But what about the gal who said food was supposed to come from vans but something came out the back it seems but she doesn’t think it was enough food for everyone.
If that’s not enough evidence to convince you of massive voter fraud then I’m afraid your hopeless.
Unfortunately he doesn’t appear to have access to the information that shows he lost.
Wonder why he doesn’t have recent access to information on coronavirus or the soldiers whose plan crashed. I figure he might say something about some of that in between telling people Fox News sucks if he had access to that information.
These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
The context is in the “but”. If he said “we will assume control, AND when the looting starts, the shooting starts” he would be declaring what his actions would be. It ties the shooting in with assuming control, or stating how he would “assume control”.
Instead, he said "we will assume control, BUT when the looting starts, the shooting starts. The “but” separates the act of assuming control with the fact that looting leads to shootings, as evidenced by almost every other instance of looting we’ve seen so far. It’s stating a fact of what the outcome of lootings will be if Tim Walz doesn’t take control of the situation before the eruption of violence.
So in other words, we’ve offered to send in the national guard to quell the riots and looting, BUT if Tim Walz refuses the help and doesn’t diffuse the situation, the looting will lead to shooting.
Trump has explained this himself. I get that liberals want to read into it differently, but they also still think he hasn’t denounced white supremacy, and the link I provided above clearly shows that he has, numerous times. And even with that proof out there, they still claim it.
Charlottesville is another example. They still love to bring up that Trump said good people on both sides referring to white supremacists. But if you watch the whole video of the speech he specifically says not white supremacists or neo-nazis. He was referring to people who didn’t want to tear down statues. But the media cut down the clip so that it fit their narrative and the faithful keep repeating it.
So you can believe the guy who wrote the words as to the intent, or you can believe the media who lies about the intent of his words on a daily basis to further the orange man bad narrative.
You seem to be the only one in the world who assumes this and even if I reeeaaally try to use your context:
The part in bold nullifies it.
It’s a very simple thing to understand. The military(I doubt they were even there) will control the crowd through non-violent means, BUT, if looting starts, an exchange of shots will occur.
How much mental gymnastics does one need to be able to interpret this any different? Obviously he was just making an empty threat and I didn’t take him seriously but to jump through hoops to reinterpret something like this is just patently absurd.
I believe he realized he said something too stupid and decided to backtrack by offering a rationale that made no sense at all.
Oh come on: I’ve been defending even the dumbest things he’s ever said during his Presidency:
“Gibberish that wasn’t really gibberish”:
“Stand back and stand by”:
“Good people on both sides”
EVEN HIS INFAMOUS SPEECH ABOUT MEXICANS:
It should be quite telling when I’m simply unable to defend his tweet other than he was just telling people how big his dick is.
I don’t think anyone will have the balls to do any shooting when the military’s really there and actively doing crowd control, let alone looting. I could be wrong though for the US.
In our Republic, the People need to have confidence that our elections are Free and Fair. This underpins all our democratic institutions. Because if the public loses faith in the election process that selects our leaders, if both sides believe that leaders are imposed on us rather than elected, then it would not be surprising to see the public bypass elections altogether and simple seat our leaders using force, as it occurs in countries the world over.
If there is unity still possible in this country, it should be found in all Americans wanting elections to be fairly won no matter who wins. Otherwise, our leaders are not elected but picked for us by parties, the media, the rich and connected — from anyone but us, the People.
Unfortunately, I think we’ve been in this state since the industrial revolution. As media outlets have proliferated, we’ve gotten further and further into this territory. It’s all in the money that special interests and corporations can shell out to get candidates in their corner and elected.
Not that I agree with it at all, I think it’s disgusting, but I think that’s how it’s gone on for 120+ years. Measures need to be taken to reverse it, but it won’t happen without a huge push from the people - maybe not even then. I don’t know what it’ll take to reverse it.