(06-04-2020 06:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (06-04-2020 02:32 AM)illiniowl Wrote: I can agree with the first sentence and the general point that Trump hasn't ever even come close to fulfilling his pre-election promise to be "so presidential" it would be boring. If only.
But to say that an unprecedented nationwide orgy of rioting and looting stems solely from Trump's poor leadership is ludicrous. It doesn't stem from it even partially. When every Republican president in memory has literally been equated with Hitler, how can Trump be some sort of special case?
No, it stems from pathology in modern liberal thought that promotes unhinged, sophomoric ideas like "defund the police" and that a country that elected a black president and has thousands upon thousands of black leaders -- and cops -- is actually a racist, oppressive hell where it is state policy to kill unarmed black men. And from 40 million people suddenly finding themselves out of work because liberals were only too eager to believe incompetent doctors who told them that stopping capitalism was necessary to stop a virus that far and away affects only people who have long since retired from work. Those were all the ingredients needed in this powder keg.
Boil this post down and it’s a tribalistic “Liberals bad, conservatives good.” It’s pretty impressive how all the blame is shifted to liberals, as opposed to evenly spread, as it should be.
Your post ignores that plenty of conservatives also believe “incompetent doctors” and who implemented severe economic restrictions to stem the coronavirus tide. So it hasn’t just been liberals who were willing to listen to experts and make hard choices. It also ignores that people would have curtailed economic activity without sever lockdown, since transmission of the virus was not well known at the start of this pandemic, so the exact magnitude of the extra economic depression isn’t exactly clear. It also ignores that hospital systems in hard hit areas were overrun (and many currently have ICUs operating near max capacity). It also ignores that we do not know the exact extent to which no economic restriction would have resulted in more hot spots in areas that have not been hard hit - just look at Sweden, where GDP is expected to shrink significantly, without the same level of restrictions. In short, there was no perfect answer, and it certainly isn’t the liberals’ fault for that.
This also ignores that liberals had been protesting the exact same issue of police brutality, but had been told that peacefully kneeling during the national anthem wasn’t appropriate. The grievance isn’t new, and the grievance has legitimacy about the structural issues that result in biased outcomes in policing.
This also ignores that Trump, while obviously not the cause of these protests, has done nothing but throw kerosene into the fire by trying to do exactly what this post does, and make this a tribalistic issue, which doesn’t actually discuss the legitimacy of the grievances.
Mattis seems like a really reasonable guy, one who is patriotic, intelligent, and thoughtful.
First, I very much will agree with you that the implementation of the severe economic freeze has support from both sides of the ideological spectrum. But, one has to say that the severest and most confusing array or lockdowns seemingly has occurred under progressive guidance.
So I would agree with you that while both sides have their hand 'dirty' in the lockdowns, one also has to agree that it is not the left that is racing in equal effort as the right to address the equally as important economic issues that the lockdowns present. Just note the Illinois governor, Witmer, and bevy of other progressive administrations that show on a much greater scale their lack of reticence to play the heavy hand of government in this.
Second, I doubt very seriously that you can ascribe *any* of the rioting, looting, and torching of large swaths of our nation to the support of *any* form of conservative or libertarian ideology or cause. That is excepting the weird segment of libertarian branch that seemingly calls for 'near anarchy'. If not, please name one.
Quote:This also ignores that liberals had been protesting the exact same issue of police brutality,
No, you all are *not* protesting, and rioting over, not the issue of 'police brutality'. Had than been the case where were the marches (and riots) over *any* Caucasian deaths or shootings at the hands of police. Please stop with that over general canard.
The reason the protesting and rioting is occurring is because of the belief, stated above, that the progressive cause is to preach 'that a country that elected a black president and has thousands upon thousands of black leaders -- and cops -- is actually a racist, oppressive hell where it is state policy to kill unarmed black men.'
Maybe not 'state policy', which is an exaggeration but from what I see emanating from the mouths of every progressive politician is that the issue is endemic *solely* to the non-whites of this nation, and no one else.
So *that* isnt amazing divisive in and of itself to a massive extent? I mean, you completely fail to note that, then run the spin move when you reserve that polemic to Trump. To whom you note hasnt just aided divisive behavior, you note that he "has done NOTHING BUT add kerosene to that fire" (direct quote).
You also note "The grievance isn’t new" -- correct, you all keep preaching what a holy hell this nation is to anyone of color, pretty much in every topic in existence, mind you. In this manner you seriously overlook that the subject of race and bias is slung about like confetti on *every* topic in existence and under the sun by progressives. Voting -- check; police force -- check; incarceration rates -- check; bail -- check; housing -- check; I mean Christ sakes you all even make COVID rates subject to your extra special 'discrimination de jure under every subject under the sun (and in the microbiome for that matter).
Then you wax poetic about "the structural issues that result in biased outcomes in policing". If anything, the issue should be about the usage of force by police in general. The progressives dutifully make the first comment it is (like you just went down that merry path), then always return to 'the BIASED outcome in policing' (again, which you dutifully return to like a bee to an empty bottle of Dr Pepper.)
I guess throwing that race card in full force at every fing opportunity has *zero* divisive effect.
In closing, let's assume that the 'systemic issues" (which have been bandied about in huge generalities and colorful, rhetorical language, but never denoted specifically to enable an objective disussion) are as what progressives teach to their bones bleach white. Let's assume that in all instances, and all efforts, the America is holy hell that is unable to be lived in by minorities. Given that, let us assume that specifically the use of police force is such a pervasive and endemic issue wholly borne by blacks, chicanos, aleuts, or whatever the favored minority de jour is today. Let is take that as a given.
If so then this cite sums up a powerful point in light of that vision of hell on earth:
Quote:Minneapolis, Minn. has been under Democratic control since 1978. Chicago has been under Democratic control for 89 years; its present mayor is a black woman. Philadelphia has had Democratic mayors for 68 years; three of its last five mayors have been black men. Six of the last seven Atlanta, Ga., mayoral administrations were led by black Democratic mayors, and the present mayor is a black woman.
A city runs its police department and other services; therefore, if there is so much ‘systemic racism’ in these organizations, why hasn’t it been corrected over so many years under Democratic leaders?
Why aren’t these cities garden spots of racial tolerance, understanding, and virtue?
The exact same construct can be applied to NYC, Baltimore, and literally jsut about every jurisdiction that has become the haute couture of racistn police use of force in the last 30 years.
Hate to tell you Frank Rizzo and Mayor Daley have been dead for scores of years.
Amazing that, isnt it?