How is peaceful protesting working out for them so far?

I think you accidentally managed to say what is actually the case here: bothsidesism is indeed an "assault on common sense", since there is no equivalence, moral or otherwise, between "radical" leftwing and rightwing groups, fascists and anti-fascists, white supremacists and BLM protesters, and suggesting that there is is completely non-factual sophistry.

I think you accidentally managed to say what is actually the case here: bothsidesism is indeed an "assault on common sense", since there is no equivalence, moral or otherwise, between "radical" leftwing and rightwing groups, fascists and anti-fascists, white supremacists and BLM protesters, and suggesting that there is is completely non-factual sophistry. — Enai De A Lukal

So how Wayfarer saying:

Rioting and looting is not civil protest. — Wayfarer

Is equivalent to make the case for white supremacy? To go against BLM?

What is the sophistry in saying that?

Honestly I don't understand the concern over what Trump might say, or with anticipating or pre-empting the right's disingenuous arguments. They're going to call Dems/the left radical anti-cop socialists irrespective of what the facts are, so why worry about it?

And Biden pandering to the right on this issue (and most others for that matter) is not only craven and morally indefensible, its politically stupid: especially given the extreme partisan polarization in the US right now, any Dem is going to be too far left for the overwhelming majority of Republican voters, regardless of their actual views or positions or how much "tough on crime"/"law and order" rhetoric they spew... whereas being too far right on these issues may well be (and almost certainly is) a deal-breaker for a non-negligible amount of progressives and leftists.

And of course its incredibly frustrating when the morally right thing to do and the politically advisable thing to do coincide... and Biden/the Dems still refuse to do that thing.

Trump offered federal support, only to be denied. Days after Wheeler rebuked the president’s offer a protester is killed. Once they asked for federal support in Wisconsin, and received it, the riots subsided. Imagine that. — NOS4A2

He's brought in troops without their consent which made things worse in places like Portland. When he took them out there was a decrease in violence until Trump's caravan of supporters rolled in and started shooting teargas and paintballs at people. He didn't give a damn about what local governments thought before, so why blame them now?

I honestly do not see what his election message is on this. "Reelect me and I will stop the riots as president"? He's already president so either he is ineffective or he's just a liar. Of course he could also say that "If you elect Biden the riots will be worse", but that would seem to admit that the current situation is the best he can do which of course is gonna certainly persuade those who want the riots to quiet down.

How is peaceful protesting working out for them so far? — Benkei

How are violent protests working out so far?

Its par for the course, unfortunately. Its like Pelosi and the House re-authorizing the Patriot Act, absurd Pentagon/defense budget increases, etc without putting up so much as a token fight.. But hey, she clapped sideways at Trump that one time, and maybe if we're lucky she'll tear up another sheet of paper, right? #theResistance

Honestly I don't understand the concern over what Trump might say, — Enai De A Lukal

I think everything he says ought to be dismissed out of hand, but that's not the point. The only point is, what if Trump wins another term? How is that going to help anyone? Trump, as pointed out above, is literally trying to destroy political discourse, literally undermining the very idea of politics altogether. If he had his way, he would declare himself President for Life. He's a clear and present danger to the US and the world. There's only one thing that matters - Trump loosing. If he wins, everyone will suffer.

I don't accept the premise that failing to pander to rightwingers on this issue or in general will cost Biden the election, if anything the opposite seems more likely to be the case, as I just said.

Nor do I see the point of fighting a battle if you need to become what you're fighting against in order to win: seems to me that defeats the entire purpose.

It certainly solicits the worst of the racists to come out touting their guns. It shows the double standard more clearly. It shows which politicians listen and which don't. And that in ways that peaceful protest would never lay bare.

It illustrates how salonfähig US liberalism works. "Sure you can protest but don't break anything. And I agree with your points and things should change. But really, we should just vote for Biden and not change anything because Trump is so much worse and you wouldn't want that would you?"

So US liberals won't vote for the politicians needed to actually make the situation better, most of them won't go out there to peacefully protest change (that's left for the "socialists, communists and activists", those evil forces that actually care about human beings) even in the face of gross injustices perpetrated against their fellow countrymen, they won't petition their representative with a request for the policy reforms needed because "bruh, I'm busy" with posting a black image on Instagram, taking a knee, arguing about when a protester is a rioter (as if a rioter still doesn't have a valid point to make) and sharing videotaped killings of black people reducing those crimes to a fucking meme.

US liberals are mostly cowards that talk the talk but never walk the walk.

Why on earth should protester take their delicate sensibilities into account and protest peacefully if they are never going to help them any way?

EDIT: In all fairness, it's not just US liberals, I'd estimate about 80% of people are too cowardly to stand up for their beliefs and actually take action when they see injustice.

are you a reincarnation of Chester?

It certainly solicits the worst of the racists to come out touting their guns. — Benkei

And that's the objective here?

It shows which politicians listen and which don't. — Benkei

Which politicians are listening?

US liberals are mostly cowards that talk the talk but never walk the walk. — Benkei

So not only are the Republicans the problem, but also the liberals too?

Honestly I don't understand the concern over what Trump might say, or with anticipating or pre-empting the right's disingenuous arguments. They're going to call Dems/the left radical anti-cop socialists irrespective of what the facts are, so why worry about it? — Enai De A Lukal

I've been hearing this type of argument from progressives, but I feel like it misses the point of the moderate's position (BTW, I'm a progressive too). Of course the republicans are gonna call the democrat candidate a "socialist", they would say, but there's a difference between nominating someone who's pretty much a right wing politician in Biden, and someone who's known to be a "radical" like Bernie. Having the latter run in the general gives some credibility to the right's accusations making their attacks more effective where they would otherwise fall flat on their face. Of course one could argue that Bernie isn't really the radical communist that everybody paints him to be (and I would agree that he isn't like that), but the fact that that needs to be a conversation instead of something that is rejected out of hand as obviously ridiculous would be problematic.

This is sort of analogous to saying that our political opponents would paint us as "rapists" anyways no matter who we nominate to run against them, so why not pick the guy who's an accused sex offender? The problem here is less about what the other side would say, but rather how people would react to it.

That's quite obvious if you compare the lack of progress for minorities in the US and then look at Western and Nordic Europe since the 90s or so. Still countries with plenty of room for improvement but despite the pressure of populist movement I don't see an actual reversal (in fact, BLM has created more awareness with mainstream political parties resulting in a small push forward in NL again). The US used to be a frontrunner where it concerned race relations and immigration policies but it has stagnated and reversed course. Liberals let that happen.

Which politicians are listening? — ssu

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/26/us/politics/defund-police-protests-democrats.html

The law sets out specific requirements to qualify as a legally valid self-defense or defense of property claim. In order to justifiably use lethal force in WI, ones life must be in danger. His was not. So, no valid self-defense claim. Nor was he the owner of the property (or employee/agent of the person whose private property) he was purportedly "protecting": again, invalidating any claim to a legal defense of property. — Enai De A Lukal

Just so.

But will the Democrats put the demonstrators in charge of every lever of power in the U.S. Government?
Will the Democrats defund Police Departments all across America?
Will they pass federal legislation to reduce law enforcement nationwide?
Will they make every city look like Democrat-run Portland, Oregon?

Do you genuinely think that a Biden administration will do all those things once in power?

I try not to make a habit of predicting the future, but no, I do not believe that. Then again Biden’s political triangulation, his wind-sock approach to politics, hints that he’ll only do what keeps him in power, even if that means satiating the desires of the radical wing of his party.

I try not to make a habit of predicting the future, but no, I do not believe that. — NOS4A2

There you go.

It's usually that similar over the top accusations against Republican candidates were made by the media, not actually by the Democrat Presidential candidates. But Trump makes all the time such accusations, starting from the nasty attacks against his "fellow Republicans" (as let's remember, this guy was a Democrat before).

And from the way how Bernie was pushed aside, twice, it should be obvious also that the Democratic Party doesn't let it's "radical" democratic socialist wing to take power.

The other week Nancy Pelosi said

“ We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with their allies in the Congress of the United States”.

She continued: “ They’re doing everything they can [to] suppress the vote with their actions, scare people, intimidate by saying law enforcement will be there, diminish the role of the postal system in all of this. It’s really actually shameful. Enemies of the state.”

She’s the speaker of house and she called the Trump administration “domestic enemies” and “enemies of the state”.

Biden called Trump an existential threat to America.

Kamala Harris said the “protests” won’t stop.



This is, according to popular opinion, an incitement to violence. So in the spirit of politics I am glad Trump has decided to flip it on them.

Kamala Harris said the “protests” won’t stop. — NOS4A2

As I said before, during Biden's vice presidency the Obama administration did stop nation wide protests very well: until today, I haven't seen any footage of how OWS was torn down. You think the media will criticize a Biden administration cracking down on violent protests? Think again.

What is not going to stop is the polarization of the Americans. Which actually benefits the two headed monster in power in the US with Americans focusing the hatred against each other and not the duopoly of the Democrat and Republican parties.

I remember the feds made Ferguson a no-fly zone during the riots because they didn’t want media to film the violence. Out of sight out of mind.

I take the view of Popper that the two-party system is the superior one. I don’t see it as a monster. I see it as a boon.

And I believe polarization is an important aspect of a country’s progression and politics. The polarization surrounding civil rights, slavery, war has amounted to a better future for all.

Out of sight out of mind. — NOS4A2

Some call it strategic silence.

I take the view of Popper that the two-party system is the superior one. I don’t see it as a monster. I see it as a boon. — NOS4A2

Let's see how well the centrist / right-wing duopoly can answer to Americans in the future.

And I believe polarization is an important aspect of a country’s progression and politics. The polarization surrounding civil rights, slavery, war has amounted to a better future for all. — NOS4A2

Oh yes:

Abolishing slavery in the UK: 0 deaths.
Abolishing slavery in the US: perhaps 600 000 - 1 000 000 dead.

Enjoy Canada for all what it gives you, NOS4A2. :up:

I believe polarization is an important aspect of a country’s progression and politics. — NOS4A2

So you're a progressive now?

The more divided a government is the more ineffectual it can be, and who benefits from an ineffectual US government? Some must, perhaps your employer, for one.

Enjoy Canada for all what it gives you, NOS4A2. :up:

Besides nature, it’s given me a bloated government, institutional identity politics and high taxes.

Let's see how well the centrist / right-wing duopoly can answer to Americans in the future.

Far better than a minority government who has to wheel and deal with losing parties who have somehow achieved power.

Abolishing slavery in the UK: 0 deaths.
Abolishing slavery in the US: perhaps 600 000 - 1 000 000 dead.

Right, I’m sure there was zero polarization on the issue in the UK.

So you're a progressive now?

The more divided a government is the more ineffectual it can be, and who benefits from an ineffectual government? Some must, perhaps your employer?

No I’m not a progressive.

Politics isn’t about creating some sort of uni-party, or else you might prefer the politics of North Korea, which is about as unified as can be. Politics is about division.

Funny, coming from someone who so fervently supports a man who has a habit of circumventing Congress whenever they become inconvenient.

Funny, coming from someone who so fervently supports a man who has a habit of circumventing Congress whenever they become inconvenient.

Lamenting a divided government from a man who fervently hates his own president. Funny.

Right, I’m sure there was zero polarization on the issue in the UK. — NOS4A2

Since their Civil War, the English have been able to solve the problems in their society without large scale violence. Ok, there's Ireland and some colonies that were problematic, but otherwise...

The leader of the Republican Commonwealth still got a statue in the monarchy:

Since their Civil War, the English have been able to solve the problems in their society without large scale violence. Ok, there's Ireland and some colonies that were problematic, but otherwise...

The leader of the Republican Commonwealth still got a statue in the monarchy:

I don’t understand polarization to mean violence. Maybe there is something lost in translation here.

Lamenting a divided government from a man who fervently hates his own president. Funny. — NOS4A2

Hate is a strong word, even directed towards the Divider-in-Chief. I don't care for the notion that a citizen should love or respect their leader merely because of their position. For most adults, respect needs to be earned.

Of course the republicans are gonna call the democrat candidate a "socialist", they would say, but there's a difference between nominating someone who's pretty much a right wing politician in Biden, and someone who's known to be a "radical" like Bernie. Having the latter run in the general gives some credibility to the right's accusations making their attacks more effective where they would otherwise fall flat on their face

Certainly there's a difference, but I would suggest that in the present environment its not a difference that makes much of a difference (in terms of changing anyone's mind or vote): i.e. given the partisan polarization and the fact that people's attitudes towards both parties/candidates are pretty strongly locked in at this point. So the question is: giving credibility to the rights accusations for whom? Those on the right? They were always going to regard those accusations as credible, regardless of the facts. So, maybe for those on the left? They were always going to regard those accusations as falling flat on their face. And the number + impact of independents is always overstated: most people who self-identify as independents are functionally committed partisans in terms of their voting habits (identifying as independent seems to be mostly just a kind of self-flattery): their votes aren't actually up for grabs, any more than the votes of committed partisans of either party are up for grabs.

And so like I said I don't think there's any practical benefit to trying to anticipate or counter the (mostly disingenuous) arguments from the right: this isn't going to move the needle in any tangible way, in terms of the election and voting. Whereas pandering to the right on issues the left/progressives hold dear (like police violence/reform) may well come at the cost of depressed turnout there- so there's no upside here, only downside, making Biden's position especially frustrating since its not only cowardly and morally indefensible, but politically stupid as well (at least so far as I can tell).