it’s just the fact. I’ve never seen so many different people lack the ability to read, comprehend, analyze and respond. It’s like a cult
If you’re going to comment on the op, I suggest you actually read it. If you have read it, try again…but more slowly. Sound the words out, it helps. If that doesn’t work ask a friend for help. If all else fails, perhaps remain silent.
You said Constitutional... Not me. That man is not dangerous to any, 'cept for FBI agents... Lol. He' not a flight risk.
Another condition of bail is usually to not commit other crimes while you are out on bail. Similar to the 1/6 defendants, I’m guessing assaulting law enforcement officers plays a critical role in bail. An overwhelming number of those 1/6 defendants were out on bail. I’d bet almost all those held until trial attacked law enforcement during the riot, or resisted arrest, or posted threats online. This guy attacked FBI agents who weren’t even arresting him, but were serving a subpoena!? Not only is that its own separate crime, it informs the judge this guy is likely to resist arrest… I.e he actually is a flight risk. Flight Risk doesn’t just mean he’s going to get his passport and fly to Brazil. That being said, this guy didn’t yet hire an attorney either. Which also couldn’t have helped him as far as making arguments favorable for bail.
The whole premise of your thread is that people are too stupid to understand or pay attention to the context of his arrest and therefore will be fake outraged by the “optics”. The only people who will be upset by this are already firmly entrenched in MAGA doctrine.
you are only partially correct. The parts you are wrong on ( fake outrage and who may be upset) is what really matters for bad optics in politics.
I need help? Im not the one starting threads clearly intended to start a fight. You mad because we arent the echo chamber other sites are?
When I say the same I mean they have the same motivation and the same omission strategy. Levels may vary, though MSNBC is every bit as liberal as Fox is conservative. I have always said CNN at least keeps an edge of honestly, but that can be just as dangerous because the dishonesty is harder to spot.
Levels vary a lot. I rarely see Fox TV, but I glance at the website several times a day. Currently, top stories on Fox website, in order: Dems wrong about climate change Trump prosecutors abusing grand jury system Still on Biden may limit beers (at least now calling him 'Biden's alcohol advisor' and not 'Biden's alcohol czar' and no longer claiming the federal govt would actually not allow you to have more than two a week) Canada worried about conservatives winning elections CNN defends "Biden's luxury vacations while hundreds missing in Maui" Colorado teacher wrote a private email 18 months ago talking about terrible things white people have done Haley warns that a Harris presidency 'will send a chill up every American's spine' Every single story ... CNN doesn't do anything close to that.
The premise of the article, and therefore your OP, is dishonest through omission. There are two, and only two, choices here. 1)You thought it would be amusing to start an “own da libz” troll thread about the black guy being held. 2)You were genuinely mislead by the Fox article withholding key facts. If it was #2, as you actually claimed, own it and move on.
This is the kind of thing that conservatives fall for. Elitist liberals are too smart for the okie doke.
You said “innocent until proven guilty isnt just a talking point. He must be released on bail”. Seems like you were making a Constitutional argument for his release. But her bail denial has nothing to with his culpability. He lives in Maryland and was indicted in GA. He’s the very definition of a flight risk just by going home. And the fact that he attacked an FBI agent after chasing them down once they’d left a subpoena in his door, and was recorded on 911 tape as saying if he had a gun he’d have shot them certainly doesn’t help his case. I have no idea if the judge was right or wrong for denying bail, but it’s certainly within her discretion to make that decision. Another weekly winner of the play stupid games, win stupid prizes contest.
Not necessarily disagreeing an equivalence re: lib vs con or that (all) media might omit or skew their "news" product. But I am thinking that the amount or type of omission (and/or misinfo) might not be equivalent. There's also likely differences in viewers in how they consume media.
But... Could the counter be that ones perception of that is skewed by ones bias? A liberal may not see ot in CNN's takes, especially in their more subtle way of doing it. Most honest libs see it from MSNBC and most honest cons know Fox tanks right.
It's a great counter argument. In fact, we can assume a skew or bias for everyone. Same time, this assumption doesn't mean equivalence in terms of degree or in the nature of that bias and therefore it also wouldn't mean equivalence in effects. FWIW, I'm not making the argument that one organization is better or worse than another--only that there can be many differences despite that they're all skewed in multiple ways. Also, not necessarily disagreeing with you.
