(05-29-2020 06:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 03:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 03:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-29-2020 02:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For someone who is absolutely incensed and utterly enraged, to the point that they write spittle-filled tirades about how wronged Flynn was, I am shocked that you view the chief law enforcement official in this country advocating for officers to shoot people without justice first being carried out in the court of law.

I guess we’re a country where justice can be served without a trial, and police are allowed to be judge, jury, and executioner, without regard to whether their immediate life is in danger. Just shoot away cus there is looting.

I think this is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of what Trump said, only surpassed by the 'I guess' comment you clearly think represents what anyone else meant.


Let me help you (and 93) with Owls comment.... from someone who shares a similar perspective. I'm not saying this is what he meant, I'm saying this is how I read it... and I'm betting I'm a whole lot closer

It depends, but he doesn't jump to the conclusion that the cop simply shot the person because he had a TV. That happens, but so rarely that it shouldn't be the 'default' assumption.

I'd say similar about Trump's comment. You changing the context from a specific situation to a generic 'guy with a tv' makes a difference.

He's talking about 'thugs'... and a guy stealing diapers or a TV isn't a 'thug'. He might be a jerk or someone who just really needs help. A thug' is the guy planting an explosive device and/or opening up gas valves in buildings to the point where the city is telling people what to do in case the building explodes. A Thug is the guy who doesn't just steal a TV, but injures people while doing it.... a Thug is the guy throwing rocks at the fire department trying to put out one of the 30 intentionally set fires in the city.

and yeah... I agree with Trump that shooting people who are planting bombs or setting places on fire or assaulting innocent people, especially first responders is okay (if it could have the impact of protecting their victims).

Without the context, the statement (by Trump) is absurd. With the context of what he's speaking about, it makes sense.... even to you, it certainly makes 'more' sense. You have to throw out the context in order to make him 'absurd'. If you leave it in, your argument is reduced down to a question of ones 'default assumptions' about police and rioters.

Thanks, but I think that all of us (including OO) can make the distinction between "looters" and domestic terrorists.

That post reminded me of Luther, Obama’s anger translator. I think Ham needs a position in the WH as Trump’s “problematic tweet assuager.”

Cute comment from a guy burning 2k calories in trying to remove any and all context from the tweet. Bravo!