Politically Motivated Violence Thread PART 2

[jamil]

OTOH, there are those in the middle of the democratic party wondering why Trump has not acted. Letting America burn is on his watch. They would actually support federal intervention at this point. They understand anarchy and marxism and are not anarchists and marxists. Trump's jawboning isn't action. It's inaction. A true leader would stomp these felons into the ground.

He's allowing democrat mayor and governors to show their constituents just how deep the rabbit hole of leftism goes if unchecked.

They're free to ask for federal assistance at any time they desire.

I think it's more that part of the rationale for the rioting would be to get Trump to send in the feds so that they can say, SEE? We told you he was a totalitarian dictator. They pulled that one out when he sent Feds to Portland to protect the federal buildings. But also, I do think there are some limits to what he can do federally. It's clear cut if they ask for help. If they don't, it's more complicated. But it's working out against the Democrats anyway. America is watching them and that's hurting them more than it's hurting Trump.

 

[JettaKnight]

I think it's more that part of the rationale for the rioting would be to get Trump to send in the feds so that they can say, SEE? We told you he was a totalitarian dictator. They pulled that one out when he sent Feds to Portland to protect the federal buildings. But also, I do think there are some limits to what he can do federally. It's clear cut if they ask for help. If they don't, it's more complicated. But it's working out against the Democrats anyway. America is watching them and that's hurting them more than it's hurting Trump.

QFT.


The "send in the army!" is fraught with peril and pitfalls. there's manifold ways that can hurt Trump.


Now he can use it as a campaign issue, "In my next term, I'm going to get cities under control, because the Dems won't!"

 

[DoggyDaddy]

OTOH, there are those in the middle of the democratic party wondering why Trump has not acted. Letting America burn is on his watch. They would actually support federal intervention at this point. They understand anarchy and marxism and are not anarchists and marxists. Trump's jawboning isn't action. It's inaction. A true leader would stomp these felons into the ground.

And yet as soon as he even mentions taking action he gets accused of being "literally Hitler" by the left, including the politicians in the House and Senate. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Phase2]

And yet as soon as he even mentions taking action he gets accused of being "literally Hitler" by the left, including the politicians in the House and Senate. You can't have it both ways unless the media is willing to amplify your message and to bury relevant history.

FTFY

 

[Alpo]

QFT.


Now he can use it as a campaign issue, "In my next term, I'm going to get cities under control, because the Dems won't!"

It happened on his first watch...and did nothing. Empty promise. He owns the unrest because he failed to act.

 

[Alpo]

And yet as soon as he even mentions taking action he gets accused of being "literally Hitler" by the left, including the politicians in the House and Senate. You can't have it both ways.

There is nothing wrong with quelling riots.

If, at the same time, he began a blue ribbon panel to come back with recommendations in 30 days on methods to curb police abuse (and there is abuse), he'd pull a lot of support from the middle. Independents and perhaps some democrats.

But, Trump plays golf and tweets.

He owns the problem.

 

[NKBJ]

Politically Motivated Violence:
As a consequence of communist revolution being promoted by an infiltrated government and NGO's in an American city a good man was hunted down and murdered because of his political views. And on video they cheered in Portland for murdering the man. Celebrating his death. That's what they are.

So, why not just admit it?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

There is nothing wrong with quelling riots.

If, at the same time, he began a blue ribbon panel to come back with recommendations in 30 days on methods to curb police abuse (and there is abuse), he'd pull a lot of support from the middle. Independents and perhaps some democrats.

But, Trump plays golf and tweets.

He owns the problem.

Well in that case, I say he should declare martial law, roll out the tanks and commence to cutting down these "peaceful protests" with extreme malice. Cool! Glad we're seeing eye to eye now.

 

[Alpo]

See....you have taken it to a point where you defeat any possible beneficial outcome to the president.

Form a cordon.

Arrest the rioters/demonstrators. Bring in Federal prosecutors. I'm sure that a case can be made that Federal crimes have been committed.

No need for martial law.

More rioters show up tomorrow? Rinse and repeat.

It only takes a strong showing in one or two cities. One, more than likely. The mayors will get the message.

 

[OakRiver]

There is nothing wrong with quelling riots.

If, at the same time, he began a blue ribbon panel to come back with recommendations in 30 days on methods to curb police abuse (and there is abuse), he'd pull a lot of support from the middle. Independents and perhaps some democrats.

But, Trump plays golf and tweets.

He owns the problem.

Isn't policing the purview of the states?

 

[NKBJ]

And look at what happened in Florida over the weekend.
A man was attacked, knocked down with eight thug "protesters" on him, kicked him while he was down...
So he pulled out his piece and held them off.
But notice, once he had to pull a gun to save himself the police were instantly there and got HIM.
This is really instructive in the America we now live in.

 

[Alpo]

Isn't policing the purview of the states?

Yes...and no. Interstate sedition is a Federal crime. Lots of civil rights violations not being addressed by local/state prosecutors.

If there was a willingness to do something, Trump could act.

He spent a lot of money on a broken-ass wall with no apparent authority. I'm sure the DOJ could step in if he directed them to.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

See....you have taken it to a point where you defeat any possible beneficial outcome to the president.

Form a cordon.

Arrest the rioters/demonstrators. Bring in Federal prosecutors. I'm sure that a case can be made that Federal crimes have been committed.

No need for martial law.

More rioters show up tomorrow? Rinse and repeat.

It only takes a strong showing in one or two cities. One, more than likely. The mayors will get the message.

That would work too, but with the same public (and political) backlash. Don't get me wrong. But the backlash would be the same as the extreme measures (which I probably should have purpled).

 

[Phase2]

Yes...and no. Interstate sedition is a Federal crime. Lots of civil rights violations not being addressed by local/state prosecutors.

If there was a willingness to do something, Trump could act.

He spent a lot of money on a broken-ass wall with no apparent authority. I'm sure the DOJ could step in if he directed them to.

It would be nice if you spent half as much venom on the mayors and governors who actually have authority and responsibility for law enforcement in these cities. But most of them were too busy enjoying the "Summer of Love", painting BLM murals, providing room to destroy, and telling their police forces to stand down to accept responsibility.

Trump coming in would be to clean up their mess. As horrible as this all is, at least their constituencies are learning what it is to live without the rule of law and can reconsider if they want to live that way or not.

 

[Alpo]

It is situational and time sensitive, methinks.

Arresting a bunch of black people who were marching shortly after Floyd died....yeah. I see that as optically problematic.

Arresting a bunch of protesters on a federal highway? no issue.

Arresting anyone involved in rioting 90 days after Floyd died? Not a problem.

 

[jamil]

It happened on his first watch...and did nothing. Empty promise. He owns the unrest because he failed to act.

So the democrat mayors and governors refusing help, encouraging violence and then pretending it’s not happening don’t own it? I’m afraid a growing number of people see democrats as the problem here. And they’d be right. The party has left them.

 

[Alpo]

And, locally, that's clearly a good campaign issue for someone running on law and order.

But, at the national level, promising to fix it if re-elected leads to the question: WTF? Why don't you fix it now, Dilbert?

 

[jamil]

And, locally, that's clearly a good campaign issue for someone running on law and order.

But, at the national level, promising to fix it if re-elected leads to the question: WTF? Why don't you fix it now, Dilbert?

Wouldn’t he need some legislation for that?

 

[Doug]

Also, why didn't ANY Democrat condemn the violence before today?

 

[jamil]

Also, why didn't ANY Democrat condemn the violence before today?

The polls weren’t in yet?