bishnykfan wrote:robillionaire wrote:bishnykfan wrote:
Whoever the groups are that are robbing and looting, destroying businesses, violently attacking people or disturbing people at their homes/workplaces or hurting people, whether it is right or left, antifa or anarchists, organized or not, funded or not, etc...why has it been allowed to go on for so long? Why aren't the local leaders differentiating between the peaceful daytime protests and what seems to happen at night?
I think it's just a myth to say that they have been allowed to go on when any demonstration peaceful or not has been facing off with riot cops on a consistent basis, and with few exceptions like the first night of riots it has been police who has instigated the confrontations mostly on people sitting around or occupying a space after they declare it an illegal gathering or put in place a bogus curfew to justify breaking it up. If you ever see something that looks like it's unopposed it's only because the cops decided to pull a tactical strategic retreat until they could kettle smaller groups. I know you would like them to use live ammo on the protesters. But that would just martyr them in the eyes of the world, and you better believe the world is watching. They don't want the optics of a Tienanmen.
If you think that I want the police to use live ammo on protestors than you don't know much about me or anything that I stand for. I'll assume that was a generic "you" and not directed at me. I responded to the question of how Trump can run as a law and order candidate. As an independent voter, I thought maybe I could play devils advocate and tell you how it looks from an "outsiders" vantage point. When you watch the local news and see murders rising, cities burning, looting, fighting, people being harassed at their homes, places of business, etc...it's easy to see why so many people would want to hear a leader telling them that they are for law enforcement. If it's right leaning or left leaning "protestors" that are destroying cities, makes no difference. My problem is with the local officials who have the power to put an end to the violence.
It was generic but you are also right in that I don't know anything about you or what you stand for, was just addressing the topic. I'm bad for saying "you" a lot when I shouldn't. But I will say that this isn't a new thing, under Obama you had riots in ferguson/baltimore and they never hesitated to use as much force as they could to stop these things. Same with protests in Standing Rock to stop the pipeline on indigenous land. Obama even called the rioters "thugs" so I'm not sure what the perception is that Biden would somehow not try to stop riots. Every indication is that he would handle them in the same manner as his predecessor. And although they were bad, eventually they stopped. I don't even mean this to be a compliment to Obama or Biden.
Now Trump may say he's for law enforcement and talk all this law and order BS about dominating the streets to whip his base into a frenzy about the idea of vigilante justice against the protest, which we are now seeing unfold, but at the end of the day he's the president and all of this street warfare is happening under his watch. Where's law and order? What kind of law and order will you expect in the next 4 years? When he attacked the journalists on the white house lawn for his photo op with the bible, was that something that inspired law and order? There will never be any under Trump because many people will never accept the "order" of an authoritarian and openly racist regime. Biden might certainly have his own protests to deal with when the next police killing happens under his watch, but if he's willing to try to listen a little bit instead and actually try to do something tangible to create a change to pacify the masses instead of instigating, maybe they will die down quicker. I can't promise that he will do that though.
