09-02-2020, 02:19 PM
(09-01-2020, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How about condemning it on a daily basis as it continues on a daily basis?
I'm sure the victims of the "minimal violence" would describe it otherwise. As for you assertion of being overshadowed, does reporting on the "wall of moms" preclude reporting on the violence later in the same day?
This assertion is demonstrably false. The organized attacks took place well before Trump sent in the Feds and well before the "wall of moms". In fact, Trump sending in the Feds was what prompted the "wall of moms".
No, it's been rather immediate, as in very recent, for most. As stated, Biden has been better than most Dems in this regard, but that's unfortunately not saying much.
No. Even Trump doesn't condemn the the violence on a daily basis.
And no assertion in my post is "demonstrably false." You claimed it took someone being killed before anyone (any Dem) "took a stand." THAT is demonstrably false.
We aren't having protests in US cities, and riots in Portland, because Dems are ok with violence. Or because they, or anyone, don't condemn it enough.
We have riots in US cities, and continuously in Portland, because millions of people believe there is a two-track justice system in the US. (Victims of police violence don't think that minimal either.)
There are two parties, two leaders, with two different approaches to this problem. One does a lot of partisan condemning of violence (with a wink to militia participation) sprinkled with falsehoods about who and what is driving it, and wants to send in the military to "dominate the streets." The other wants to address the causes of the protests/riots, working through police reform.
Which one will work? That is what people ought to be discussing in this forum. Not whether politicians are condemning violence "on a daily basis."