Lafayette Park Update

[Norman Alexander]

I have still seen no rational explanation as to why the US Park Police bashed a foreign news crew with shield and baton just to make room for a privacy fence to go up. With tear-gas flying as well. This went out live on national Australian TV. No crisis actors, no fake news, no McEnerny lies, no Jewish space lasers. And they were not the only ones so treated.

Regardless of if the fence parts had been ordered days ago or had just arrived.

Regardless of if the police had already decided earlier to clear the square or if they just then took the president and Bill Barr's "hints" totally to heart.

Occam's Razor says not to multiply assumptions. The simplest answer given the available data is usually the best.

We have Donny's known propensity for violent action and getting others to do his dirty work. And the great lollop wants his photo op...now! Or he will pout. Then super-suck Bill Barr comes from the White House, has a quiet word with the police coordinator. We now know the word was something like "Will these people be here much longer?" referring to the public and news crews in the park. The police coordinator then goes directly to the on-the-ground police forces and violence ensues, in which the new crew from Seven Network Australia gets bashed. The park is cleared and shortly after Donny makes his grand entrance for his wonky photo op with a bible that tries to bite him.

Gee whizz! This is going to be a hard one trying to figure out who said what to who, Miss Marple!

...he said sarcastically.

 

[xjx388]

I've edited some posts and moved some posts to AAH for Rule 0/12 bickering and also for being off topic. Please endeavor to keep to the topic of the thread and not each other. Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: xjx388

 

[Stacyhs]

I have still seen no rational explanation as to why the US Park Police bashed a foreign news crew with shield and baton just to make room for a privacy fence to go up. With tear-gas flying as well. This went out live on national Australian TV. No crisis actors, no fake news, no McEnerny lies, no Jewish space lasers. And they were not the only ones so treated.

Regardless of if the fence parts had been ordered days ago or had just arrived.

Regardless of if the police had already decided earlier to clear the square or if they just then took the president and Bill Barr's "hints" totally to heart.

Occam's Razor says not to multiply assumptions. The simplest answer given the available data is usually the best.

We have Donny's known propensity for violent action and getting others to do his dirty work. And the great lollop wants his photo op...now! Or he will pout. Then super-suck Bill Barr comes from the White House, has a quiet word with the police coordinator. We now know the word was something like "Will these people be here much longer?" referring to the public and news crews in the park. The police coordinator then goes directly to the on-the-ground police forces and violence ensues, in which the new crew from Seven Network Australia gets bashed. The park is cleared and shortly after Donny makes his grand entrance for his wonky photo op with a bible that tries to bite him.

Gee whizz! This is going to be a hard one trying to figure out who said what to who, Miss Marple!

...he said sarcastically.

And yet not one person interviewed, and there were many, said Barr in any way influenced the clearing of the park or ordered the Secret Service to deploy early. They're all a bunch of liars... she said sarcastically.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And yet not one person interviewed, and there were many, said Barr in any way influenced the clearing of the park or ordered the Secret Service to deploy early. They're all a bunch of liars... she said sarcastically.

They also seem to have failed to explain why they felt the need to assault the peaceful legal protest. But hey you clearly believe all the witness statements in the murder of Laquan McDonald instead of the video. After all there were many people interviewed and they all said the same thing. So why believe your lying eyes?

These are cops lying is SOP.

 

[Stacyhs]

They also seem to have failed to explain why they felt the need to assault the peaceful legal protest.

You haven't read the report, it's obvious. Try doing so.

But hey you clearly believe all the witness statements in the murder of Laquan McDonald instead of the video. After all there were many people interviewed and they all said the same thing. So why believe your lying eyes?

These are cops lying is SOP.

Resorting to this kind of nonsense does not strengthen your argument. It only reveals your inherent bias toward all police and that they are all liars. Besides, there is no video of Barr ordering the early deployment of the SS. There is only video of a brief exchange between Barr and the USPP operations commander who gives an account of what was said that was quite logical in the situation. Or do you think asking if the protesters in the park where still going to be there when Trump came out was illogical? .

 

[Lithrael]

Or, it could have just been a genuine question to ascertain when the park was going to cleared because the POTUS was going to arrive. That would have been a reasonable and logical question to ask. But, no...we must infer the worst possible damning motive and interpretation because...well...it's Trump related.

Yeah, that’s why I said it could be that, sure. Just asking questions about why the crowd wasn’t gone and whether they’d be gone when the President showed up.

 

[Norman Alexander]

If Barr was just asking questions about the expected departure time of all those concerned citizens, surely the police coordinator would have gone and asked them, not shield-and-baton charge them. To be frank, even if they did want the place cleared immediately, surely there must have been less drastic ways to get the same result.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yeah, that’s why I said it could be that, sure. Just asking questions about why the crowd wasn’t gone and whether they’d be gone when the President showed up.

According to the USPP operations manager, Barr did not ask "why the crowd wasn’t gone"; he only asked if they would be gone by the time POTUS arrived. But, for some reason, some people on here think that was an illogical question to ask and Barr must have, in true Mafia style, really been letting them know to deploy early without really saying so.

 

[Stacyhs]

If Barr was just asking questions about the expected departure time of all those concerned citizens, surely the police coordinator would have gone and asked them, not shield-and-baton charge them. To be frank, even if they did want the place cleared immediately, surely there must have been less drastic ways to get the same result.

Um, no. I just love how people on here change reality to suit their agenda. There was no "expected departure time" by the protestors. It wasn't a party where it ended at 4:00 as stipulated on the invitation and all guests would leave for the host to clean up.

Just who would the police coordinator have asked? Was there a "protestor host" that was in charge who would then have told all the protesters, "Hey, guys...time to leave. Protest time is over. Let's all just go on home now." What an absurd suggestion.

"To be frank, even if they did want the place cleared immediately, surely there must have been less drastic ways to get the same result."

I 100% agree with that. The violence perpetrated on the protesters was totally outrageous.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Um, no. I just love how people on here change reality to suit their agenda. There was no "expected departure time" by the protestors. It wasn't a party where it ended at 4:00 as stipulated on the invitation and all guests would leave for the host to clean up.

Just who would the police coordinator have asked? Was there a "protestor host" that was in charge who would then have told all the protesters, "Hey, guys...time to leave. Protest time is over. Let's all just go on home now." What an absurd suggestion.

"To be frank, even if they did want the place cleared immediately, surely there must have been less drastic ways to get the same result."

I 100% agree with that. The violence perpetrated on the protesters was totally outrageous.

Well, there kinda was. There was a 7pm curfew that was fast approaching, and the protestors would all have had to clear out then.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Well, there kinda was. There was a 7pm curfew that was fast approaching, and the protestors would all have had to clear out then.

But I'm sure if the police coordinator had just asked them nicely, they would have been glad to leave early. Because the important Mr Barr was "just asking questions" as to how long they were going to stay in the vicinity. He was being nice, trying to fit in the nice president's desire for a photo-op with everyone else's plans. Just trying to find a spare minute after everyone had peacefully departed of their own volition. Wasn't that nice of him? Because that's what this new report says he was doing - not giving orders, just asking questions.



I see indirectly others agree this is, of course, laughably absurd nonsense. Vehemently, it would seem. I agree with them. Because that's exactly what it is. Piffle, paffle, poffle...errant nonsense.

So what is the next operating excuse to be trotted out?

 

[Lithrael]

According to the USPP operations manager, Barr did not ask "why the crowd wasn’t gone"; he only asked if they would be gone by the time POTUS arrived.

I respectfully assert that “the Attorney General then asked him why the crowd was still on H Street and said he thought they would be gone by that point” is a hair’s split away from asking why the crowd wasn’t gone.

 

[Stacyhs]

Well, there kinda was. There was a 7pm curfew that was fast approaching, and the protestors would all have had to clear out then.

Were protesters really obeying the curfew at that time? They hadn't the nights preceding June 1 as police and protesters clashed.

On May 31, Washington, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser ordered an 11 p .m. curfew, finding that "in the downtown area of the District of Columbia, numerous businesses and government buildings were vandalized, burned, or looted. Over the past nights, there has been a glorification of violence particularly in the later hours of the night. ... The health, safety, and well-being of persons within the District of Columbia are threatened and endangered by the existence of these violent actions." The USPP incident commander and the USPP acting chief of police told us that the curfew was ineffective in stopping the unrest in Lafayette Park.

Nor was the USPP expecting them to leave on their own as they had already planned to go into the park to clear it before the 7:00 curfew.

The USPP incident commander told us he did not consider waiting until the citywide 7 p.m. curfew to clear Lafayette Park and H Street.12 He explained, “We were not enforcing the Mayor’s curfew. We’re a Federal entity. We don’t work directly for the Mayor.” The USPP acting chief of police stated it was the USPP’s priority to install the antiscale fence as soon as possible to ensure the safety of Federal officers and property. The USPP acting chief of police and the USPP incident commander both explained that, based on their observations, the protesters did not comply with the Mayor’s curfew order on May 31 and that acts of violence tended to increase in the late afternoon and evening irrespective of the curfew; they likewise did not believe protesters would comply with the Mayor’s June 1 curfew order or that waiting would necessarily reduce unrest.

 

[Stacyhs]

I respectfully assert that “the Attorney General then asked him why the crowd was still on H Street and said he thought they would be gone by that point” is a hair’s split away from asking why the crowd wasn’t gone.

Even if I grant you that, how does that translate into Barr ordering the SS to go in early? Barr knew the USPP were deploying imminently. This was at 6:10- 6:15 and Trump wasn't scheduled to arrive until 7:00.

When we asked the USPP operations commander about this exchange, he stated he told the Attorney General the area was unsafe and asked him and the other officials to move away from the line of officers. The USPP operations commander told us the Attorney General then asked him why the crowd was still on H Street and said he thought they would be gone by that point.
The USPP operations commander told us he advised the Attorney General that they were getting into position to move the crowd.

 

[Stacyhs]

Since Norman Alexander has blocked me (which just devastates me), someone might suggest to him to actually read the report because he obviously hasn't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You haven't read the report, it's obvious. Try doing so.

Reading the report is irrelevant. If it agrees with a deeply held belief, then it is evidence, regardless of how fact-free. If it disagrees, then it is fake lies, regardless of how well-supported.

Skepticism doesn't mean what it used to mean.

 

[Stacyhs]

Reading the report is irrelevant. If it agrees with a deeply held belief, then it is evidence, regardless of how fact-free. If it disagrees, then it is fake lies, regardless of how well-supported.

Skepticism doesn't mean what it used to mean.

That's pretty much what I am seeing from the reaction of some people here who have lost all objectivity when it comes to anything Trump related. And that's true of some people on both sides. When contradicted with evidence that doesn't support their beliefs, some even push the ignore button in order to avoid seeing it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's pretty much what I am seeing from the reaction of some people here who have lost all objectivity when it comes to anything Trump related. And that's true of some people on both sides. When contradicted with evidence that doesn't support their beliefs, some even push the ignore button in order to avoid seeing it.

I agree, it is absolutely rampant on both sides. The degree of partisanship that has developed in the last decade is kind of a bit frightening. We crossed a line somewhere from "Identity Politics" to "Politics as Identity".

There's a really good book out there that goes into this, called "Uncivil Agreement". Well researched, and a lot of focus on cognitive bias and how our brains work. Not horribly long, not too technical, but well supported. It's worth a read or a listen.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree, it is absolutely rampant on both sides. The degree of partisanship that has developed in the last decade is kind of a bit frightening. We crossed a line somewhere from "Identity Politics" to "Politics as Identity".

There's a really good book out there that goes into this, called "Uncivil Agreement". Well researched, and a lot of focus on cognitive bias and how our brains work. Not horribly long, not too technical, but well supported. It's worth a read or a listen.

Some people just can never admit they are wrong and will continue to dig their hole deeper and deeper rather than do so. But some see things only in black and white which makes them very rigid in their thought processes.

Polarized, black-and-white thinking is a big problem. It distorts our understanding of realities involving shades of gray, which most human realities are. Binary thinking produces misleading maps of a complicated, nuanced world.

When we face difficult situations, all-or-none thinking blinds us to the possibility of a middle ground, leaving us with only simple, extreme options that rarely work. This type of cognition results in maladaptive emotions and behaviors, an array of mental health diagnoses too numerous to mention, and in its milder and more common forms, all sorts of problems in living and relationships.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...s-black-white-thinking-in-yourself-and-others

Men tend to see things in B&W more than women who tend to see things in shades of gray.
Why Do Women See the World in Shades of Gray?

I have found the following to be absolutely true during my almost 7 decades of living:

"The more people see the world in black-and-white terms," he said, "regardless of whether they're on the right or the left, the harder it is for them to change their views on anything. There are only two options for them, and the distance to the other possible viewpoint is too far. People who see the world in shades of gray, on the other hand, can adjust their views more easily, if they get new or conflicting information, because all they have to do is shift to a slightly lighter or darker shade."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Some people just can never admit they are wrong and will continue to dig their hole deeper and deeper rather than do so. But some see things only in black and white which makes them very rigid in their thought processes.


https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...s-black-white-thinking-in-yourself-and-others

Men tend to see things in B&W more than women who tend to see things in shades of gray.
Why Do Women See the World in Shades of Gray?

I have found the following to be absolutely true during my almost 7 decades of living:

I'm completely novice, but I love learning about human cognition. I particularly enjoy You Are Not So Smart, although I have to admit that I don't listen to podcasts very often. They used to publish more articles, but they've gone to almost all podcasts now, so I don't get as much out of it as I used to. That site is the one that introduced me to The Illusion of Asymmetric Insight. It prompted me to really step back and take stock of my own assumptions, and altered how I approach interactions with other people.