It's Kamala!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 10:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In all seriousness, though, the protests have been largely peaceful. There is a disproportionate amount of attention paid to the violence because that is what sells, but there have been peaceful protests going on this whole time. From my perspective, people have been trying to focus the lens on what benefits them the most to further their agenda. Some people ignore that there are many of peaceful protesters and some people try to downplay the violence of the riots.

(09-04-2020, 11:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/515082-over-90-percent-of-protests-this-summer-were-peaceful-report-shows

I agree.  So let's say this information is completely accurate (which I have to doubt a little because Portland alone had pretty much 90 days straight of violent protest) and only 7% of the protests turned violent.  It's ironic that the protests are about unnecessary use of force by police, which probably happens in less than .0001% of encounters with law enforcement.  Not saying it's not a problem when it does happen, because it absolutely is, but law enforcement doesn't seem to get anything close to the same consideration these protests did/do.

[Belsnickel]

(09-04-2020, 12:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree.  So let's say this information is completely accurate (which I have to doubt a little because Portland alone had pretty much 90 days straight of violent protest) and only 7% of the protests turned violent.  It's ironic that the protests are about unnecessary use of force by police, which probably happens in less than .0001% of encounters with law enforcement.  Not saying it's not a problem when it does happen, because it absolutely is, but law enforcement doesn't seem to get anything close to the same consideration these protests did/do.

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but I also understand why people aren't as willing to give law enforcement the same consideration. It's fair to say that both police and protesters get a light shined on the worst of them. The real driving force behind the hate against law enforcement is that LEOs are the ground level members of a government that has a long history of discriminatory actions. I've joked around with this phrase, but it is genuinely the way leftists think: "police are the fascist tools of the bourgeoisie." Law enforcement are imbued by the state, which is what the people have their real problems with, with the authority to commit physical violence against its citizenry.

Because of the hyper-polarized situation we are finding ourselves in, now (as well as a rocky history between law enforcement and civil rights protesters), this is all ramped up. While the protesters are really about systemic issue, there are morons out there that bring forth things like "ACAB" or other such nonsense, forgetting that the people behind the badge are actual people that mostly just want to help people. This creates animosity from the law enforcement community, so now we just have this back and forth that is endless. It's a cycle of distrust that all really stems with frustration with the systems that honestly both sides of the conflict could probably agree need some fixing.

Anyway, tl;dr is that as an agent of the state, people are less likely to give LEOs the benefit of the doubt because they don't see the human behind the badge.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 11:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know sarcasm is hard to get from text, but I really laid it on thick in that post.

I know it was sarcasm.  That is what you use when you can't really address the point I am making.

When any person or group really changes heir position we should judge then om their current position instead of keep attacking them on their old position.  Some liberals still accuse the south of supporting slavery just the way you continue to accuse Biden of supporting violent protestors.  Both arguements are wrong.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 01:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I know it was sarcasm.  That is what you use when you can't really address the point I am making.

Ahaha, sure Fred.

Quote:When any person or group really changes heir position we should judge then om their current position instead of keep attacking them on their old position.  Some liberals still accuse the south of supporting slavery just the way you continue to accuse Biden of supporting violent protestors.  Both arguements are wrong.

I agree, a person should be able to evolve and change their mind and not be attacked for it.  Seeing as you are a left leaning type you should absolutely spread this idea to your peers, as they are the primary offenders in this regard at the current moment.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 01:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree, a person should be able to evolve and change their mind and not be attacked for it.  Seeing as you are a left leaning type you should absolutely spread this idea to your peers, as they are the primary offenders in this regard at the current moment.

I'll get on that as soon as I address all the people on the right criticizing Biden and others on the left for supporting violence.  They are the primary offenders in this regard at the current moment.

Pretty much everyone on the left is condemning the violence, but the people on the right still claim the support it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 02:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I'll get on that as soon as I address all the people on the right criticizing Biden and others on the left for supporting violence.

Well, they have.  I think it's very fair to criticize the Dems almost complete inaction on this topic until it started hurting them at the polls.

 

Quote: They are the primary offenders in this regard at the current moment.

Nah.  When we talk about changing your opinion we're referring to things like Obama's "conversation with his daughter" about same sex marriage.  it's pretty easy, and never controversial, to condemn violence.  

Quote:Pretty much everyone on the left is condemning the violence, but the people on the right still claim the support it.

They are en masse now sure, now that it's hurting them at the polls.  This really isn't debatable.  Don Lemon flat out pointed it out to Cuomo.  I get you're a Dem supporter, but it's clear as day.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 12:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but I also understand why people aren't as willing to give law enforcement the same consideration. It's fair to say that both police and protesters get a light shined on the worst of them. The real driving force behind the hate against law enforcement is that LEOs are the ground level members of a government that has a long history of discriminatory actions. I've joked around with this phrase, but it is genuinely the way leftists think: "police are the fascist tools of the bourgeoisie." Law enforcement are imbued by the state, which is what the people have their real problems with, with the authority to commit physical violence against its citizenry.

Because of the hyper-polarized situation we are finding ourselves in, now (as well as a rocky history between law enforcement and civil rights protesters), this is all ramped up. While the protesters are really about systemic issue, there are morons out there that bring forth things like "ACAB" or other such nonsense, forgetting that the people behind the badge are actual people that mostly just want to help people. This creates animosity from the law enforcement community, so now we just have this back and forth that is endless. It's a cycle of distrust that all really stems with frustration with the systems that honestly both sides of the conflict could probably agree need some fixing.

Anyway, tl;dr is that as an agent of the state, people are less likely to give LEOs the benefit of the doubt because they don't see the human behind the badge.

This is a superb post, sincere kudos.

[Dill]

(09-03-2020, 10:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Standing by and doing nothing is not a tactic.  Not prosecuting rioters is.  Both enable riots. 

Utterly false.  The protests have consistently been described as "largely peaceful" long past the time this was true. 

According to the second link above posted to Fred, the mayor and police chief of DC were complaining that US DAs were not processing all the cases referred to them.

“When we make arrests for violent protests, we need those violent agitators to be prosecuted,” said Bowser, who said the president’s tweets were “meant to distract from the failures of the last four years.”

She said there is “no accountability” for people who come to protests and attack police, “and we haven’t seen a willingness from the U.S. attorney to prosecute them.”

The DA office counters saying:

“Specifically, with regard to the spike in protest-related violence throughout the District this summer, the office aggressively charged 121 criminal cases from May 28, 2020 to August 1, 2020,” the office said. “These cases included assault and battery on local police officers and federal agents, arson cases, and the destruction of both private and government property.”

To which Major Bowser responds:

“Indeed, since May 30, the Metropolitan Police Department has submitted 63 affidavits in support of arrest and search warrants directly related to criminal activities conducted under the guise of First Amendment assemblies. Twenty-eight of these warrants have been declined, while another 24 are still pending review by your office,” Bowser said.

She added that this delay was also found with homicide cases, and she repeated her concerns over the delays that affected the safety of police officers.

Looks like someone  is trying to prosecute rioters. Same in Portland where the kicker, Marquise Love, is in jail, and the guy who killed the Trump supporter (claiming a Rittenhouse-style self defense) was himself gunned down by US marshals. Rioting is not a safe occupation even in Portland.

You posted that link as proof that protests are still described as "largely peaceful" if I have followed the back and forth correctly. I don't see why that still isn't an accurate description of protests in general.  A "largely peaceful" protests involving thousands upon thousands of people may turn violent late in the evening as dozens of rioters break windows and throw rocks at the police. I don't see why something like that shouldn't still be called largely peaceful. Hannity and Tucker do not see it that way, but their goal is not accurate reporting. Night after night the talk of cities "burning to the ground."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 07:30 PM)Dill Wrote: According to the second link above posted to Fred, the mayor and police chief of DC were complaining that US DAs were not processing all the cases referred to them.

“When we make arrests for violent protests, we need those violent agitators to be prosecuted,” said Bowser, who said the president’s tweets were “meant to distract from the failures of the last four years.”

She said there is “no accountability” for people who come to protests and attack police, “and we haven’t seen a willingness from the U.S. attorney to prosecute them.”

The DA office counters saying:

“Specifically, with regard to the spike in protest-related violence throughout the District this summer, the office aggressively charged 121 criminal cases from May 28, 2020 to August 1, 2020,” the office said. “These cases included assault and battery on local police officers and federal agents, arson cases, and the destruction of both private and government property.”

To which Major Bowser responds:

“Indeed, since May 30, the Metropolitan Police Department has submitted 63 affidavits in support of arrest and search warrants directly related to criminal activities conducted under the guise of First Amendment assemblies. Twenty-eight of these warrants have been declined, while another 24 are still pending review by your office,” Bowser said.

She added that this delay was also found with homicide cases, and she repeated her concerns over the delays that affected the safety of police officers.

I never brought up DC, so I wonder why you are.

Quote:Looks like someone  is trying to prosecute rioters. Same in Portland where the kicker, Marquise Love, is in jail, and the guy who killed the Trump supporter (claiming a Rittenhouse-style self defense) was himself gunned down by US marshals. Rioting is not a safe occupation even in Portland.

You can't claim a "Rittenhouse style" self defense with zero evidence.  Rittenhouse has reams of evidence supporting his claim, Portland shooter has none that I am aware of.  Don't conflate completely different situations and expect to be taken seriously.  Also, the Portland DA has been so lenient on rioters that neighboring law enforcement agencies refuse to help the jurisdiction he covers because he covers it.

Quote:You posted that link as proof that protests are still described as "largely peaceful" if I have followed the back and forth correctly. I don't see why that still isn't an accurate description of protests in general.  A "largely peaceful" protests involving thousands upon thousands of people may turn violent late in the evening as dozens of rioters break windows and throw rocks at the police. I don't see why something like that shouldn't still be called largely peaceful. Hannity and Tucker do not see it that way, but their goal is not accurate reporting. Night after night the talk of cities "burning to the ground."

I appreciate you contradicting Fred and his claim that "largely peaceful" isn't used anymore.  Keep running with it.  I'm sure the victims of the looting, arson and violence of the "largely peaceful"protests completely agree.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  It's pretty easy, and never controversial, to condemn violence.  

I know some people will start squealing "whataboutism" but it is important to view this issue in context in order to understand what is really happeninig.

There was a lot of talk about "condemning violence" during the 2016 Presidential campaign when Trump was continually telling his folowers to beat up hecklers at his rallies saying he would like to punch them and offering to pay the leagl bills for any of his followers that did.   Then he said that if Hillary got elected the only hope would be that the "2nd Ammendment crowd" would take care of her.  Then he praised a Representative from Montana who was convicted of assault for body slamming a reporter.  Then he admitted that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not loose any supporters.  He has bragged about punching a teacher when he was just a child.  So for years Republicans have laughed at the idea of "condemning violence".  They loved and promoted Trumps violent rhetoric.

We have had riots over racial injustice many times since the 1980's but they never been this widespread or lasted this long.  A big reason for the current situation is the culture of violence that Trump has created and supported over the last 4 years. He made violence acceptable for the main stream. He has been "supporting violence" ever since he started campaigning for President.  You can't blame the Democrats for that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2020, 10:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I know some people will start squealing "whataboutism" but it is important to view this issue in context in order to understand what is really happeninig.

There was a lot of talk about "condemning violence" during the 2016 Presidential campaign when Trump was continually telling his folowers to beat up hecklers at his rallies saying he would like to punch them and offering to pay the leagl bills for any of his followers that did.   Then he said that if Hillary got elected the only hope would be that the "2nd Ammendment crowd" would take care of her.  Then he praised a Representative from Montana who was convicted of assault for body slamming a reporter.  Then he admitted that he could shoot someone in broad daylight and not loose any supporters.  He has bragged about punching a teacher when he was just a child.  So for years Republicans have laughed at the idea of "condemning violence".  They loved and promoted Trumps violent rhetoric.

We have had riots over racial injustice many times since the 1980's but they never been this widespread or lasted this long.  A big reason for the current situation is the culture of violence that Trump has created and supported over the last 4 years. He made violence acceptable for the main stream. He has been "supporting violence" ever since he started campaigning for President.

The far left, abdicating personal responsibility since inception.

 

Quote: You can't blame the Democrats for that.

No, you blame the people engaged in the violence.  You blame the Dems for not condemning this violence.  It's a pretty simple concept.

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2020, 12:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The far left, abdicating personal responsibility since inception.

The far right.  Not contesting any facts that support my claim, but instead avoiding the issue by falling back on personal attacks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2020, 01:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The far right.  Not contesting any facts that support my claim, but instead avoiding the issue by falling back on personal attacks.

Who's far right?

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2020, 01:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Who's far right?

Anyone who can't comprehend how Trump has fostered a culture of violence.  He has been doinbg it since his first campaign.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2020, 02:40 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Anyone who can't comprehend how Trump has fostered a culture of violence.  He has been doinbg it since his first campaign.

Which is worse culturing or committing? 

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2020, 09:45 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Which is worse culturing or committing? 

I don'tknow why I keep having to make this point.  If Trump had not created this extreme culture of violence we would not be having the most extensive rioting in the lat 50 years.

People on the right act like it is just some bizzare coincidence that we are having all these violent riots at the same time we have a President who has preached violence as the answer to problems.  When the nations leader promotes violence the country is going to become more violent.  It is that simple.  When the President tells his followers to become more violent then his opponenets are going to become more violent.  When the President praises a man for assaulting a reporter he is going to prompt a more violent response from people who support a free press.

How many times have we seen the classic story where parents tell their peaceful children to stand up and fight against a bully.  That is what we are seeing in America today.  We have had multiple racial incidents that have lead to rioting and protesting since the 1980's, but until Trump took office we never saw then be this widespread or long lasting.  People who don't see the connection are either naive or willfully ignoring the obvious.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2020, 10:43 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I don'tknow why I keep having to make this point.  If Trump had not created this extreme culture of violence we would not be having the most extensive rioting in the lat 50 years.

People on the right act like it is just some bizzare coincidence that we are having all these violent riots at the same time we have a President who has preached violence as the answer to problems.  When the nations leader promotes violence the country is going to become more violent.  It is that simple.  When the President tells his followers to become more violent then his opponenets are going to become more violent.  When the President praises a man for assaulting a reporter he is going to prompt a more violent response from people who support a free press.

How many times have we seen the classic story where parents tell their peaceful children to stand up and fight against a bully.  That is what we are seeing in America today.  We have had multiple racial incidents that have lead to rioting and protesting since the 1980's, but until Trump took office we never saw then be this widespread or long lasting.  People who don't see the connection are either naive or willfully ignoring the obvious.

Nobody asked you to restate your ,self-proclaimed, sound point. I asked a simple question.

As much as you want to, you don't get to blame this on Trump. Folks were getting attacked for simply going to a rally, wearing a hat, or pledging support before Trump asked folks to throw anyone out. I remember seeing parts of colleges blocked off and if you were a Trump supporter, you hate to walk around or you paid the price. Any violence advocated by the Right was toward those that showed up at places where their only motive was to disrupt. Trump supporters got attacked for simply walking to an event.

This current violence is fueled by hate and the hate comes from the Left because they didn't get their way in 2016. Folks are burning businesses, destroying facilities, and attacking people because they can and many local leaders look the other way at best. Well until it comes to their neighborhood. 

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2020, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: This current violence is fueled by hate and the hate comes from the Left because they didn't get their way in 2016.

Here we go again.

Was 2016 the first time Democrats lost an election?  Did Dems physically attack George Bush supporters.  Or McCain supporters?  Or Romney supporters?  If they did how did those adult candidates respond?

Trump was not some poor innocent victim who just defended himself from evil attackers.  From day one he has been aggressive and promoted violence.  As soon as he announced his campaign he was the favorite of the clan and white nationalists.  From the very beginning he was making racists comments about Mexican immigrants and horrible comments about women.

What is the more likely logical explanation for what is going on?  For some unknown reason everyone else in the world changed their behavior when Trump decided to run for President or Trump's behavior caused people to change their behavior? 

It is ridiculous to claim everything changed just because Dems lost an election when they have lost many elections in the past with out triggering this type of behavior.

[*bfine32*]

(09-06-2020, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here we go again.

Was 2016 the first time Democrats lost an election?  Did Dems physically attack George Bush supporters.  Or McCain supporters?  Or Romney supporters?  If they did how did those adult candidates respond?

Trump was not some poor innocent victim who just defended himself from evil attackers.  From day one he has been aggressive and promoted violence.  As soon as he announced his campaign he was the favorite of the clan and white nationalists.  From the very beginning he was making racists comments about Mexican immigrants and horrible comments about women.

What is the more likely logical explanation for what is going on?  For some unknown reason everyone else in the world changed their behavior when Trump decided to run for President or Trump's behavior caused people to change their behavior? 

It is ridiculous to claim everything changed just because Dems lost an election when they have lost many elections in the past with out triggering this type of behavior.

Not even considering generational changes of young voters in 12 years, nothing you posted refutes the fact that the left were engaging in violence during the 2016 election. Trump didn't cultivate a culture of violence. his candidacy just exposed it. 

It was born in hate and it continues to this day. 

---

 

[fredtoast]

(09-06-2020, 07:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  his candidacy just exposed it. 

---

 

Why was Trump able to "expose" something that no other candidate has been able to before?

What did he do that other Republican candidates had not?

Was it the Confederate battle flags at his rallies?

The p*ssy grabbing?

What was it exactly?