They covered up a tRump tweet glorifying violence with a warning.
I bet he's spraying spittle all over the west wing. Well, if he's awake yet.
Twitter placed a clickthrough block on a tweet by President Donald Trump. The tweet said "when the looting starts, the shooting starts."
www.businessinsider.com
It appears YOU never read his tweet since he never "glorified violence" in it at all!
View attachment 342491
LINK
You are so easy to snooker, that is easy when you let others tell you what to believe.
Twitter screws up again.....
Trump called them thugs. That's a dog whistle and Trump knows it. I hope blacks show up this November.
When the looting starts the shooting starts? So looting is a death sentence? What have we become? The worst part of America is in the White House.
You are truly blind, since the word "thug" isn't in this tweet, that Twitter responded to, here it is again:
View attachment 342494
Trump said the thugs rioting/looting should be shot. Spin all you want. Black people know you are fos.
Stop manspaining what trump said/meant. Racist fuckers.
You didn't post the evidence at all.
Snicker....
you apparently cannot click view, and read the post that was masked. it is too difficult for you.
You are too stupid to realize twitter has HIDDEN the rest of it, I just posted a link to the full tweet, of which twitter hides part of it.
of course you could not admit that you were wrong and instead lash out like a 12 year old so called president. shocker.
the masked tweet contains the glorifiying violence part, duh.
you idiot posted repeatedly the unchanged preceding tweet, and stated that the word "thug" is not in this tweet.
reroll idiody:
"You are truly blind, since the word "thug" isn't in this tweet, that Twitter responded to, here it is again:"
I didn't realize you can see invisible parts of a tweet, why didn't you say so....
No he didn't "glorify violence" here are his actual words:
“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!”
LINK
Twitter and you thinks he is glorifying violence,
Merriam-Webster thinks it means something else:
"to make
glorious by bestowing honor, praise, or admiration"
He didn't do anything of the kind.
by the way those "thugs" are committing a lot of serious crimes, but that doesn't bother you at all as you are too busy hating Trump.
Wrote this earlier on another thread about this. My first reaction was, how is that glorifying violence?
lol
Jack is slapping him back. Since Trump was talking about the "military" (National Guard), I question if he was "glorifying violence." Twitter's policy has an exception for "state actors" and looters are not a "protected group."
I don't understand why the looting is the big concern for Trump when the police station was burned. To me that seems the more serious situation. If the NG can be brought in, what is Trump waiting for?
No, I don't think the NG will come out with guns blazing. They've been trained to deal with unarmed civilians. That remark by Trump was ..... well, maybe it was "glorifying violence." Didn't need to be mentioned.
It didn't need to be mentioned. Besides, Minnesota had already activated 500 NG when Trump rolled out of bed and made his offer to play tough guy. These are citizens, NOT carrying guns, who are angry about police brutality. This situation is not helped by shooting at these people. I promise you.
Trump tends to talk too much, sometime goes way across the line, offending people in the process, sometimes stupidly offensive, it is why I cringe when he uses Twitter.
But he wasn't "glorifying" violence, that is a media fabrication.
Depends on how you look at it. See this is the underlying problem with ALL of this. We have to use some form of judgment on whether something is or isn't fair, true, etc. etc. And people have different judgments. So those decisions are inevitably going to cause arguments, in themselves.
I can see it either way.
Whether something it true or not is not a judgement call.
Sorry.
I wasn't thinking only if something is true, but fair, objectionable, etc. However, the way the words "truth" and "lies" are flung around these days, you end up in the same arguments about it.
Schiff said this on Twitter a few weeks ago:
Adam Schiff
@RepAdamSchiff
·May 7
Trump’s campaign invited Russian help, made full use of it, then covered it up.
I don't recall that in the Mueller Report, do you? Schiff referred to the Intelligence Committee investigation and linked a string of witnesses. So he got away with it. But is that "true?" The "evidence" he cited was flimsy at best. So no, I don't think that was "true," it was a whole hell of a lot of spin.
I was livid when I found about the Trump Tower meeting in June '16, because it showed a willing attitude toward Russian help, but it came to naught. Schiff even used that joke Trump made asking Russia for Hillary's missing emails as "proof."
C'mon, Crepitus. We don't ALWAYS have the last word in what is "true," either.