Steerpike

How about condemning violence on both sides? Not ALL the protesters are nonviolent. Respond to my post above which has specific examples.

Steerpike

Just saw this - https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...esident-383026

‘It's absolutely serious’: Susan Rice vaults to the top of the VP heap

I saw her not long ago in an interview, she was very impressive. What's not to like?

zzrmark

Where's Boiler? We need his input on Benghazi...

She might be the perfect candidate but why in God's name would the DNC go for a mediocre presidential candidate and a VP that the right will take great delight in slandering? Has nobody noticed that those bloody idiots thrive on 3 word chants for simpletons. Lock her up, but her emails, no more bullshit being but a few.

UkWinds5353

Your point is well taken and it's wise that voters error on the side of caution especially considering the stakes.

What I examine when comparing 2016's election versus 2020 are events on the ground. I don't factor in Donald Trump having some sort of magical ability to overcome obstacles that no other politician could defeat. He has supported, and personally backed, too many big elections since 2018 in multiple states and lost nearly everyone of them and particularly in swing states. Many of them in RED states like Louisiana, only to see his involvement pulling down that candidate. If the opposite was true and he could win while doing an incredibly horrible job when the country is a petri dish of viral plague, I would give that man his due. Look around, many Republican Senators who fear Trump are speaking privately about how Trump is toxic and destroying their chances to hold the Senate.

I simply go with the facts, no assumptions or emotions. 2016 was a year when both major party candidates were very unpopular. That is a fact. Hillary was probably the most unpopular Democrat nominee since Michael Dukakis. Two months before the election Hillary had a generic 4 point lead nationally while many forecasters kept saying the race in various states was much closer and as we found out that turned out to be true. Hillary never caught fire with many of the voters. 2 million African American, and 800,000 Hispanic voters did not like Trump, but they equally rejected Hillary and for that reason they stayed home.

So what an observer has to ask themself, is Joe Biden less popular than Trump and is 2020 a year when voters want change from current circumstances? If voters actually do like being stuck in their homes while attempting to avoid becoming a victim of the coronavirus outbreak then yes Trump might truly be considered a serious threat to win re-election. I've been voting since the 1980s, the American electorate is only loyal to people who they feel connected to and usually based on a basic premise. Are you delivering the goods, and if you're not they move on to the next change candidate. Always been that way in America.

Steerpike

Ahh, yes, Benghazi! How could I forget! We'd better be sure she has a good birth certificate also!

My first choice is still Kamala Harris, so let's hope she prevails

Leslie

My top pick is Val Demmings, bar none.

Second, Tammy Duckworth.

I didn't really have a third but when you mentioned Susan Rice I thought she's pretty all right too so --- third for now.

There are some I definitely don't want and some that I'm leaning toward tepid. These are only my opinions, based on the things that matter to me. I have no idea who is the best pick for Biden politically.

johnwoo

Not sure what you want me to respond to.
BLM is a movement responding too systemic violence against people of color, and African Americans in particular, a continuance of the civil rights movement and beyond.
The memorials to John Lewis should remind us of past events and the struggle continues.
OK for us middle class comfortable well off white people to tut,tut. are we really in a position to judge?

Giantaxe

What if she is the best candidate? Why let Republican stupidity on Benghazi define why she can't be picked?

Giantaxe

The overwhelming number of protesters who've been on the streets the last couple of months have demonstrated peacefully. The same cannot be said for law enforcement, particularly when the federal government has got involved. Think Lafayette Park, for example.

Steerpike

Are you including or excluding the initial round of looting that occurred, which resulted in curfews all over the place for a week?

Giantaxe

I am including them. Looters were vastly outnumbered by peaceful protesters even during that period when looting was at its peak.

I'm not defending the small number of violent protesters. In fact, I find it completely exasperating that the legitimate BLM protests are now being somewhat overshadowed by violence.

Steerpike

Isn't destruction of property something of a universal concern? We can't tut-tut someone who sets fire to a building? Since damaging property has no intrinsic purpose, then obviously it's done to gain attention, or, to provoke a response. The attention is there already, and the peaceful protests keep that alive. But the provoking of a response seems highly counter-productive.

Steerpike

I'm sure the relative number of looters was small, but they were very active all over. The fact they smashed up shopping centers in both Scottsdale and Walnut Creek (two utterly boring suburbs), which have never seen such activities in my lifetime, suggests it was widespread. I do know that the 'impact' (memory) of those looters was quite strong among those very people who were otherwise sympathetic towards the BLM movement. It's quite amazing, really, just how 'popular' the BLM movement has become - traditionally conservative folk are now expressing support for BLM, and that is great. But the looting, and now the violence, is undoing all that goodwill and support, so it is completely counterproductive.

dave_j

Imagine you're a freelance photographer.
You stand there for hours watching a bunch of peaceful protesters standing still.
Along comes a spotty younth and throws a stone, breaks a window.
Click Click.. that's it for the night. email the photo to grateful publisher.
Headline next morning... Disturbance at...
Next night you stand there for hours watching a bunch of peaceful protesters standing still.
Along comes a spotty younth and throws a stone, breaks a window.
Feds fire tear gas and bundle youth off into unmarked van.
Click Click.. that's it for the night. email the photo to grateful publisher.
Headline next morning... Riot at...
You can't avoid the truth that peaceful protesting isn't newsworthy and politicians know this. They can withstand any number of protests without having to do anything. Trump knows this and also recognises that window breaking attracts attention and although I hate to admit it, this recruitment of border thugs to provoke and stigmatise anyone protesting on the streets is open ended and attracts support from that large proportion of the US citizenry that's absolutely terrified of just about everything at the moment.

johnwoo

It was blatantly clear, what happened in Walnut Creek was absolutely nothing to do with the protests. It was a group of people taking advantage of the situation, they were organized with the sole to intent loot and steal. they were in no way part of the protest.
The same thing was going on in a number of Bay Area cities. Unfortunately it is now being used to conveniently to discredit the BLM movement.
Admittedly there are bad actors among the protests that distract the easily and eager distractors.. Big picture, big picture.