every film.

 

[Ruairi77]

It absolutely does.

And for @Zatara

I absolutely agree that people would have advised Trump not to go out there. But he did it anyway... of course, he did on the proviso that peaceful protesters be tear-gassed and shot with rubber bullets...

And why? So he could go out there, look tough, use a church as a prop in a photo-opportunity and give a pseudo-authoritarian strongman speech.

But you go on thinking that people who have been driven to the end of their rope by a society which values them less than others, purely because of the colour of their skin.

Should people loot? No of course not. But is it understandable, given that society isn’t holding up its end for them? Absolutely.

Watch this, rather than scouring the dregs of Right Wing twitter and posting it up here as of from a credible source. You might learn something... or at least gain some measure of understanding and empathy.

good post BB, you have far more patience than I do!

 

[Death]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...-help-police-control-protests-poll-finds/amp/

58% support military being deployed