09-02-2020, 03:04 PM
(09-02-2020, 02:19 PM)Dill Wrote: No. Even Trump doesn't condemn the the violence on a daily basis.
He just does it more than any of the Dems. Got it.
Quote: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.
If they're not OK with it why do they continue to allow it to continue? Why did it take people having to die before they started to condemn the riots in large numbers?
Quote: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.)
People can believe whatever they want, it doesn't make them correct. Even if they were 100% in the right the routines violence is not acceptable, should never be acceptable, should be condemned in every instance and every legal recourse should be used to prevent further violence.
Also, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to its truthfulness or morality. By this logic the millions of people who fought against ending segregation were in the right because there were millions of them.
Quote: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.
You forgot to add that one of them mitigated or outright ignored much of the violence until very recently. Was that the correct tactic?
Quote:Which one will work? That is what people ought to be discussing in this forum.
Quote: Not whether politicians are condemning violence "on a daily basis."
We aren't doing exactly that in this, and other, threads?