Okay so he was most likely just talking about the current law in regards to equality. 

What I've posted below is from the article I posted earlier. 

During his Rose Garden presser on Friday, which mostly touted the shocking jobs report that revealed 2.5 million people are back to work, Trump took a moment to address the injustice Floyd faced from the Minneapolis Police and how he strongly believes change will happen following his death.

"Equal justice under the law must mean that every American receives equal treatment in every encounter with law enforcement regardless of race, color, gender, or creed," Trump said. "They have to receive fair treatment from law enforcement. They have to receive it. We all saw what happened last week. We can't let that happen."

He continued, "Hopefully, George is looking down right now and saying, 'This is a great day that's happening for our country.' It's a great day for him. It's a great day for everybody. This is a great day for everybody. This is a great day in terms of equality. It's really what our Constitution requires and it's what our country is all about."

I had a look at the White House website and I couldn’t see any new law announcement on equal treatment. Only economy and jobs related announcements. 

That's a good question about the new law. I'm not sure if it is new, or an existing law where he's saying everyone deserves to be treated equally by law enforcement, and if not would be breaking the law. 

My guess is that it is a new law he is talking about, because it would be silly if he was talking about an existing law. 

Then again I could be wrong, but like I said earlier,  it is wrong of mainstream media to make up a lie, knowing very well it'll upset George's family. Everyone that listened to that speech knew very well Trump didn't say it is a great day for George because of employment on the rise. 

What law is that? Is it a new law? Just doesn’t make sense to say that today is a great day.

Like I said it had zero to do with the economy. And if those words were his only words than fair enough but what you know they weren't. 

If good comes out of this than there is nothing wrong with him saying that. 

If my dad was killed, and Scomo came out in support of my dad, and mentioned how similar events should never happen in future, then I would agree with Scomo that my dad would be looking down on us happy to see we've turned the corner. 

But regardless of all that, mainstream media made up lies and said that Trump said it is a great day for George, because of better employment opportunities. Now you know for a fact that isn't true, and it is way out of line of mainstream media to make something like this up. 

Imagine being George's kids, parents, friends, or partner and listening to that crap. You would boil inside with anger, only to then find out it wasn't true. 

Mainstream media should be ashamed of themselves, and anyone who supports them in making up lies, especially lies that affect the family and friends of someone that passed away. 

It's an absolute disgrace, and deep down inside you know it. You just won't admit it. 

You need to listen to the interview he said nothing like that. 

The economic figures he was bragging about was a different topic. 

Trump was talking about a law where law enforcement treat everyone equally. He was saying George would be happy for his people and all Americans to know law enforcement have to treat everyone equally.

I think Trump was trying to say that the economic figures are showing that African Americans are doing better under his administration and Floyd would be happy about that fact. 

I can’t defend Trump on the “great day” comment. He is buried six feet deep and probably having his ball sack chewed out by maggots. Hardly a great day for him.

That's already been answered. Simple answer is yes. Yeh said hopefully he's looking down on us from above thinking it is a great day for his people, for America, and himself in regards to equality, not employment which is what the bullshit claim was.

So here's my simple question. How is that a bad thing to say?

Simple question.  Did he say 'this is a great day for him' or not?

And as a corollary imagine your dad was killed by the police and then Scomo said this is a great day for Rob's dad.  I mean come on.  It's ridiculous you can even defend this clown.  

At the very least it was grossly inappropriate.

So Muz,

Even after I post an article with the full 45 minute speech by Trump where he said nothing wrong, are you still going to ignore the fact you were wrong about Trump?

I would much rather think you made the easy mistake many do, which is to believe what's said in the first article you read about Trump saying it is a good day for George because of more jobs being created. 

However after being proven wrong, it sickens me to think you hate Trump that bad, that you're willing to back up an article making up lies, at the expense of George and his family. 

As much as I hate certain politicians I would never make lies about things they never said. Instead I'll simply focus on the things I hate about that person and point them out. 

Genuine question.

When Trump was elected he was, amongst other things, going to drain the swamp and hire only the very best people.

Now that he has sacked or had literally dozens of staff resign in senior positions, THAT HE APPOINTED, could you Mr Gock explain how that has happened.

Could be one of 2 things.  Either he has really poor judgement when he is employing these folk or he is a genuine loose cannon running amok in the White house.

I mean it could be a third option so I'm happy to wait for you to elucidate the reasoning behind these firings/resignations.

Take your time.  Try to avoid strawmen and ad hominems.  It's a poor debating tactic and transparent.

Here's a link to help though I suppose you'll dismiss it as a shill of a publication of the left wing MSM.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations

Again in case the scientific methods escapes you all of it is confirmed via links, references or the public record.

As I said in the other thread the references and all the original links, tweets and articles are there for you to check and cross reference.

If you are going to discount whether something is true or not based on their character flaws I assume you apply the same consideration to Trump.  What's that?  You dont?

Unsurprising.

It sums up the modern right perfectly that they'll happily contradict themselves and apply different standards depending on who they are discussing.   Typical pathetic behaviour.

He's used Snopes as a 'fact checker' on two threads now, so a pattern is emerging. Snopes is an absolute joke and so is anyone who holds them up as some bastion of thruth.

For anyone who doesn't know, that website started as a husband and wife team with no journalistic or investigative experience. They had a messy divorce after the husband embezzled funds, banged hookers all around the world. He then married a porn star and escort who was hired on the Snopes team.

This is Snopes. :laugh:

It also sums up the modern left perfectly. :laugh:

Oh and if you want a link here you go. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/media/mainstream-media-trumps-great-day-george-floyd-remarks.amp

Yes he did. What I want to know is if you just read an article with one quote pulled out from his speech, or did you actually listen to the speech?

What he said was that he wants every American to be treated equally under the law by law enforcement, regardless of colour, race, gender ect ect. 

He said we all saw what happened last week, and we can't let that happen again. Hopefully George is looking down from above thinking this is a great day for our country, for him, for everybody in terms of equality. 

Trump never said it is a great day for George because of job employment, he said it is a great day because of equality. 

How is that a bad thing to say?

Did Trump Say ‘This Is a Great Day’ for George Floyd?

The president's comments came during a press conference about employment statistics on June 5, 2020.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-george-floyd-great-day/

Why yes.  Yes he did.

It would be nice if they came out against the fact that their church was burned down. 

I'm not going to watch it, because I'm pretty sure I'll disagree with it. But it all goes back to that old saying that I think came from a lawyer somewhere.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Thanks Burztur, I know the interview is close to two hours, and therefore could be a time waster for you but atleast you're open to hear it atleast. 

I agree about the peer review. 

No I never said you did, I just thought you were in favour of it, and wanted to ask you the question to know for certain.  

I totally agree with you about peer reviewed arguments. I would much rather have that over anything else. It really is the best way to get the truth in any topic. 

When did I advocate censorship? 

You originally suggested an open debate. In my opinion that is a waste of time unless we start to see peer reviewed arguments based on proper data that vaccines are dangerous. 

Okay so I'm guessing you've watched it. Although you don't agree with it ( that's fine ), don't you think that information like this shouldn't be censored on platforms like YouTube?

And I totally understand as a private company they have the right, but I'm just asking you from a moral point of view wouldn't you be okay with that clip or any similar not being banned?

I don't expect any of you to change your mind on the topics of vaccines. 

All I'm saying I'm against is the fact certain people think these people shouldn't have a voice. 

Okay fair enough when you have someone like a David Icke talking about vaccines being bad, but not so much when it is a doctor or someone very well experienced in that field. Anyone in that field should have a voice.

Personally I'd much rather take advice from a doctor over someone like Bill Gates, just like I would rather take advice from. Bill Gates on IT instead of from a doctor. 

And last but not least the mum's and dad's who have had their own kids affected because of the vaccine. 

Like I said they could be wrong, but they should be proven wrong instead of silenced. 

Let's start with this. I'll look at the others later. 

Heidi Larrson appears to be an anthropologist first and foremost who's job is to undertake research and collate data on vaccine confidence in different social settings. This has little to do with vaccine safety per se.  If anyone like her is calling for a summit it has to do with declining confidence in vaccines because some people get their medial facts from wellness bloggers and instagram influencers instead of actual experts.

Literally nothing else in the notable excerpts section below the video points to evidence of any kind suggesting any type of vaccine could be dangerous.

I will too.  Just read the crib notes on the 2nd link.  I'm not confident.  The doctor (Larsen) (sp?) talking about vaccines has a double doctorate in immunology and virology.

Just kidding.  It's actually a doctorate in anthropology. 

My thoughts exactly.  Trump's all class response?



'Probably the only thing Barack Obama and I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General," Trump wrote. "I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was 'Chaos', which I didn’t like, & changed it to 'Mad Dog.' His primary strength was not military, but rather personal public relations. I gave him a new life, things to do, and battles to win, but he seldom 'brought home the bacon'. I didn’t like his 'leadership' style or much else about him, and many others agree. Glad he is gone!"

Amazing

I’ll watch these videos during the course of the weekend. I won’t dismiss them out of hand and hear what they have to say.

James Mattis Denounces President Trump, Describes Him as a Threat to the Constitution
In an extraordinary condemnation, the former defense secretary backs protesters and says the president is trying to turn Americans against one another.

JEFFREY GOLDBERG
6:00 PM ET
Enjoy unlimited access to The Atlantic for less than $1 per week.
Sign in
Subscribe Now
James Mattis
CHRISTIE HEMM KLOK
Link Copied
James Mattis, the esteemed Marine general who resigned as secretary of defense in December 2018 to protest Donald Trump’s Syria policy, has, ever since, kept studiously silent about Trump’s performance as president. But he has now broken his silence, writing an extraordinary broadside in which he denounces the president for dividing the nation, and accuses him of ordering the U.S. military to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens.

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis writes. “The words ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.” He goes on, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

Mike Mullen: I cannot remain silent

In his j’accuse, Mattis excoriates the president for setting Americans against one another.

MORE STORIES

History Will Judge the Complicit
ANNE APPLEBAUM

The Prophecies of Q
ADRIENNE LAFRANCE

The American Nightmare
IBRAM X. KENDI
“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us,” Mattis writes. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.”

He goes on to contrast the American ethos of unity with Nazi ideology. “Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that ‘The Nazi slogan for destroying us … was “Divide and Conquer.” Our American answer is “In Union there is Strength.”’ We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.”

Adam Serwer: America’s racial contract is showing

Mattis’s dissatisfaction with Trump was no secret inside the Pentagon. But after his resignation, he argued publicly—and to great criticism—that it would be inappropriate and counterproductive for a former general, and a former Cabinet official, to criticize a sitting president. Doing so, he said, would threaten the apolitical nature of the military. When I interviewed him last year on this subject, he said, “When you leave an administration over clear policy differences, you need to give the people who are still there as much opportunity as possible to defend the country. They still have the responsibility of protecting this great big experiment of ours.” He did add, however: “There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever.”

That period is now definitively over. Mattis reached the conclusion this past weekend that the American experiment is directly threatened by the actions of the president he once served. In his statement, Mattis makes it clear that the president’s response to the police killing of George Floyd, and the ensuing protests, triggered this public condemnation.

Read: The Christians who loved Trump’s stunt

“When I joined the military, some 50 years ago,” he writes, “I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.”

He goes on to implicitly criticize the current secretary of defense, Mark Esper, and other senior officials as well. “We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate.’ At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

Adam Serwer: Trump gave police permission to be brutal

Here is the text of the complete statement.

IN UNION THERE IS STRENGTH
I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words “Equal Justice Under Law” are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

From the July/August 2020 issue: History will judge the complicit

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a “battlespace” that our uniformed military is called upon to “dominate.” At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict—between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part. Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them.

James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that “America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat.” We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Eliot A. Cohen: America’s generals must stand up to Trump

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that “The Nazi slogan for destroying us…was ‘Divide and Conquer.’ Our American answer is ‘In Union there is Strength.’” We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

From the June 2020 issue: We are living in a failed state

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln’s “better angels,” and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/james-mattis-denounces-trump-protests-militarization/612640/?fbclid=IwAR0rQzJIY7gt5ck8PeV87Eq0fxOCXhX7x_uR1cKo6KG2inBVa9xE1o5q_8c

-PB