My statement was pretty clear. You've made a whole thread about how the driver was "provoked" or whatever it is you are trying to claim. And again you inject your assumptions and prejudice as you see fit.
Remember these mantras of the left? "I do not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of the character."
no not at all. All I did was provide some perspective. not sure how that was confused with actually advocating for what he did, because I never did at all. All I did was question it, and the reasoning. And the fact he was charged with 2nd degree murder and not terrorism charges speaks volumes doesn't it? For someone who is apparently upset about "injecting my assumptions" you certainly do the same an awful lot don't you?
Did you not see a whole thread about it? "Innocent until proven guilty", says one person. I don't need to be a fucking wizard of the law and investigation to understand that someone who purposely drives his car into a crowd of people and is captured on video is guilty.
None is so blind as he who refuses to see. At every turn he furthers an adversarial relationship with the press as biased and "fake". In your view, how is this not limiting? Creating Trump News, seriously?
Seen the protest. I'll take the actions of a man who mowed a group of people down, and the Daily Stormer that declares white nationalists are now at war into consideration as well.
the press is extremely biased, and have also been caught sharing many, many FAKE stories and attempting to push many FAKE narratives. So now the president isn't allowed to tell the truth? Obviously not, considering the backlash he got for his press conference yesterday, when he literally told the truth. That there was an armed element of fringe left that came with the intention to start shit. Why the hell isn't the MSM talking about that? Why are they so focused on every little thing the president says? Have you ever wondered that or do you just follow along without questioning anything? Trump TV was a 1.5 minute video on his facebook page. Not too unlike all the social media shit barry was involved in. We have had this discussion on here many times, and I'm not trying to derail this thread. Go look up one of those discussions if you want to talk about that.
you answered you own question didn't you? What does that have to do with myself or @Praetorian ? I know it wasn't either of us who said it.
It is "innocent until proven guilty" because that is how the US legal system works. If you pay attention, you will see that even when someone is caught blatantly committing a crime, he/she is referred to as "the suspect" until his/her verdict has been met. I've come out and said instantly that he's fucked and there is no way he will (nor should) go free after that. Pretty sure that's the view of most here, if not all. Until the verdict is read though, in the eyes of the law, he is officially "innocent until proven guilty".
I doubt you'd apply those standards to protests you agree with. BLM supporters murder people and call for the death of whites, but they don't represent the entire movement.
I question nearly everything and certainly the willingness to give extremists credence by justifying their rights while denying those of moderates. What I want is to understand how you and your president decide what is true and what is fake.
BLM doesn't have a message for separatism, segregation, sending minorities "back" to their countries, or supremacy. Their message is about equality and police brutality. Do they have outliers? Yes. Can those outliers be violent? Yes. But the message of the entire group isn't violence. There are many, many different kinds of white power movements out there, versus BLM being one organization. Many of these white power movements strictly call for violence. They are not the same no matter how the right tries to conflate the two. And why try to scapegoat another movement rather than condemning reprehensible behavior of the other?
no one is giving anyone credence. They have just as much a right to protest and assemble as you do. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that. As far as what is "fake'. Again, there have been many, many threads dedicated to that discussion, so I would suggest finding those and reading through them
Anyone who takes any president's word as the definition of pure political truth needs to read more. Most Americans who voted this time around voted for who they thought was the lesser of two evils. Hardly someone they trusted to 100% decide for them what is true or fake.
yes they do, lmao. Cmon spliff, surely you can see the double standard you are placing here right? I mean, seriously.