Caption this photo

[historia]

Question for debate: What is going on in this photo? What message does it send?

[koko]

Good research, bjs1! We need more of this!

I'm waiting for anyone to provide logic and evidence, the type that would go against what I've already presented, that would show that Trump cleared out the protestors just to set up a photo op. I'm willing to entertain the idea that it may've played a role at some point, but to say it was the ONLY reason like CNN and other left-wing media are trying to suggest, is misleading.

It's not just CNN as many preachers including the pastor of that church condemned Trump's enterprising but insincere portrayal:

https://www.google.com/search?q=preache ... e&ie=UTF-8

[AgnosticBoy]

Good research, bjs1! We need more of this!

I'm waiting for anyone to provide logic and evidence, the type that would go against what I've already presented, that would show that Trump cleared out the protestors just to set up a photo op. I'm willing to entertain the idea that it may've played a role at some point, but to say it was the ONLY reason like CNN and other left-wing media are trying to suggest, is misleading.

It's not just CNN as many preachers including the pastor of that church condemned Trump's enterprising but insincere portrayal:

https://www.google.com/search?q=preache ... e&ie=UTF-8

But what is the evidence that shows the president did this just for the photo op? How does CNN, and perhaps these preachers who are getting their information from CNN, know for a fact that clearing out the protestors was done for a photo op? I've already presented my source that explains that it wasn't done just for a photo op, there were indeed security reasons.

[bjs1]

Question for debate: What is going on in this photo? What message does it send?

I believe that the message it was intended to convey is “President Trump is a man of faith.”

I worry that I am becoming cynical, but the message I personally see is, “President Trump knows that Americans are more likely to vote for a hypocrite than an honest man.”

[historia]

How does CNN, and perhaps these preachers who are getting their information from CNN, know for a fact that clearing out the protestors was done for a photo op? I've already presented my source that explains that it wasn't done just for a photo op, there were indeed security reasons.

Perhaps we should clarify the issue a bit.

It seems to me the concern is not simply that the protestors were cleared out. But, rather, that police, without much warning, used tear gas and rubber bullets to expel peaceful protestors (including clergy at the church itself) out of the area a mere 28 minutes before Trump arrived there. It's both the severity and the timing of the action that gives the impression that this was undertaken to facilitate Trump's photo op at the church.

[AgnosticBoy]

How does CNN, and perhaps these preachers who are getting their information from CNN, know for a fact that clearing out the protestors was done for a photo op? I've already presented my source that explains that it wasn't done just for a photo op, there were indeed security reasons.

Perhaps we should clarify the issue a bit.

It seems to me the concern is not simply that the protestors were cleared out. But, rather, that police, without much warning, used tear gas and rubber bullets to expel peaceful protestors (including clergy at the church itself) out of the area a mere 28 minutes before Trump arrived there. It's both the severity and the timing of the action that gives the impression that this was undertaken to facilitate Trump's photo op at the church.

I can agree that the concern should not about the protestors being cleared out. On the same day, some protestors were throwing things. And as we've seen, a peaceful protest can turn into a heated one in a very short period of time. So starting out peaceful does not guarantee there won't be any escalation on the part of protestors, and the fact of not knowing (and w/ things already being thrown) is concern enough given the history of what's been happening the past few days with looters, Churches being burned, etc.

The severity is not a real good reason in my view because you would need to use force at anytime involving clearing out protestors that are not complying with orders.

Timing is the most reasonable factor you brought up. It is a point that's consistent with something being done for a photo op, but it is also consistent with not being the only reason for protestors being cleared out. The reason for my case is because WH officials mentioned that the order to clear out the protestors was made in the morning. So the photo op did not determine IF the protestors would be cleared out, but perhaps at most, it may've determined WHEN they would be cleared out - when the pre-existing order would be enforced. The protestors chucking projectiles would've also precipitated the move because if protestors are throwing things when the president is not there, I can imagine some of them being willing to throw more things once they see the president in a public area. Protestors were heard saying **** Trump. Clearly not fans of his to say the least.

So in the end, it's your word against actual WH officials who were involved in the decision making. It's certainly misleading when the media don't mention the protestors throwing things at all and they don't mention that there were advance warnings. That is an attempt to paint a picture that it was clearly only for a photo op.

[emilynghiem]

Question for debate: What is going on in this photo? What message does it send?

I believe that the message it was intended to convey is “President Trump is a man of faith.”

I worry that I am becoming cynical, but the message I personally see is, “President Trump knows that Americans are more likely to vote for a hypocrite than an honest man.”

"HAVE FAITH"

[Tcg]

Perhaps we should clarify the issue a bit.

It seems to me the concern is not simply that the protestors were cleared out. But, rather, that police, without much warning, used tear gas and rubber bullets to expel peaceful protestors (including clergy at the church itself) out of the area a mere 28 minutes before Trump arrived there. It's both the severity and the timing of the action that gives the impression that this was undertaken to facilitate Trump's photo op at the church.

It is a mistake to consider this a photo op. If all the Donald wanted was this photo, he could have accomplished it easily two weeks ago or perhaps two weeks in the future. No, this was an opportunity for a show of force, something the Donald has been chomping at the bit for and the recent protests have simply intensified his lust to demonstrate the power a president has at their disposal. Congrats Mr. President, we are all dully impressed.


Tcg

[AgnosticBoy]

Here is actual footage of protestors throwing bottles towards the police in Washington D.C.:


(watch the 40 to 45 second mark of this video).

This is empirical evidence that supports what the WH officials were saying. Clearly the left-wing media either did not see this or they saw it but did not want to report on it.

[historia]

The severity is not a real good reason in my view because you would need to use force at anytime involving clearing out protestors that are not complying with orders.

A fair point. I think we can all agree that there are times when the police need to use force to dispel a crowd.

But, since the Constitution guarantees the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," it seem to me that there needs to be a compelling reason for the government to disperse a peaceable assembly, otherwise they can just order the dispersal of any protest they want.

Hypothetically speaking, would you agree that a photo op at a church is not a compelling reason to disperse a peaceable protest? And that doing so quickly and violently with tear gas and rubber bullets is egregious behavior?

WH officials mentioned that the order to clear out the protestors was made in the morning.

Even if that was the case, the Press Secretary didn't explain why that decision was made. She just noted that Barr wanted to extend the security perimeter one block beyond the park. Since it appears the perimeter has now gone back to the park itself, the reason for its extension seems to have been temporary.

All of that is consistent with the hypothesis that the perimeter was extended -- and protesters were cleared out -- so Trump could visit the church for a photo op. If so, it looks like Barr's order wasn't followed correctly earlier in the day, creating an urgency to clear out the protesters as the scheduled time of the photo op approached, forcing police to rather quickly and violently disperse the crowd.

So, the fact that an order was issued earlier in the day does not, in itself, suggest there was some other reason to clear the area other than the photo op. In fact, had there been some other compelling reason to extend the perimeter, it seems likely McEnany would have mentioned that in the press briefing.

So in the end, it's your word against actual WH officials who were involved in the decision making.

We're not at the end yet, I just want to see if we can first clarify what the real issues are here.

If we can agree to the above, then it seems to me your argument hinges rather heavily on (a) the credibility of the White House's account of events, and (b) the claim that protestors were being violent. Fair?

[AgnosticBoy]

The severity is not a real good reason in my view because you would need to use force at anytime involving clearing out protestors that are not complying with orders.

A fair point. I think we can all agree that there are times when the police need to use force to dispel a crowd.

But, since the Constitution guarantees the "right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances," it seem to me that there needs to be a compelling reason for the government to disperse a peaceable assembly, otherwise they can just order the dispersal of any protest they want.

Hypothetically speaking, would you agree that a photo op at a church is not a compelling reason to disperse a peaceable protest? And that doing so quickly and violently with tear gas and rubber bullets is egregious behavior?

Two points. I've presented empirical evidence that shows that the protests presented a security risks. Refer to the video I posted in my last post (and that just shows what was caught on camera, there's no saying what occurred that wasn't caught or perhaps even deliberately ignored by mainstream media).

Secondly, protestors do not have an unfettered right to protest. Protest must be peaceful, and the government can impose restrictions when it comes to content or message (if there's security risk), place, time, and even manner of expression (nudity, etc). When security gives you advance warning t move back, then you are obligated to move back as a protestor.

WH officials mentioned that the order to clear out the protestors was made in the morning.

Even if that was the case, the Press Secretary didn't explain why that decision was made. She just noted that Barr wanted to extend the security perimeter one block beyond the park. Since it appears the perimeter has now gone back to the park itself, the reason for its extension seems to have been temporary.

I will post my source that will back up everything I am about to explain. AG Barr's press conference (refer to the 33:00 to 50:00 minute mark is the relevant part).

AG Barr explains that he was tasked with organizing security the day of Trump's walk. AG Barr gave two reasons for extending the security perimeter (refer to 36:10 to 38:40 minute marks). One reason is to better protect the White House property from protestors and their projectiles. The closer the protestors were to the White House (as they were real close, up to the gate, on Saturday or Sunday), then the more likely they'll be able to reach the White House so you obviously want to avoid that. The second reason is to provide a better security buffer so that security personnel have a wider space (as opposed to a tight space, perhaps distance from WH is a factor) to operate in.

AG Barr also mentioned that the reason he didn't continue with the same perimeter the next day is because the protestors were more peaceful that night compared to previous nights. So it was a decision based on the conditions on the ground (refer to the 39:40 to 40:01 minute mark). The curfew has been pushed back based on those improved conditions, as well.

All of that is consistent with the hypothesis that the perimeter was extended -- and protesters were cleared out -- so Trump could visit the church for a photo op. If so, it looks like Barr's order wasn't followed correctly earlier in the day, creating an urgency to clear out the protesters as the scheduled time of the photo op approached, leading police to rather quickly and violently disperse the crowd.

Well in order for your view to hold some weight, you have to assume that there was no reason for the extension of the perimeter. But I have shown that there was a reason, and this also includes the reason behind the decision to not continue with the extended perimeter in the following days after Trumps walk to St. John's Church.

If so, would you not agree that that is egregious behavior?

If there was no clear rationale behind extending the perimeter prior to the walk to St. John's Church, then I'd agree with you. But based on the events that took place a day or two before the perimeter was extended, where protestors were literally right up on the White House gates fighting with Secret Service, I'd say extending the perimeter the next day was warranted. Perhaps Trump or Kushner made the decision to go on the walk to St. John's AFTER learning about the plans to extend the security perimeter. That would still support my point that it wasn't done because of a photo op or only because of that. Refer to my video that shows projectiles being thrown, as well.

So in the end, it's your word against actual WH officials who were involved in the decision making.

We're not at the end yet, I just want to see if we can first clarify what the real issues are here.

If we can agree to the above, then it seems to me your argument hinges rather heavily on (a) the credibility of the White House's account of events, and (b) the claim that protestors were being violent. Fair?

A) I have empirical evidence in the form of video showing projectiles being thrown and corroborated statements between AG Barr and the Press Secretary. B) Again, refer to the video that shows projectiles being thrown. Even if there were no videos, you can't rule out the fact that people reported it (as it was reported) but no one caught it on camera. Either way, there is some video footage.