Cringe

“NetflixAdaptationWidow”

Youre mad im getting paid millions of dollars for a netflix series on widows post

You will not respond to the rest of the post because your position is untenable.

Trump is not guilty until "exonerated". We require evidence of his guilt. This sort of mindset is responsible for the extent of conspiracy-related drivel that you've ended up believing over the past ~5 years.

To quote the report directly...



The park police coordinated a plan involving several other agencies to clear the park in preparation to set-up fencing. Communication was poor, and mostly distributed orally, which may have led to confusion and the subsequent use of force by other agencies in the course of a (lawful) clearing of the park.

If there is damning evidence to come out in some other report, we may have to revise our opinion. But right now, the evidence we have does not support the accusation that Trump ordered the violent clearing of protesters so that he could stage a photo op.

If the basis of "public opinion" is "I believe without evidence", then we can safely disregard whoever belongs to that segment of the public.

Oh cool. Were to the part where you ignore the apologies timeline and pretend the report says things it doesn't. Same with the Russiagate thing

I am quoting the report, which I read. I'm sure the Youtube video was very informative. The Park Police were principally responsible for the decision to clear the park. They were responsible for planning the operation, and coordinating with the Secret Service (who were briefed on the plan) and other parties, including the MPD and Bureau of Prisons. We now know that the Park Police made the decision completely separate from the President's impending visit, and coordinated with the Secret Service to replace the fence well before the President had even made the decision to go. There were operational mistakes which led to some protesters not hearing the dispersal orders, and the Bureau of Prisons, specifically, arrived late, and was not clear on the accepted rules of engagement. That points to organizational incompetence, not a decision to beat protesters bloody to reaffirm the President's machismo. If there is any evidence which comes to light to support that narrative, we will reconsider. But we do not jump to that as a default conclusion or narrative, as the media did in the immediate aftermath of the event.

This is all an aside to your original response, which was "If I disagree with one point in ten, the other nine are invalid". It goes without saying that that's not an argument.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Jun 14 2021 12:29pm

Excuse me for not trusting your interpretation when you repeated for months that the Mueller report exonnerated Trump when it explicitly said it didn't. Now you're ignoring that the scope of the report was intentionally limited to the park police and did not investigate the intentions of the secret service, and that the park police were not informed of the photo-op before it happened which means they are the only ones that could even possibly be exonnerated by this report.

You have a history of actively ignoring things that don't fit the conclusions you want to draw. I'd say it started with Trump, but it didn't. This is just another example to throw on top of the pile of your intentional dishonesty.

The same people that were occupying wallstreet are defending billionaire media corporations now.

Will their belief systems ever make sense? I doubt it.