Yes, if. These protests come to you.
While I don’t want anybody to die, why is this considered such a huge focal point? (plus, there is no evidence this many were killed by BLM or antifa or white supremacists or Trump supporters, or any specific group). 30 people? Do you know how many have died from car accidents, COVID-19, climate change (WHO estimates about 200,000/year), pollution, outdoor activities, and poor access to health care since the protests/riots began? Why not focus on combating something that would save orders of magnitude more lives?
So why are they even protesting at all?
How does this work legally? US citizens have the right to peacefully protest. Do they just get to say that right is gone now? How do they get around the constitution with it? Maybe they just have to drop all the cases after apprehending the individuals?
And I agree with that argument. It is a very very small problem, but one still worth working on.
I saw them, but they are not reflective of the whole. You can also find really violent videos or pictures of Black Friday shopping. IIRC, an Ottawa man was shot and killed at a Walmart parking lot in 2018 over a flat screen TV or something.
It isn’t an if for me. It is an absolute no. I hate shopping, and I hate Black Friday. Most of the deaths from the protests / riots, were not people in or around their homes, correct? It has mostly been people participating, right?
You are irrelevant and becoming more irrelevant-er. You’re pointing out that you have a 6th grade girl-like obsession with trying to play “gotcha”.
I was wrong before, you are not introducing strawmen, just red herrings. Either way, I don’t care what you think.
I didn’t realize 6th grade girls were obsessed with playing “gotcha”. But judging from the movies you choose to watch and discuss, you are clearly more aware of the obsessions of 6th grade girls so I’ll take your word for it.
Perhaps it was a bit hyperbolic to say they was ‘nothing but rioting’, but there was tons of violence already by that date. And I am not asking you to believe me, I am saying research it yourself.
During the first week of riots, there was a MSNBC chyron showing ‘Peaceful Protests’ while the news guy was standing in front of the low income housing building that was completely engulfed in flames. The news caster was describing the scene as peaceful protesters while standing in front of that building. It was so absurd it became a meme.
The media lies, the media is an arm of the DNC which also lies. At that point the “protests” were going on for about 25 days and there were at least 15 dead, closer to 25 if I remember correctly.
So logically, it breaks down like this. There were\ are tons of riots all over the country. In June the media ignored the riots and referred to them as “protests” when there was clearly widespread violence and death. Hence, the media conflated protests with riots and they became one in the same with no distinction made.
And like I said, she’s either incredibly stupid or she knew violence was breaking out at most of these BLM protests and was ignoring it or egging it on. Either way, when lives are at stake and those lives aren’t on your side politically, they do not matter to her. Hence, she is a cruel, stupid woman unfit for any office.
Kamala has a history of being a really messed up person who has done some real bad stuff. Again, by all means don’t take my word for it. Look it up for yourself. Compare and contrast with who and what democrats and republicans said and did across those same dates. Just look at the facts.
And don’t think I was happy about the republicans either, they acted like feckless cowards who were afraid of getting cancelled so they just stayed silent. The only people calling out the violence were Trump and Barr.
Anyway, here is brief history of the ‘summer of hate’ that we had this year:
No we didn’t. First, the violence had been going on for 29 days when DHS sent the Feds in and they were a mash up of Federal Marshalls, ICE and other agents. Second, the Feds were confined to Federal property, I.E. the Mark O. Hatfield US Court House and surrounding property. Third, The City of Portland had abandoned and pulled the police back from the court house and the Government of Oregon did also. So the Mark O. Hatfield US Court House was left to protect itself with only the regular on-duty staff, which was already depleted due to Covid shutdown.
That combination, with the fact that there were already 28-29 days of strait rioting in Portland with the court house as a primary target, required either Federal law enforcement to protect it or allow it to be burned.
Since Oregon had refused to protect the court house any longer, the Feds had to come in. There wasn’t ‘more violence’ because the Feds were there, the media, yes the evil media try to portray like the violence started when the feds came and tried to portray the feds as the instigators. That narrative was a complete lie and it’s verifiable.
Don’t trust me, look it up. Check the DHS website. Look at the facts not the NY Times.
I hadn’t heard of American Renaissance, so looked them up: American Renaissance ( AR or AmRen ) is a monthly white supremacist online publication founded and edited by Jared Taylor. It is published by the New Century Foundation, which describes itself as a “race-realist, white advocacy organization”.
Why are you linking that site here?
He’s a racist?
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that. But in this case, the riots themselves were excused in many instances. THAT emboldened them and led to them moving into surrounding areas outside the downtown.
Once a riot has been declared, everyone there is potentially breaking the law. However, the longer the riot is allowed to go the more people join, and the odds of arrest go down.
Sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one.
There is a difference between protesting and rioting. One is legal and one is not.
Only if the prosecutor is a Democrat
They are reflective of what went on in certain places at certain times, and in certain places every night,
I don’t know if this is true or not, but it is entirely beside the point. Black Friday has never destroyed hundreds if not thousands of city blocks through arson and looting and driven out providers of essential services to urban neighborhoods. Black Friday has not led to skyrocketing murder rates and a general environment of lawlessness in our major cities.
Anytime a group of people emerges that seeks to impose its political will through violence and intimidation, especially when that group has an agenda that is totalitarian in nature, it is cause for alarm. The fact that this group kills fewer people than car crashes is cold comfort.
Exactly. So let’s vote trump and his group out in November.
I carry no water for Trump, but whatever his flaws, I don’t think he is in any sense totalitarian. However objectionable his conduct and language may be, his worldview does not seem to contain the notion that he must or should force everyone to assent to an ideology. By contrast, cultural Marxists like BLM (the actual organization by that name, not the indisputable notion that black peoples’ lives matter as much as anyone else’s) push an agenda very much like Mao’s Red Guards - it demands your total assent, and then some. Consider also the writings of closely-allied folks like Robin D’Angelo and Ibram Kendi. They are not urging a theory; they are demanding acquiescence in a new religion.
Frankly, I’m extremely surprised how amateurish BLM and Antifa are in terms of Revolutionary thought. Compared to old school communists they’re at kindergarten level.
The successful revolutionaries of the last two hundred years or so understood one thing - to succeed, one needs martyrs first (last words of Patrice Lubumba addressed to Belgian mercenaries were famously “shoot, my country needs heroes”).
Now, martyrs can be divided into two categories - with and without agency. The latter are tricky - you need someone with an unblemished record to be a helpless victim. That’s why they’re usually women, children or religious people. Even the Nazis tried to portray a street thug as a innocent teenager in one of their founding myths.
The former group has much more leeway in terms of character or (criminal) history, but they need agency. If you successfully strike back against the (perceived) oppressor, your past deeds will be forgiven in subsequent revolutionary lore. Bank robbers, petty criminals, rapists and all sorts of unsavory characters were immortalized in history books and statues for having risen against the oppressor (usually for the wrong reasons but that’s another story).
The BLM doesn’t understand this fundamental distinction - you cannot paint unsavory characters as hapless victims. That’s why those drawings depicting Floyd with a halo are so off-putting, not to mention the preposterous comparisons with actual victims, ME child slave…I mean domestic servants killed by inbred Desert Arabs.
If they’re not completely virtuous, martyrs needs agency…and heroic death. John Brown understood this. So did the organizers of the Easter Rising in Dublin and Russian revolutionaries in the 1905 (failed) revolution.
That’s why Fidel sent Che to Congo and later Bolivia. He was trying to get him killed as soon as possible before everybody realized Che was a deranged psychopath. And he succeeded, as can be seen on those countless T-shirts with his image.
But a career criminal being portrayed as a victim? It simply doesn’t work and people deep down understand this.
It does look like a lot of people are buying it though. The media only stopped talking about Jacob Blake after it was revealed that his father had made numerous anti-Semitic online posts, the fact that he was a rapist and car thief was no big deal. Too many people can’t think for themselves and instead let the media tell them what to think.
Evidence is always correlation - you can never prove causation - you can get close enough so that many won’t notice the difference
You can get close enough so that those that do notice the difference don’t dwell on it, but you cannot close the gap completely - for every measurement there is a degree of uncertainty
I can see why you would have an issue with people saying the reason blah blah blah, the Democrats. It would be incorrect to say “the Democrats” are the reason.
Blame is different than cause. I can agree it would be ridiculous to say Democratic rule causes riots. I don’t like arguing over blame, it’s not useful. I’m trying to avoid deserving any rather than making sure it winds up where it should
The correlation that many things like public transportation, tall buildings, high population density have is easily disregarded - these are not new, nor are they human with responsibilities occupying a government position
Sure Democratic rule isn’t new either but it’s a more relevant correlation than just saying “big cities”, there are human elements to this and those things you listed don’t account for that