Originally Posted by johnwoo

How about condemning the violence that resists any change, Government gangs beating the shit out of nonviolent protesters.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by civilservant

I am getting so tired of hearing Republicans bleat on about 'freedom' when what they actually mean is 'I want a total absence of personal responsibility'

My 'freedom' not to wear a mask. What about everyone elses 'freedom' not to have your spittle in their face?

Even the Senate is at it. Liability protections for business except for gross misconduct. They should have the 'freedom' not to face harassing lawsuits.

I think the word needs a new definition.

Rant over.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

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

Originally Posted by carcajou

Now, are you going to condemn and deplore the wonton violence of protesters . . .

Originally Posted by zzrmark

Sometimes the better candidate isn't the right one for the time, we only have to look back and see how a solid candidate like Clinton has had her reputation trashed by mud slinging resulting in a stupid, intolerant, sexual predator sat in the White House. Ideally we want the best candidate for the job, the reality is we have to pick people that appeal to swing voters and we have already set our hearts on eliminating men and non-black VP candidates based not upon their skillset but their body type.

Not that it makes much difference to me as, like Leslie, I am a Demmings fan.

Originally Posted by carcajou

Sure. I condemn and deplore government violence against non-violent protesters. I don't vet my values or beliefs through an ideological prism first, which confuses the hell out of you and a few other posters on here.

Now, are you going to condemn and deplore the wonton violence of protesters, or are you going to just deny that it's happening? Or make excuses for it? Or just say it's not a problem and leave it at that?

Originally Posted by Leslie

It's wanton, ffs. W-A-N-T-O-N.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by caretaker

It's a thing..

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Big Picture = Trump may get re-elected if the violence continues. Can the picture get any bigger than that?

You say that it was 'blatantly clear' that the rioting in WC (an utterly boring suburb) was absolutely nothing to do with the protests. So it was a coincidence? Spontaneous? I totally agree that the vast vast majority of BLM protesters are peaceful and well-intentioned. But there is an element that is not peaceful. And it's not a numbers game in this regard. They are detracting from the overall positive momentum and should be resoundingly condemned, not given a pass or excused.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Big Picture = Trump may get re-elected if the violence continues. Can the picture get any bigger than that?

You say that it was 'blatantly clear' that the rioting in WC (an utterly boring suburb) was absolutely nothing to do with the protests. So it was a coincidence? Spontaneous? I totally agree that the vast vast majority of BLM protesters are peaceful and well-intentioned. But there is an element that is not peaceful.