Oh and one more thing: I was speaking with a good friend who has excellent politics as we would say here, and it was right after the Minneapolis shooting of Ms. Good. I exclaimed to him, “DID YOU ****ING SEE THAT HORROR?” To which he replied, “No, I can’t watch stuff like that.” And then he added, “But she DID try to hit him with her car.” Not a question, a statement.
To which I replied, “No she did NOT. And, if you had watched it, you’d know that they’re lying through their teeth AS ALWAYS.” His follow-up: “Oh, ok.”
Your side is lying through their teeth. You know how we know this?
1. Your side can't get their story straight, claiming Good was an unarmed protestor, and just dropping her kid off.
2. Your side tried to get ahead of the story, promoting your narrative ahead of the revelation of actual facts.
3. Your side selectively used evidence against the ICE agent, such as a single camera angle, or quoting Good as saying "I'm not mad at you" to make her seems leass threatening, when in fact, she said it with a snarky, passive-aggressive tone. Then again, for people like you, it may be difficult to distinguish snarkiness from a normal tone of voice.
So, it is your side that is lying, without conscience, and with mailce. Again. As always. Just like with Zimmerman. Just like with Rittenhouse. Just like with countless other incidents in which you put ideology over facts.