You don't care about the Elon grandstanding over it even though what he demanded in that tweet is what the literal President subsequently did?
I think he tried that and that's when the one fifteen year old girl charged with unarmed carjacking kicked his ass. The police thought the others falling down laughing was them participating.He should have shown them his balls, they would have been in such awe they would have stopped beating him.
Exactly my point. It wouldn't and shouldn't have made the front page of a small town newspaper that a group of teenagers got into a street hassle at 4 in the morning.
Is there any reason to believe it was staged?
I think we all know what really happened.
Here was his post.
If it's true that Elon influenced Trump's decision, I care more that we have a president that is influenced by social media posts by a car manufacturer.
I'm not as offended by the NG being in DC. DC isn't a state. It's run by the federal government. To me, it's just not that big of a deal.
No disagreement with that last point. But at least to me I think there's a distinction between trying to spin current events to sway hearts and minds and trying to seize on pretexts for authoritarian actions. Whatever distinction you want to draw based on DC's federal status I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks it's a good thing for the military to be deployed out on the streets of American cities - and Trump is openly talking about doing to the same thing in other cities that aren't controlled by the Feds.
Politicizing events for authoritarian actions is a BIG topic.
And the cities he talks about deploying the military on are exclusively "blue" states and cities. It's fucked up as hell and I wish I could find it unbelievable that people support Trump in these efforts.
No, I extrapolated your statement "until he admits he lied, he should be blacklisted" yo include everyone in that situation, including our wonderful president, your vote, me trump. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
How can you trust anything from a group of habitual liars?
That is not a guy who got beat up by ten people. That's a guy that got punched in the mouth and then smeared the blood all over. Point out the cuts, bruises and dirt from getting beaten by a group of people, not if they had any particular ill intent.Here was his post.
"I didn't care much about it when it happened and don't now but I'd have liked to have seen the same scrutiny turned on the Big Balls assault case that got DC invaded. I thought both cases involved a lot of drama and overreaction."
What same scrutiny do you think he was referring to? Because Jussie's claim initially didn't get very much scrutiny when people thought some white maga's were beating him up and politicians were decrying the white supremacists running wild at 3am in Chicago. Then it received a lot of scrutiny when people thought the story was caca.
So do you think he does believe this kid got beat up and wants no scrutiny or do you think he believes it was made up and wants lots of scrutiny? I believe he didn't think it happened largely the way it has been reported and said he wanted Jussie level scrutiny to pick apart the story but now that he has been made fun of and googled a bit, he now thinks it largely happened but thinks its okay because a 20 year old person he doesn't like shouldn't have been outside at 3am trying to go home with his date to get laid.
He's a weasel little fucker to be called big balls.Here was his post.
"I didn't care much about it when it happened and don't now but I'd have liked to have seen the same scrutiny turned on the Big Balls assault case that got DC invaded. I thought both cases involved a lot of drama and overreaction."
What same scrutiny do you think he was referring to? Because Jussie's claim initially didn't get very much scrutiny when people thought some white maga's were beating him up and politicians were decrying the white supremacists running wild at 3am in Chicago. Then it received a lot of scrutiny when people thought the story was caca.
So do you think he does believe this kid got beat up and wants no scrutiny or do you think he believes it was made up and wants lots of scrutiny? I believe he didn't think it happened largely the way it has been reported and said he wanted Jussie level scrutiny to pick apart the story but now that he has been made fun of and googled a bit, he now thinks it largely happened but thinks its okay because a 20 year old person he doesn't like shouldn't have been outside at 3am trying to go home with his date to get laid.
So you're the vote that trump wants, one who is accepting of his first move. Makes it easier for his next move of taking over a city.
Maybe I'm being to generous to the OP, but I thought what he was saying deserved scrutiny was the rapidity with which this insignificant carjacking attempt was turned into a major national news story and justification for putting the military in the streets of DC. I agree that I'm not aware of any reason to think the whole thing was staged, but there certainly is reason to call into question the way the facts have been described by those seeking to use it as a pretext for a military presence in DC.Here was his post.
"I didn't care much about it when it happened and don't now but I'd have liked to have seen the same scrutiny turned on the Big Balls assault case that got DC invaded. I thought both cases involved a lot of drama and overreaction."
What same scrutiny do you think he was referring to? Because Jussie's claim initially didn't get very much scrutiny when people thought some white maga's were beating him up and politicians were decrying the white supremacists running wild at 3am in Chicago. Then it received a lot of scrutiny when people thought the story was caca.
So do you think he does believe this kid got beat up and wants no scrutiny or do you think he believes it was made up and wants lots of scrutiny? I believe he didn't think it happened largely the way it has been reported and said he wanted Jussie level scrutiny to pick apart the story but now that he has been made fun of and googled a bit, he now thinks it largely happened but thinks its okay because a 20 year old person he doesn't like shouldn't have been outside at 3am trying to go home with his date to get laid.
So now you want the scrutiny to be focused on if he got hit once while being surrounded by 10 people trying to rob him and/or his date or if he got hit by more than one person while surrounded by 10 people trying to rob him and/or his date? That's the level of scrutiny that you are hoping for here that would match the Jussie scrutiny?
Let's start with the basics. How about actual support for the entire robbery attempt. Nowhere have I seen anything but his word that supports that. It's true that his story that he was in an altercation with a group of black youths was witnessed. None of the conversation and none of the beginning was by anyone not involved. No one can actually support the number of people involved or who initiated anything.
Maybe he said Jussie level scrutiny implying he thought big balls was lying but meant Jussie level attention meaning we shouldn't make a big deal of it and call in the National Guard. I would agree with the second statement but scrutiny like the Smollett case implies that he doesn't think the story is largely true.