zlacker

>>void_n+(OP)
Not an argument for this site I guess. But this is what happens when you have political leaders picking sides in violence. Trump literally tweeted "when the looting starts the shooting starts" (not before this event, of course -- it's an example). You think rhetoric like that doesn't have the effect of empowering police to abuse their power against people they don't like?

>>newacc+24
> when the looting starts the shooting starts

Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.

>>sparkl+J6
Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters (it's right there in the tweet!), not expressing an abstract right of people to defend their own property.

So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.

>>newacc+Da
> Trump was talking literally about directing the military to shoot looters

Uhm, no

>>sparkl+uc
> ....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won't let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

[sic]

Taken from https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-twitter-flags-...

>>MaxBar+8i
So, were did he say "to shoot looters"?

That's just one possible interpretation, if you really want to understand him that way.

>>101404+Qv
It's true that the president's writing here is characteristically vague. But right here in this one tweet he:

1. Introduces the military

2. Says he will assume control

3. Introduces the idea of shooting looters

Given that context, it's extremely difficult to concoct an interpretation where he's not saying he'll direct the military to shoot looters.

I mean, be serious here. Is your defense really that "The president's grammar was poor, so you can't prove he meant what he seemed to say". How many times are you going to try that trick? Wasn't it played out after he vaguely suggested injecting bleach?

>>newacc+iC
In the interests of precision, Trump didn't suggest that people try injecting bleach, he suggested that researchers look into injecting disinfectant as a means of treating those with the virus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177

I see I'm being downvoted. Is my account of things incorrect, or is it because I didn't explicitly spell out that it's silly for a president to give brain-dead research advice to experts?

>>MaxBar+UF
Yes, that's another thing Trump said that was purposefully "misunderstood".

There are many things to criticize him for. But sadly the media is so incredibly lazy that they constantly make up these "scandals" about things he supposedly "meant".

And: you are downvoted because you are not following groupthink. It doesn't matter how factually correct it is.

>>101404+MP1
The truth of it is still scandalous. Does it absolve Trump of responsibility for idiots drinking disinfectant? At least partially, yes. It's still a ridiculous way for a leader to behave.

It's absurd that Trump thought he was in a position to give technical advice to medical researchers, and it's even more absurd that he thought injecting disinfectant could be the way to go. The hubris and ignorance on display here are shocking.