Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SizzleChest said:

DOMINATE.

 

They should have told Trump to go ahead and head outside and show them how to dominate protesters himself instead of hiding in an underground bunker like a little bitch. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, LABEVO said:

this is very intentional imo. Trump wants to demoralize the demonize the protesters through force but doesn't want the public blow back if it goes poorly so trying to encourage the local officials to put the blame on them if it goes south... 

Trump is scared shitless and called daddy for advice on how to regain control.  I never thought Trump would get us into a foreign war because it would be a situation he couldn’t control.  
 

He must maintain control of the narratives and between the virus and George Floyd, he is helpless and frightened of the idea of consequences. 
 

Trump isn’t playing 3D chess.  He’s an illiterate five year old playing regular chess throwing the pieces all over the room. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds like they've more or less ordered an evacuation of downtown Omaha ahead of the press conference on the non-charges at 1:30. It seems to me if you have to evacuate everyone before your press conference, you know you are about to fuck up big time. 

Yep. Old Market owners being told to board up and get out. Businesses around 72 and Dodge being told the same. At least 7 armored vehicles downtown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

If you dont know that Civil Rights era tactics were specifically designed to provoke white violence I dont know what to tell you.  

Much like the Boston Tea party it's just another example of where violence yielded action and substantive changes.

 

Well first off, most of the Founding Fathers despised the unruly mob and it's violence.  The Boston Tea Party was very targeted, they simply boarded and dumped the tea into the harbor.  They didn't loot and take it home, they didn't loot and destroy innocent businesses, they didn't attack fellow citizens or rape and kill them (a woman in her 30's was kidnapped, raped, and murdered in Minneapolis Wed. night.)  Many of the historical accounts claimed they even cleaned up the deck before leaving (as in actually cleaned, not looting.)

Most of the founding fathers viewed riots and mobs as counterproductive and that it set back their efforts.  George Washington condemned the tea party act.  Ben Franklin felt the British East India Tea Company should be reimbursed and even offered to help pay.   

 

As for the 60's:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/george-floyd-death-demand-accountability-dont-romanticize-rioting/

...This sequence of events is all too familiar from American history. A new paper by Princeton University political scientist Omar Wasow, a long-time researcher on civil rights and politics, sheds some light on why nonviolent protest tends to provoke sympathy while violent protests tend to polarize and even empower the protesters’ political opponents. Wasow’s father was a part of “Freedom Summer,” the bold activist venture to register black voters in Mississippi in 1964, and Wasow had long wondered how the momentum of civil-rights activism was blunted over the course of the decade.

Wasow looked at protests that took place between 1960 and 1972, measuring how they shifted public opinion. What he found is that the civil rights movement’s nonviolent protests in the early 1960s were remarkably effective in moving public opinion, pushing the general public toward support for civil rights; these protests also even increased the Democratic presidential vote share in counties proximate to nonviolent actions.

But things changed drastically when protests turned violent in the late ’60s. Wasow determines that white public opinion shifted so sharply in favor of social control that the violence may have tipped the election to Richard Nixon:

Critically, in the case of the 1960s black freedom struggle, these results suggest that nothing in the contest between the more egalitarian and order-maintenance political coalitions was inevitable. These findings suggest that the “transformative egalitarian” coalition . . . was fragile but, in the absence of violent protests, would likely have won the presidential election of 1968. In this counterfactual scenario, the United States would have elected Hubert Humphrey, lead author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than Richard Nixon. In the absence of white antipathy to black uprisings, the “law and order” coalition would not have carried the day and, possibly, not developed a durable campaigning and governing strategy for the next half century.

Wasow’s paper points to one large-scale political outcome of violent protesting and rioting. But it’s important to think about the economic and social outcomes as well.

In 2005 a pair of researchers looked at the urban riots of the 1960s. They found that the riots depressed the value of black-owned properties over the decade, with little recovery in the decade after. Meanwhile, they calculated that there was as much as a 10 percent loss in the value of black-owned residential property...

 

...You’ve probably seen a quote going around by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. calling riots the “language of the unheard.” But those sharing that quotation would do well to read the full text in which he made those remarks. “I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt,” he stated.

King worried that increased rioting would lead to a “right-wing takeover” and lamented that  “every time a riot develops, it helps George Wallace.” In 1968 he warned,“They’ll throw us into concentration camps. The Wallaces and Birchites will take over. The sick people and the fascists will be strengthened. They’ll cordon off the ghetto and issue passes for us to get in and out.” Recalling the riots of 1967, he continued, “We cannot stand two more summers like last summer without leading inevitably to a right-wing takeover and a fascist state that will destroy the soul of the nation....”

Edited by clapclapclap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police unions are organized and exist to represent the police officers collectively and I agree with the concept.  

Our local governments are organized to represent the citizens of the community when dealing with things like police unions.

One is smaller and better organized, more specific in its mission.  The other is more fragmented in its base and mission and has a lot more issues on their plate.  

How you balance this out is the issue.  But I think our local governments need to seriously look at the suggestions in the Sinyangwe post.  This would be a good place to start.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Tuco said:


Yep. Old Market owners being told to board up and get out. Businesses around 72 and Dodge being told the same. At least 7 armored vehicles downtown.

If it jumps off at 72nd and Dodge, I hope they move away from the Children's Hospital. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

On another note, who’s ready to sign up for some gun control???

This has shown cops can’t protect you, rising widespread unrest equals let’s buy some guns. 

This is why I don't advocate for gun control. Let the cops give their's up first.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on February 10, 1964, and after a 54-day filibuster, passed the United States Senate on June 19, 1964. The Act was signed into law by President Johnson at the White House on July 2, 1964 

Are you a fucking idiot? 1968 is not 1964. Go back and reread your post where you quoted what I said and tell me again what year it referenced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is in his bunker bitching out Governors as the Red Hoarde circles closer and closer.

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Trump is scared shitless and called daddy for advice on how to regain control.  I never thought Trump would get us into a foreign war because it would be a situation he couldn’t control.  
 

He must maintain control of the narratives and between the virus and George Floyd, he is helpless and frightened of the idea of consequences. 
 

Trump isn’t playing 3D chess.  He’s an illiterate five year old playing regular chess throwing the pieces all over the room. 

i dont think trump is playing 3D chess but his advisors...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Skipper said:

What part was debunked?  Look, maybe my original post was misleading.  I don't think anything close to a majority of those responsible for the looting and destruction are ANTIFA or any other organization. But there was a huge pallet of bricks set out in downtown Dallas Friday night right after the protest.  I don't think it's likely that local angry Dallas black youth made a trip out to a brickyard Friday afternoon to buy hundreds of dollars worth of bricks to lay out to help ensure a riot broke out after the protests.  But someone did.

Here is a NYT article regarding some of the organized chaos:  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/31/us/george-floyd-protests-white-supremacists-antifa.html

 

 

"Hey everybody I am keeping up with all of this enough to know that Scary ANTIFA Boogeymen are leaving piles of bricks around Dallas but not well enough to know that those rumors were exposed as total horseshit!" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Catdaddyhorn said:

Are you a fucking idiot? 1968 is not 1964. Go back and reread your post where you quoted what I said and tell me again what year it referenced.

I guess I am. A little distracted at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Well first off, most of the Founding Fathers despised the unruly mob and it's violence.  The Boston Tea Party was very targeted, they simply boarded and dumped the tea into the harbor.  They didn't loot and take it home, they didn't loot and destroy innocent businesses, they didn't attack fellow citizens or rape and kill them (a woman in her 30's was kidnapped, raped, and murdered in Minneapolis Wed. night.)  Many of the historical accounts claimed they even cleaned up the deck before leaving (as in actually cleaned, not looting.)

Most of the founding fathers viewed riots and mobs as counterproductive and that it set back their efforts.  George Washington condemned the tea party act.  Ben Franklin felt the British East India Tea Company should be reimbursed and even offered to help pay.   

 

As for the 60's:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/george-floyd-death-demand-accountability-dont-romanticize-rioting/

...This sequence of events is all too familiar from American history. A new paper by Princeton University political scientist Omar Wasow, a long-time researcher on civil rights and politics, sheds some light on why nonviolent protest tends to provoke sympathy while violent protests tend to polarize and even empower the protesters’ political opponents. Wasow’s father was a part of “Freedom Summer,” the bold activist venture to register black voters in Mississippi in 1964, and Wasow had long wondered how the momentum of civil-rights activism was blunted over the course of the decade.

Wasow looked at protests that took place between 1960 and 1972, measuring how they shifted public opinion. What he found is that the civil rights movement’s nonviolent protests in the early 1960s were remarkably effective in moving public opinion, pushing the general public toward support for civil rights; these protests also even increased the Democratic presidential vote share in counties proximate to nonviolent actions.

But things changed drastically when protests turned violent in the late ’60s. Wasow determines that white public opinion shifted so sharply in favor of social control that the violence may have tipped the election to Richard Nixon:

Critically, in the case of the 1960s black freedom struggle, these results suggest that nothing in the contest between the more egalitarian and order-maintenance political coalitions was inevitable. These findings suggest that the “transformative egalitarian” coalition . . . was fragile but, in the absence of violent protests, would likely have won the presidential election of 1968. In this counterfactual scenario, the United States would have elected Hubert Humphrey, lead author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than Richard Nixon. In the absence of white antipathy to black uprisings, the “law and order” coalition would not have carried the day and, possibly, not developed a durable campaigning and governing strategy for the next half century.

Wasow’s paper points to one large-scale political outcome of violent protesting and rioting. But it’s important to think about the economic and social outcomes as well.

In 2005 a pair of researchers looked at the urban riots of the 1960s. They found that the riots depressed the value of black-owned properties over the decade, with little recovery in the decade after. Meanwhile, they calculated that there was as much as a 10 percent loss in the value of black-owned residential property...

 

...You’ve probably seen a quote going around by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. calling riots the “language of the unheard.” But those sharing that quotation would do well to read the full text in which he made those remarks. “I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt,” he stated.

King worried that increased rioting would lead to a “right-wing takeover” and lamented that  “every time a riot develops, it helps George Wallace.” In 1968 he warned,“They’ll throw us into concentration camps. The Wallaces and Birchites will take over. The sick people and the fascists will be strengthened. They’ll cordon off the ghetto and issue passes for us to get in and out.” Recalling the riots of 1967, he continued, “We cannot stand two more summers like last summer without leading inevitably to a right-wing takeover and a fascist state that will destroy the soul of the nation....”

Google the Stamp Act riots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Casual Encounter said:

I guess I am. A little distracted at the moment.

Sorry for calling you an idiot.  I've been quick on the hard counts lately.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, F250 said:

This is why I don't advocate for gun control. Let the cops give their's up first.

 

And give up their discriminatory oppression of minorites lawfully exercising their gun rights. 

Most of the gun-control discussion from before was centered around assault weapons and AR-15s and not really shotguns and hunting rifles. And most of it was about preventing firearms from landing in the hands of the mentally disturbed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Google the Stamp Act riots.

Remember in all of that, it was still the black guy that got shot by law enforcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

I guess I am. A little distracted at the moment.

I'm a fucking idiot too, so we have that going for us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Black people are too dumb to have political ideologies or to plan ahead, it HAD to be white leftists!" is a bold position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Catdaddyhorn said:

Sorry for calling you an idiot.  I've been quick on the hard counts lately.  

I apologize for being a dumbass and calling you out when you were correct. I’m teaching my daughter how to drive at the moment...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

He's got several more tweets that I recommend reading.

 

 

 

Edited by clapclapclap
CNN has moved Dallas to DC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Most of the founding fathers viewed riots and mobs as counterproductive and that it set back their efforts. 

What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

thank you obama GIF by The Standing O

Of course Trump isn't going to come out with a unifying message that Black Lives Matter.  First off, he probably doesn't think that they do.  But more importantly, he knows damn well this chaos helps him in November and at the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters to him.   He's loving this shit.  He thinks this will help him be the President that brings law and order back to America instead of the one that fucked up COVID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skipper said:

Of course Trump isn't going to come out with a unifying message that Black Lives Matter.  First off, he probably doesn't think that they do.  But more importantly, he knows damn well this chaos helps him in November and at the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters to him.   He's loving this shit.  He thinks this will help him be the President that brings law and order back to America instead of the one that fucked up COVID.

How will it help him, if he doesn't even try to tell everyone to calm the fuck down. Let's get back to the rule of law. Weaken Police Union's leverage from bad cops being removed, and that if this doesn't stop, he'll have no choice but to make it stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Well first off, most of the Founding Fathers despised the unruly mob and it's violence.  The Boston Tea Party was very targeted, they simply boarded and dumped the tea into the harbor.  They didn't loot and take it home, they didn't loot and destroy innocent businesses, they didn't attack fellow citizens or rape and kill them (a woman in her 30's was kidnapped, raped, and murdered in Minneapolis Wed. night.)  Many of the historical accounts claimed they even cleaned up the deck before leaving (as in actually cleaned, not looting.)

Most of the founding fathers viewed riots and mobs as counterproductive and that it set back their efforts.  George Washington condemned the tea party act.  Ben Franklin felt the British East India Tea Company should be reimbursed and even offered to help pay.   

 

As for the 60's:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/george-floyd-death-demand-accountability-dont-romanticize-rioting/

...This sequence of events is all too familiar from American history. A new paper by Princeton University political scientist Omar Wasow, a long-time researcher on civil rights and politics, sheds some light on why nonviolent protest tends to provoke sympathy while violent protests tend to polarize and even empower the protesters’ political opponents. Wasow’s father was a part of “Freedom Summer,” the bold activist venture to register black voters in Mississippi in 1964, and Wasow had long wondered how the momentum of civil-rights activism was blunted over the course of the decade.

Wasow looked at protests that took place between 1960 and 1972, measuring how they shifted public opinion. What he found is that the civil rights movement’s nonviolent protests in the early 1960s were remarkably effective in moving public opinion, pushing the general public toward support for civil rights; these protests also even increased the Democratic presidential vote share in counties proximate to nonviolent actions.

But things changed drastically when protests turned violent in the late ’60s. Wasow determines that white public opinion shifted so sharply in favor of social control that the violence may have tipped the election to Richard Nixon:

Critically, in the case of the 1960s black freedom struggle, these results suggest that nothing in the contest between the more egalitarian and order-maintenance political coalitions was inevitable. These findings suggest that the “transformative egalitarian” coalition . . . was fragile but, in the absence of violent protests, would likely have won the presidential election of 1968. In this counterfactual scenario, the United States would have elected Hubert Humphrey, lead author of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rather than Richard Nixon. In the absence of white antipathy to black uprisings, the “law and order” coalition would not have carried the day and, possibly, not developed a durable campaigning and governing strategy for the next half century.

Wasow’s paper points to one large-scale political outcome of violent protesting and rioting. But it’s important to think about the economic and social outcomes as well.

In 2005 a pair of researchers looked at the urban riots of the 1960s. They found that the riots depressed the value of black-owned properties over the decade, with little recovery in the decade after. Meanwhile, they calculated that there was as much as a 10 percent loss in the value of black-owned residential property...

 

...You’ve probably seen a quote going around by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. calling riots the “language of the unheard.” But those sharing that quotation would do well to read the full text in which he made those remarks. “I’m absolutely convinced that a riot merely intensifies the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt,” he stated.

King worried that increased rioting would lead to a “right-wing takeover” and lamented that  “every time a riot develops, it helps George Wallace.” In 1968 he warned,“They’ll throw us into concentration camps. The Wallaces and Birchites will take over. The sick people and the fascists will be strengthened. They’ll cordon off the ghetto and issue passes for us to get in and out.” Recalling the riots of 1967, he continued, “We cannot stand two more summers like last summer without leading inevitably to a right-wing takeover and a fascist state that will destroy the soul of the nation....”

Rioting and destroying random buildings doesn't do anything constructive for positive change. 

King's passive non violent ways have also shown to do nothing for positive change. 

The times in American history where positive change was achieved was through both non violent public information campaigns for the cause tied to very coordinated and targeted violence and disruption against the head of the snake. Looting a random chick fil a or target does nothing. Targeting the heads of chick fil a and target while hijacking and destroying their supply trucks would get attention. 

The violence can't be random. It has to be targeted and swift and the message has to be this is for positive change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I support law enforcement&firmly believe that overwhelming majority of police officers are decent,brave, honest&hardworking

OK, I am notorious for giving cops the benefit of the doubt more than most around here, but this kind of statement is seemingly never questioned.  Where is the evidence that the "overwhelming majority of police officers are decent, brave, honest and hardworking"?

I certainly don't believe they all reflect the opposite of those virtues, but I think it's probably time we stop assuming that, say, 90% (or 99.9%, which seems to be a popular claim) of cops are great people.  Maybe it's just bad luck that a significant chunk of those caught on camera are dumb, racist shitheads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Casual Encounter said:

I apologize for being a dumbass and calling you out when you were correct. I’m teaching my daughter how to drive at the moment...

scared spongebob GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, I am notorious for giving cops the benefit of the doubt more than most around here, but this kind of statement is seemingly never questioned.  Where is the evidence that the "overwhelming majority of police officers are decent, brave, honest and hardworking"?

I certainly don't believe they all reflect the opposite of those virtues, but I think it's probably time we stop assuming that, say, 90% (or 99.9%, which seems to be a popular claim) of cops are great people.  Maybe it's just bad luck that a significant chunk of those caught on camera are dumb, racist shitheads?

If the overwhelming majority of officers were decent, brave, and trustworthy then we wouldn't be seeing dozens of videos from across the country of officers violently overreacting and violating citizens' rights while dozens of officers watch and do nothing.

There are doubtless plenty of good officers. Overwhelming majority is flatly contradicted by the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

How will it help him, if he doesn't even try to tell everyone to calm the fuck down. 

He may tell people to "calm down" to check the box but he's sure as hell not going to do it in some "presidential' unifying message.  This chaos only helps him in November. That's all he cares about.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any "calming" message he could give would be done in that flat, bored, stumbling teleprompter fashion that everyone knows he doesn't buy.  Then, he'd give up, start throwing barbs and praising himself.  He's fucking pathetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it jumps off at 72nd and Dodge, I hope they move away from the Children's Hospital. 

County Attorney held press conference. He kept fucking up the deceased’s name.

It’s another instance that if you are armed and get into a fight, you are allowed to kill the person you are fighting with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Nebraska looks like they want to turn this up to 11 holy shit

Where are you watching this?  I'm not seeing it on the major cable networks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DigglerontheHoof said:

Any "calming" message he could give would be done in that flat, bored, stumbling teleprompter fashion that everyone knows he doesn't buy.  Then, he'd give up, start throwing barbs and praising himself.  He's fucking pathetic. 

At this point he's completely incapable of calming anything because everybody knows what a racist white supremacist piece of shit he is.  The best thing he could do is just disappear and not say anything. Everything else will only cause more problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

OK, I am notorious for giving cops the benefit of the doubt more than most around here, but this kind of statement is seemingly never questioned.  Where is the evidence that the "overwhelming majority of police officers are decent, brave, honest and hardworking"?

I certainly don't believe they all reflect the opposite of those virtues, but I think it's probably time we stop assuming that, say, 90% (or 99.9%, which seems to be a popular claim) of cops are great people.  Maybe it's just bad luck that a significant chunk of those caught on camera are dumb, racist shitheads?

Even a police officer who does not abuse minorities or his power in general but stands by and watches while others do it and doesn't whistleblow and call for punishment is still a bad cop. In that respect I think the overwhelming majority, and I'm talking probably 95% plus, are complicit. The police culture of thin blue line and us-against-them is what needs to be regulated out of police forces before anything can change. Any officer that witnesses wrongdoing by a fellow officer and doesn't report it should be criminally and civilly held liable for that officer's actions. The same for any police chief or captain who does the same and covers up reports from officers or even worse retaliates against them for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

didn't see this yesterday. honestly surprised any of these people are still alive. looks like even the capitol police are not on board with the whole "protect the president at all costs!" mantra

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Of course Trump isn't going to come out with a unifying message that Black Lives Matter.  First off, he probably doesn't think that they do.  But more importantly, he knows damn well this chaos helps him in November and at the end of the day, that's the only thing that matters to him.   He's loving this shit.  He thinks this will help him be the President that brings law and order back to America instead of the one that fucked up COVID.

He thinks it helps him win in November. He doesn't know shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Where are you watching this?  I'm not seeing it on the major cable networks.

Big Ten Network?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

Even a police officer who does not abuse minorities or his power in general but stands by and watches while others do it and doesn't whistleblow and call for punishment is still a bad cop.

If there's a good cop/bad cop distinction, we basically have video evidence of 1 good cop.

(I think good cop/bad cop is a bad logical framework. It's systemic, not individual.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Where are you watching this?  I'm not seeing it on the major cable networks.

Just online, but it doesn't look good 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Just online, but it doesn't look good 

 

I don't think this guy is going to need to worry about defending his bars for too much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just online, but it doesn't look good 
 

I’m watching local news.
Owner’s dad pushes someone. Someone knocks him down. Owner brandished weapon asking who pushed his dad. One guy, one gal jump on owner. Owner fires weapon twice. They run away. Scurlock jumps on owner as they are running off. Owner kills Scurlock.
Either side could claim self defense. It’s the Wild West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

" VP Biden, how do we stop police brutality?"
"Shoot people safer"

 

spacer.png

Edited by Johnny Sack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

He thinks it helps him win in November. He doesn't know shit.

It seems like a safe bet.  Instead of getting blamed for COVID disaster, record unemployment and otherwise having his weekly insane tweets/tantrums/belittling of reporters highlighted by the media, it's nothing but riot coverage on every channel.  That suburban white female that may not like Trump very much might buy the "this is what happens with liberal leadership' fear angle that will no doubt be his talking point.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

" VP Biden, how do we stop police brutality?"
"Shoot people safer"

 

 

Biden has a talent for saying the wrong thing. At least he's not calling for police to "DOMINATE DOMINATE DOMINATE" the protesters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...