Democratic mayors have to be very careful not to play into Trump’s hands here. And if the mayors, especially the one in Portland, continue to be feckless, people like Pelosi and Biden need to speak out against it.
I’m not saying Portland is happening and therefore now all is lost in November. But I definitely feel that when you have an advantage, you want to keep pushing it in the right direction. Especially a newly minted advantage (on BLM, protests, etc.) which has not necessarily really firmed up yet.
If you were gameplanning how to somehow throw Republicans a lifeline, it’s hard to think of anything better than what they are doing there. I doubt it will make the difference for Trump, but what if we fall one vote short in the Senate? Or even if we barely make it but we miss golden opportunities in Georgia, Kansas, etc.?
The people rioting don’t care about any of this, they just want to stir up trouble. But Democratic mayors have to take a deep breath and have a Sister Souljah moment and try to have faith that they won’t get turned out of office for putting down riots. Especially when the rioters don’t like them anyway! They are never going to be cool and radical enough to please that crowd and they should stop trying.
Most important of all is that if Democrats put down riots, it denies Trump any opening.
At a minimum Chad Wolf should be arrested by the Portland police and thrown in jail. Provided his chickenshit ass dares to show himself without any of his stormtroopers nearby.
If Biden is elected then I would hope Wolf will be detained shortly thereafter. Fascist piece of shit.
In my humble opinion, I think you are mistaken to bring national Democratic party politics into the picture at all. What Portland residents do with their local politicians about local policy is of no bearing whatsoever to the national party. The national party is supposed to be the product of local parties, not the other way around. I don’t like the idea of top-down politics of the kind you seem to advocate here; although I am neither a Portland resident nor a Democrat, I think the national Democratic party should stick to the federal government’s involvement because that is their perview.
I disagree. When Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott makes a hash of their states because they follow Trump’s line and pooh-pooh the coronavirus, we skewer them for it–and rightly so. Each party is made up of national, state, and local officials, and they all reflect to one degree or another on the party overall–for good or for ill.
You’re entitled to your own opinion…but not your own facts. Do you go to your local party meetings? I do, and there’s not some separate schedule for meetings about senators or presidential candidates vs. meetings about local officials. It’s all the same meeting, the same people working to fundraise and GOTV for Democrats up and down the ticket.
The Democratic mayors, governors, and DA like the protests. Which is why they allow them to happen. If people were arrested and convicted for the violence they were doing it would stop pretty quickly. Noone wants to go to jail for 10 years and right now the crowd feels immune because of implicit support.
Anyways, I am not sure how the videos of assaults, shootings, arson, looting, and mayhem is going to reflect well on the Dems come November. I don’t see any red hats out there burning down businesses and robbing people. And if they did I am sure they’d be arrested and convicted with unprecedented haste.
You make it sound like there’s a Democratic Gestapo roaming the streets looking for MAGA hats. Any “secret police” that have been observed all seem to be operating under the Republican flag, not the Democrat moniker.
You seem to have a lot of ill-conceived notions about liberals and Democrats.
This is wrong, or vastly oversimplified. First of all, I hope by “protests” you mean rioting. Otherwise you are implying that officials can and should stop people from peacefully protesting, a basic constitutional right spelled out in the First Amendment.
But okay, let’s assume for the sake of argument that you mean the actions that involve violence or property damage. There it is a little more complicated, but I don’t believe at all these Democratic officials like to see this violence happen. They may well (as I talked about upthread) want the people engaging in these actions to like them, but in their ideal world they’d come out, give a speech about all the great progressive things they are going to do, and the crowd would start chanting their name and convert their zeal for violence and destruction into a wave of adulation.
More realistically, they would like the rioting to fizzle out or at least fade into peaceful protest (again, a cornerstone of our democracy), but they are afraid to take active steps to stamp out the riots. I think there are three main reasons for this:
They have some faith that the rioutous spirit is ebbing of its own accord, and don’t want to provoke the mob into getting ginned up again.
They are afraid that confronting rioters will not only gin them up again but may lead to police overstepping their bounds and proactively beating or teargassing people who haven’t earned such treatment (as we have seen far too many times).
They are afraid that confronting rioters will allow future primary opponents to outflank them to the left and thus jeopardize their political futures.
But before you get too comfortable smirking about any of this, please take note of how red state governors like Abbott folded like cheap tents when their wild-eyed protesting base started kicking up a fuss over their daring to take any actions to protect public health.
You are absolutely correct about the right not taking science seriously enough when it contradicts their politics. It’s one of my pet peeves with the right.
By whom would they be arrested? You think the municipal, state and federal LEO are in on the “assaults, shootings, arson, looting, and mayhem” when liberal protesters are doing it? If so, explain the numerous incidents of police brutality towards peaceful protesters (not just the recent Fed storm trooper actions).
Honestly, are you even capable of thoughtful argument? Consistency: that’s really all I ask for. Is that too much to expect?
With regard to people who break the laws, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of LOCAL STATE LAW!
The federal government almost since its inception has deferred to the states the administration of their own affairs. Traditionally, issues regarding the administration of local laws have been the responsibility of state governmental authority. Hence all police agencies in any municipality derive their law enforcement authority from their state’s constitution and their state legislative body.
The federal government does not and has not gotten involved in local law enforcement matters! It’s called “Sates Rights”!
Amendment X [The US Constitution]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Passed by Congress, 25 September 1789. Ratified 15 December 1791. The first 10 amendments form the Bill of Rights.
We don’t have the political system or a body of laws which permits the federal government to ascertain if a state government is doing an adequate job of the enforcement of its own state laws and state constitution. With the exception of out and out civil insurrection, which a state may fail putting down and restoring law and order, there is no place for federal police involvement. If a state’s executive fails in any aspect in the administration of government, there are the federal courts and the next election to change that.
