don't forget that in the last one, they put the picture of Cannon's (white) dad immediately under the "25-year-old man charged in shooting death" headline with no caption
And if I remember correctly there was some imperfect self defense claims that should have mitigated the sentence even lower. Not defending the guy just saying how unfair it is when charged with bogus hate crime.
Trump is being careful not to stoke racial tensions. That's what the other side wants. You need these kinds of tensions to trigger the crisis needed for revolution, standard destabilization techniques.
So long as he keeps the messaging on unity he wins.
We should remember that trump represents all Americans irrespective of their creed, race,religion etc. so sharing these images might stoke racial tensions but he should display placards on how media always antagonizes him.
Just like the south park episode where Cartman was charged with a hate crime because he threw a rock during a dirt claud fight. And it accidentally hit the black kid.
Well yes, but in article 3 they front load the horrors and atrocities committed by the 11 year old white girl by highlighting hate speech first, then the black eye
Community service was my first thought too. An 11 year old white girl in juvy? Sounds like more trouble in the making. "Hate crime," bs. We had bullies in school, too. Just not that hard to deal with.
Their obvious racist narrative pushing aside, hate crimes shouldn't be a thing.
A crime is a crime, and we have judges and juries to determine giving max punishments if the motive is as despicable as racism. Labeling a crime as a hate crime means you can falsely imply a racist motive when there might not be one, and taking it even further, imply there's a crime when there isn't one.
I've been saying that for years. Besides, it's an extra layer of insult for victims of "non-hate" crimes.
"Ma'am, your son was murdered by a serial killer, but on the plus side we can confirm that this wasn't a hate crime so you can mourn your son while knowing he wasn't killed for racial reasons, isn't that wonderful?"
I lived 11 miles outside of NYC at the time. The media I got was all "greater metropolitan area." I'll agree to your second list, but I'll point out there wasn't unrest like the riots of '67-68. Whether cities in general were dirty and dangerous in 1980 due to those riots 12 years earlier or not I couldn't say, and I left for the midwest shortly afterwards so I never got to see DJT clean up NYC or any of that. It was a nice change of pace. I did hear about Tawana Brawley at the time and it's still a disturbing case, regardless what actually happened.
Racial tensions weren't high where I was. We laughed at Sharpton's goofiness. Impersonations of Jesse Jackson were easy, and well received. If your's was no good you were ignored, not threatened. Black people especially had no qualms about condemning black people that were just troublemakers. Right up through the OJ trial I saw people willing to be honest about problems in the black community, so I would say that started changing probably some time after 911.
If cops were only arresting victims not perps in NYC, I couldn't challenge your claim. I was busy challenging cop's ineptitude.
You're right about the mentally ill. I didn't realize we started kicking them out of institutions and onto the streets as early as 1955. I didn't see that until more like 1985.
Your previous post though, we didn't have that. If the perp was black, they said so. We didn't have Coulter's law. Neither did we have sympathy for cop killers or criminals committing suicide by cop. This is an odd and sharp contrast, for such a short distance at the same time.
So for me to see MSM pitying the latest string of fools just begging to get shot to death by cops, that's a drastic shift for me to see that. (Since Trayvon Martin) Your perspective is interesting, and NYC is usually "ahead of the curve." Not that you'd want to be in this case. So I wonder if the roots of blm go all the way back to the 80's?
Also, search google for “three cops shot texas” for the stories about the guy who held his family hostage and shot three cops. You really have to dig to find the persons name, then you have to google search his name for a few local media outlets that posted a mug shot. CNN never updated the story from when the guy surrendered and a Name was finally released. If you haven’t guessed yet, the perpetrator was black.
Its gaslighting but I wouldn't overthink it. It will only make you angry. Dont even look at it. It may help normies wake up though which is useful. Though it won't wake up leftists, they would say that its responsible reporting. This shit has been going on for all of history.
don't forget that in the last one, they put the picture of Cannon's (white) dad immediately under the "25-year-old man charged in shooting death" headline with no caption
They want you and your family dead and they think it's funny.
I don’t know the story of the first one, but 20 years for an ass whippin’ sounds extremely excessive. That should be a night in jail...
Is there more to it?
And if I remember correctly there was some imperfect self defense claims that should have mitigated the sentence even lower. Not defending the guy just saying how unfair it is when charged with bogus hate crime.
Why doesn’t Trump hold this comparison pic up and demand answers from reporters and refuse to answer anything until they answer this???!!!!!
Trump is being careful not to stoke racial tensions. That's what the other side wants. You need these kinds of tensions to trigger the crisis needed for revolution, standard destabilization techniques.
So long as he keeps the messaging on unity he wins.
We should remember that trump represents all Americans irrespective of their creed, race,religion etc. so sharing these images might stoke racial tensions but he should display placards on how media always antagonizes him.
Wait, an 11 YEAR OLD was charged with “hate crime”? The fuck is a hate crime? How the fuck do you charge an 11 year old? Fuck commies
And how can a black girl get a black eye?
Top kek
Should've read "blacker eye"
Isn't this a little racist?
A little, yes.
Thanks for the honesty, I am sure you are great guy
I’m ok at best. And to be clear while I’ll fuck around a bit, I believe every patriot of every color to be my brother.
right?? I said some stupid shit when i was a kid. Doesn't mean i hate all blacks.
Just like the south park episode where Cartman was charged with a hate crime because he threw a rock during a dirt claud fight. And it accidentally hit the black kid.
Where racially motivated language is more important than assault
Murder*
Well yes, but in article 3 they front load the horrors and atrocities committed by the 11 year old white girl by highlighting hate speech first, then the black eye
The propaganda is small.
They believe they control the words and they can make the sheep think anything they want.
Wait they’re charging a 10 year old kid with a hate crime? FFS.
Yeah how does that work?
I guess he will be sent to juvie or had to do some community service..
Community service was my first thought too. An 11 year old white girl in juvy? Sounds like more trouble in the making. "Hate crime," bs. We had bullies in school, too. Just not that hard to deal with.
I didn’t think that was possible. Next thing you know they’ll tell us she gave her a fat lip and a job, too.
This is definately racist.
Well, yes, preposterously so.
Yep. Perfect.
Coulter's law
Their obvious racist narrative pushing aside, hate crimes shouldn't be a thing.
A crime is a crime, and we have judges and juries to determine giving max punishments if the motive is as despicable as racism. Labeling a crime as a hate crime means you can falsely imply a racist motive when there might not be one, and taking it even further, imply there's a crime when there isn't one.
I've been saying that for years. Besides, it's an extra layer of insult for victims of "non-hate" crimes.
"Ma'am, your son was murdered by a serial killer, but on the plus side we can confirm that this wasn't a hate crime so you can mourn your son while knowing he wasn't killed for racial reasons, isn't that wonderful?"
Worse. Every person in the US is protected by this except a white man.
Ok I have to wonder where you were in the 80's . I didn't see this living in IN, CT and NJ.
I lived 11 miles outside of NYC at the time. The media I got was all "greater metropolitan area." I'll agree to your second list, but I'll point out there wasn't unrest like the riots of '67-68. Whether cities in general were dirty and dangerous in 1980 due to those riots 12 years earlier or not I couldn't say, and I left for the midwest shortly afterwards so I never got to see DJT clean up NYC or any of that. It was a nice change of pace. I did hear about Tawana Brawley at the time and it's still a disturbing case, regardless what actually happened.
Racial tensions weren't high where I was. We laughed at Sharpton's goofiness. Impersonations of Jesse Jackson were easy, and well received. If your's was no good you were ignored, not threatened. Black people especially had no qualms about condemning black people that were just troublemakers. Right up through the OJ trial I saw people willing to be honest about problems in the black community, so I would say that started changing probably some time after 911.
If cops were only arresting victims not perps in NYC, I couldn't challenge your claim. I was busy challenging cop's ineptitude.
You're right about the mentally ill. I didn't realize we started kicking them out of institutions and onto the streets as early as 1955. I didn't see that until more like 1985.
Your previous post though, we didn't have that. If the perp was black, they said so. We didn't have Coulter's law. Neither did we have sympathy for cop killers or criminals committing suicide by cop. This is an odd and sharp contrast, for such a short distance at the same time.
So for me to see MSM pitying the latest string of fools just begging to get shot to death by cops, that's a drastic shift for me to see that. (Since Trayvon Martin) Your perspective is interesting, and NYC is usually "ahead of the curve." Not that you'd want to be in this case. So I wonder if the roots of blm go all the way back to the 80's?
Also, search google for “three cops shot texas” for the stories about the guy who held his family hostage and shot three cops. You really have to dig to find the persons name, then you have to google search his name for a few local media outlets that posted a mug shot. CNN never updated the story from when the guy surrendered and a Name was finally released. If you haven’t guessed yet, the perpetrator was black.
Typical
Looks to me that they don't think some races can handle facts
Or get ID.
every single time the race is left out you can safely assume its not white
Liberals are angry that we are mad about Cannon Hinnant, saying we are blind to everything else. Sorry, but the liberals are the everything else.
The head of CNN is a demon. His smile is like a evil clown.
Its gaslighting but I wouldn't overthink it. It will only make you angry. Dont even look at it. It may help normies wake up though which is useful. Though it won't wake up leftists, they would say that its responsible reporting. This shit has been going on for all of history.
It's as blatant as it can be.
Excellent. I'll add this to my "CNN is fake news" folder.
CNN is the enemy of the people
CNN: Drumpf is weysist!
Also CNN:
What actually is "racially motivated language"? Hate speech, wrong think?
FUCK CNN
Forgot to underline all the black parts too.