pretty good argument for not ignoring themhttps://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/899804486268485632 …
-
-
The point is that touting the limited number of people arrested as evidence for a limited number of violent protesters is a red herring.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
No, they wouldn't. By the time NG got there, it would be over. In Charlottesville, at *least* hundreds of people were fighting.
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 1 polubiony -
U really want me to believe they weren't on full standby?


http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/12/national-guard-standby-ahead-opposing-rallies-satu/ …
You're better than this

act
https://fixerguy.net/2017/08/13/charlottesville-and-unpacking-newspeak/ …1 odpowiedź 1 podany dalej 1 polubiony -
If they were in standby in Charlottesville, why weren't they called in? Not violent enough?
1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 2 polubione -
Or was used as Natl distraction
#DamnedFacts =They WERE on full standby Now,#WhoProfits from NOT calling? https://fixerguy.net/2017/08/13/charlottesville-and-unpacking-newspeak/ …#GetRealpic.twitter.com/ahuMWnr53p
1 odpowiedź 1 podany dalej 0 polubionych -
That's the wrong question, bud. Here's the right one: Who benefits from the people fighting amongst each other?
2 odpowiedzi 2 podane dalej 3 polubione -
Your "who benefits frm" = my
#WhoProfits =#CuiBono Same Q in each case Look at ACTIONS (or conspicuous LACK of ACTIONS) and ask again.1 odpowiedź 0 podanych dalej 0 polubionych
Not the same question. Yours presumes there are "sides". There aren't.
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.