Do you really, really believe that left leaning people and virtually all Democrats do not want the left wing violent elements to be prosecuted? Yes or No?
I ask because me and many over here do think that anyone resorting to violence does deserve to be prosecuted.
Also, it is clear that condemnations Biden and many others had made about the violence shows a very, very big lie coming from right wing sources now, when right wing sources declare to people like you that Democrats are not condemning the violence. Even on a recent NPR interview the interviewer recently had to remind a Republican hack leader about that. Biden and others are not supporting violence.
Not virtually all. But far too many local leaders and district attorneys are playing a very dangerous game of pandering to violent radicals because they feel that there is a nominal ideological alliance. Look, if political violence becomes normal and you start seeing IRA style tactics here in the US do you think the outcome will be good?
The Portland Police Bureau appears to have all but given up on policing the far-right factions brawling in the Oregon city’s streets, despite a recent escalation in violence that has seen those extremists throw explosives, brandish guns and in one case fire them at other protesters.
It’s common to see far-right extremist groups like the Proud Boys exchanging blows with counterprotesters in Portland. They’ve been doing that for years, often as PPB officers watched until a riot was officially declared and then police cleared the streets using tear gas and other munitions.
What I see is people balancing the 1st amendment rights of protesters to address their grievances to the govt vs the potential for social disruption that it may cause.
Would you say that pro-2nd amendment advocates are playing a dangerous game of pandering to violent radicals as well? Far more are killed and wounded due to our easy access to guns than are killed or wounded due to allowing assemblies of people to address the govt.
It sounds like your solution is to take a sharpy to the first amendment and cross out a couple parts that you don’t like.
Lol. Two months of rioting by leftist nuts and you are worried about sporadic appearances of some right wing nuts? Seems inconsistent. Plus I thought the police weren’t wanted by the far left? What in the world do you think happens when there is no law and order? You think the ‘Summer of Love’ at CHOP/CHAZ was a pleasant experience for all involved?
Burning residences, businesses, and government buildings is not free speech. Assaulting people for wrong think is not free speech. I’m probably more free speech than practically anyone on this board. I don’t think prohibitions on so-called “hate speech” or speech codes or any of that nonsense leads to any good. I think people should have the freedom to assembly or not as they choose. So, I’m not sure where you get that I’m anti first amendment. My pro first amendment stance on unpopular speech or speakers has led to many on this site using libelous language to describe me.
Now with regards to the 2nd amendment and violence that’s a whole other debate. I
In a thread about the presidential election what Biden and others did say is the most important thing, and clearly your sources are blatantly lying to you about what they are saying about what the Democrats do think about the violent elements.
The country is crying out for leadership. Leadership that can unite us. Leadership that can bring us together. Leadership that can recognize the pain and deep grief of communities that have had a knee on their neck for too long.
But there is no place for violence.
No place for looting or destroying property or burning churches, or destroying businesses — many of them built by people of color who for the first time were beginning to realize their dreams and build wealth for their families.
Nor is it acceptable for our police — sworn to protect and serve all people — to escalate tensions or resort to excessive violence.
We need to distinguish between legitimate peaceful protest — and opportunistic violent destruction.
And we must be vigilant about the violence that’s being done by the incumbent president to our democracy and to the pursuit of justice.
When peaceful protestors are dispersed by the order of the President from the doorstep of the people’s house, the White House — using tear gas and flash grenades — in order to stage a photo op at a noble church, we can be forgiven for believing that the president is more interested in power than in principle.
You are correct, those are not free speech, and those are not what anyone is defending or condoning.
When you lump peaceful protesters in with violent actors, you are damaging free speech. It would be like if I lumped all gun owners in with criminals and mass murderers.
When your “pro-first amendment” stance means that people should not be allowed to express their criticisms of other’s free speech, then you end up being far less of a free speech advocate than you imagine that you are.
You should be hoping instead that he beats Hillary Clinton’s numbers, because right now he is behind where she was in every battleground state. It doesn’t matter if Biden carries New York, California and other blue states by larger margins than he did last time if he can’t win the battleground states.
Also, two polls out this weekend have Trump over 50%.
For those who don’t want to read it, the upshot is that Zogby has Trump at 52/47, Rasmussen 51/48.
Even more frightening for Democrats, Zogby says support for Trump is at 36% for Blacks, 37% for Hispanics, and 35% for Asians. Remarkably, support for Trump was 23% among Democrats. Zogby says the black support is the highest polled for any Republican in the history of their organization.
Democrats are focused on getting support from black activists, but the violence that is going on is primarily hitting other black people - people who don’t want their neighborhoods trashed and their businesses looted. The riots are pushing them right into the arms of the Republicans.
If Trump does get anywhere 36% of the Black vote in November, Democrats are in big trouble.
Now wait until the Dakotas find out that Biden wants to outlaw fracking, the gulf states discover he wants to end offshore drilling, and taxpayers find out about the tax hikes.
Anyone who thinks this election is in the bag for anyone is either living in a bubble or hasn’t been paying attention to what’s going on. These are the most volatile times in our history, and the polls vould swing towards one candidate and back multiple times before the election.
Zogby is not a real polling outfit and Rasmussen barely is. If you’re really interested in what the polls say, follow Nate Silver. No one else comes close - certainly not anyone citing nonsense polls like Zogby.
According to 538, on this date in 2016, Clinton was up 8 in Wisconsin. Today, Biden is up by 5.9 after being up by 7 three days ago. And this is less than a week after the DNC ended.
Likewise, according to Nate, on this date in 2016, Hillary was up by 8.3 in Michigan. Today, Biden has today fallen from an 8 point lead to a 7.6 point lead in the Wolverine State.
On this date in 2016, Hillary up by 6.1 in Pennsylvania. Today, Biden’s lead fell to 5.6, down from a 6.5 point lead a week ago.
There’s a definite puckering sound in the air, and it’s not just the sound of the race tightening.
Last election’s polls notoriously undersampled potential Trump voters. This time around, pollsters are mindful of repeating their errors and have re-weighed their polls accordingly.
Only in a few states. National polling was quite good in 2016, only off by a point or two. There was only a significant polling error in about three states.
And of course, I’m forgetting Comey’s little October surprise. Had the election been held four years ago today, Clinton would’ve won, even with wonky polls.