Suddenly Fear Of Social Unrest Is Everywhere

He did condemn violence on all sides. I noticed these things though:

  1. He condemned the rioting last after he condemned the police and the armed right wingers.
  2. He named a solution for the armed right wingers (Trump should dissuade them from carrying weapons into the riot zones).
  3. He did not name a solution for the rioting (My take: Democratic mayors and governors that have taken a soft approach and refused federal help should be more aggressive and accepting of help. Once peace is restored, start a conversation about the root problems. Policing issues are perhaps a small part of it, but the conversation really needs to hone in on wealth inequality and societal decay).

Thank you. I get so tired of the constant refrain of Marxists, antifa and Democrats being the end all perpetrators of all that is wrong. For what it’s worth I find those types of remarks, lazy, kool aide driven and just the opposite. I do think it is time for a taxpayer revolt to defund Washington DC especially now!

You are right, he is even handed in his criticism. Is that a bad thing?
“…but the conversation really needs to hone in on wealth inequality and societal decay.”
I agree we need to have that conversation, but I think the violence needs to stop before we can rationally solve those problems.

In my post I said that neither Harris nor Biden condemned riots during the DNC. They did not. If you have evidence otherwise, please put it forward.
I also said that the Democrats would likely change their approach now that polls are showing how deeply Americans dislike the riots and violence.
Specifically I said this: “I do think that some Democrats will start decrying the violence now…after months of violence about which they said nothing at all.”
Well, that is what happened. The clip you posted of Biden is two days old. I would honor and respect Biden if he had taken this stand during or before the DNC.
But he did not. He did it after the polls show how negatively we view the riots.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/08/31/riots-violence-erupting-turning-many-away-blm-and-protests-column/5675343002/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-awakens-to-the-threat-of-urban-riots-11598894969
So, there you have Joe Biden: no integrity, no principles, just a grasp for power no matter what. (He is now busy walking back the party’s platform on fracking. Should be fun to watch. :))
BTW, my doctorate is in chemical engineering. I have over 300 scientific publications in scientific journals. And, yes, I do know how to use Google, my memory is good and my BS detector is pretty good also. But you can try again if you want. :slight_smile:

My comment was that Biden and Harris had condemned violence. You apparently listened to only their DNC speeches before making your condescending comment, and failed to listen to their numerous other public speaking engagements. What, do only their DNC speeches count?
This is silly. Let’s move on.

My view at this point based on commentators I follow is that what Dr. Bruce is saying is correct; Biden and Harris did not start calling out the violence until very recently as a result of the growing awareness that support for said riots (explicit or implicit) is a losing political strategy. Please give us links to quotes or video of Biden/Harris opposing the violence and destructiveness of the protests prior to a few days ago. Thank you, Jim

From 8/13: Fact check: Democrats have condemned violence linked to protests This took less than 15 seconds to find.

On May 31, the fifth night of demonstrations, former Vice President Joe Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, wrote in a statement that protesting police brutality is “right and necessary” and the “American response."

“But burning down communities and needless destruction is not,” Biden wrote. “Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not.”

“My comment was that Biden and Harris had condemned violence. You apparently listened to only their DNC speeches, and failed to listen to their numerous other public speaking engagements. What, do only their DNC speeches count?”  
It matters for the exact reason Dr Bruce Dale elucidated in his response to you. The timing of this strategic shift in messaging speaks directly to their credibility and integrity.
“This is silly. Let's move on.”
Classic Doug! Insult a poster with an erroneous statement -Ignore the counter argument and declare victory in the face of being proven wrong with facts. Grover’s description of your ‘debate’ tactics was quite apt. By all means please share some of their “numerous other speaking engagements” where they condemned the rioting prior to their poll driven messaging shift that started several days ago after months of destruction. mm

Doug:
I do understand why you want to move on. The facts aren’t in your favor.
Here are the facts. Trump specifically condemned the rioting and violence during the Republican Convention, and it was a major theme of the RNC. Neither Biden nor Harris said anything about it during the Democrat Convention nor did any of the speakers.
'Silence equals assent…particularly after months of riots and violence. I don’t believe Biden is sincere now about the violence. Here is a good list of reasons why.
https://issuesinsights.com/2020/09/02/heres-how-we-know-biden-isnt-sincere-about-condemning-violence/
Bruce

It is quite clear, as QB said, Team Blue mayors and governors have pulled their police forces back from arresting the violent anarchists, and if the police go rogue and arrest some of the anarchists, they are immediately set free again.
Its a Faustian bargain. Clearly it is aimed at Trump, and the election. Otherwise, it just makes no sense. [Mayors of these cities are sane, but this is an insane act.] QB asks - what are they thinking? Why would they do this? What is the "winning strategy " here?
How about this: this is a “bait Trump-the-Nazi” strategy.
Team Blue (Obama’s IC gang, and their friends) are trying to bait Trump-the-Nazi into sending in the army and shooting people. Trump Tweet: “when the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Then when the troops appear, and people get killed, they can call Trump a Nazi and a fascist, they get footage to run for the election. And I suspect, if Trump didn’t have good advisors, he’d have done this by now.
They started small - with statues. “Trump will shoot people to defend the confederate statues, proving he’s a racist.” Didn’t happen. “Trump will defend George Washington’s Statue” proving he’s a racist? Didn’t happen. “Trump will defend Abraham Lincoln’s Statue” - proving…uh…that things just get carried away, and there are only so many statues to destroy…and so Trump finally signed an executive order which put a 10 year jail term on people if they destroy statues. No more statue destruction. No footage. No anarchist wanted to spend 10 years in prison for a statue. Phase 1 failed.
Phase 2 - rioting and looting, while CNN talked every day about “mostly peaceful protests.” Seize a section of a friendly city. Declare a new nation. This had a high chance of success - there were armed secessionists in there - I am certain Trump wanted to send in the Army. Succession! He was actually legally justified to do so. Fortunately, he had good advisors, to whom he listened.
Instead, he has taken the approach: “Team Blue - you get to wear this suit you have constructed for yourself”, while he limits himself to protecting Federal buildings, slicing things very fine. A bunch of anarchists were arrested when they tried to burn the building down [with Federal workers inside] - likely this was demoralizing to the anarchists, because these are Federal charges. There are probably not very many actual anarchists, so when some of them are taken off the board, its a big loss.
Trump’s approach was the long game, and it now appears as though it has been successful, but it was not clear in real time just how well it would play out. I suspect this response surprised and disappointed Obama’s IC gang. After all, Trump is a Nazi and a Fascist, and sending in the Army is what those types of people do.
In the meantime, it will suck to be living in a Team Blue city, a victim of feckless leadership who instead of looking after their people’s livelihoods and neighborhoods and safety, were playing electoral politics in some grand game of Obama’s IC gang’s devising. Which failed.
Now if Trump wins, Team Blue cities are really in a pickle. Unintended consequences are that people are fleeing these areas (wouldn’t you?) starting with the richest taxpayers, leaving only the poor who are stuck to deal with the destruction, complete with demoralized police forces, who have been told they are scumbags and traitors and need to be defunded. That’s sure to help public safety and quality of life.
[Same thing with extended lockdowns in New York City. It will destroy the city; this is already happening now. They wanted to bait Trump-the-Nazi into taking action there too, but once again he is letting them wear the suit they themselves created. If they don’t get to write the history, this could totally destroy this group of people, once word gets out. They are really pretty far out on a limb.]
So what will Obama’s IC gang do now?
Now that the polling is going against them, and they don’t have the bodies or the footage they wanted, - an admission of defeat is pretty much all that’s left. Basement Biden has just done this - emerging from his bunker long enough to (ever so reluctantly) wave the white flag, then scuttle back inside once more, taking no questions from reporters.
What’s next?
I have no idea.
But I don’t see them waving the white flag on the overall attempt. There’s a ticking clock. Perhaps - Crossfire Hurricane prosecutions are on the way, and the only way for this group to remain free is a Biden Presidency. [Is Clinesmith making a deal with Huber? He might just be doing so.] This group appears to be quite willing to throw entire American cities under the bus to achieve their objectives.
But - really - what could possibly be next?
I have no idea.

A bit of lighter hearted interpretation; Ex-Mayor Ford of Toronto was widely supported (said some) because he offended ‘intellectuals of the chattering class’ who many felt needed to be offended. A Canadian version of ‘draining the swamp’.

Ah, Mayor Ford. Always good for a laugh. Despite video evidence he denied smoking crack for some time, until he finally fessed up to doing so “probably in one of my drunken stupors.”. Whatta guy. ?

Oh and I forgot one thing. Why would the mayors of these cities throw their people under the bus?
Well now. What would a Biden Presidency have to offer to a bunch of local politicians who have shown they can follow “difficult” orders?
Well there’s the Cabinet of course. And Ambassador slots - lots of those. How would you like to be Ambassador to Germany? Or Japan? Or HHS secretary? Or maybe an appointment to the Federal Bench somewhere? What would you like?
A new Administration has lots of rewards to give out for good soldiers that follow orders.
From Mayor to Cabinet Secretary, for 3 months of “work.” All you have to do is let your city be destroyed.

Observing the conversation in this, and other threads, from the sidelines for awhile now, I see evidence that the discord destroying our collective societies appears to be seeping into conversations here as well. Despite perceived vitriol, lack of respect, or perceived biases, PP is, IMHO, one of the best sites on the web for fomenting civilized conversation. I think it is inevitable, given the current state of world affairs, but especially in the hugely volatile USA, in an election year, that emotions will run high [perhaps an understatement], adding more than the normal amount of colour to discussions.
To add to that, debating serious, contentious issues via the written word is so…inadequate. Tone and inflection are absent, meanings, sarcasm and provocation are all too easily misinterpreted or misunderstood, acting as triggers to derail conversations. Further, there are varying levels of debating skills, with some who are what we might call top tier in their skill set, possibly intimidating those with lesser skills, effectively dissuading them lending their voices. It is a shame because it is in a diversity of voices, giving representation to the massively eclectic group we call humanity, where the real learning occurs.
It struck me how extremely privileged we who engage on this site all are. That we have such tremendous literacy skills; that so many are extremely well read, educated, intelligent and articulate, able to express views on a myriad of topics, some quite esoteric in nature. That, in the midst of a global pandemic, widespread economic devastation, incredible inequality, poverty, homelessness and social unrest, eco-devastation, floods, forest fires, droughts, and other natural disasters, we have the luxury of time and place to think & ponder; to compose thoughtful, lengthy comments and responses, to search for videos and data to support our comments, to debate and argue. To do this with comfortable roofs overhead, well fed, with full and easy access to the simple things that we all too often take for granted – a toilet, shower, washer, well stocked fridge and cupboards. And further, to spend significant time here at PP in between gardening, harvesting & processing, along with, for many of us, the means and wherewithal to build deep pantry’s and other stores of supplies for the necessities of life that we think [hope] will get us through what everyone here seems to agree is coming at us hard and fast.
Silence is also a privilege. To not contribute, to not give us the benefit of your unique perspectives and experiences; to help us understand things from your side of the fence, wherever that may be. I have mentioned the following quote many times here at PP, “all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.” I would add that it is also to say nothing.
And yes, I agree, some commentators at PP appear to be nothing more than agent provocateurs. They are everywhere on the internet. As with evil, they flourish when no one says or does anything to stop them. If we choose not to call them out as instigators, then we reap the discord and confusion they sow.
I am not sure how to end this comment. I’m not even sure why I wrote it… perhaps it was just a desire to say that perhaps we need to give our heads a shake and to have a bit more humility. Given the privileged lives we enjoy, we are highly likely in the top 10% in the world. Surely, we can do much better to honour those who do not hold our privileged stations in life by being better leaders and role models in our efforts to cultivate a world truly worth inheriting.
Jan

Okay for thee, but not for me.
Portland mayor is moving when the action gets a little too close to home.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/portland-mayor-says-hell-move-after-protest-outside-his-condo-building-draws-arrests-widespread-calls-for-change.html

The majority of BLM protestors are peaceful and have legitimate grievances. These are largely driven by the Federal Reserve’s actions to save the rich and elites and leave crumbs for everyone else. To say otherwise is to be naive and blind.
That said, there is a sub-set of anarchists (not communists) and plain thugs and criminals (looters) who are attracted to the chaos and exploit it for their own personal or social goals. It is these people we see burning stores, looting mattresses, and shooting rightwing counter-protestors. Of course, rightwing counter-protestors also shoot back given the guns everywhere.
The result looks like a civil war but most Americans are too busy working and earning a living to pay much attention despite the left and right media’s crazy minute by minute reports.
I hope law and order are restored, bad cops are drawn out into the light and prosecuted and they are joined by the looters and anarchists in jail. Then the legitimate protests under the First Amendment can continue and everyone else can continue our lives.
Also, as an attorney I would caution would-be militia vigilantes or gunslingers that you better be prepared for any wrongful wounding or death lawsuits should you shoot or maim an innocent party. It would be a great way to never retire ever in peace given the liens you will face if you get a judgment against you.

One of the things that has made PP especially worth the subscription to me has been the expectation that religious and political discussions will be absent. While we all have beliefs about those issues, this was to be a place to focus on other issues.
If I want to read vitriolic comments laced with derision, I can find that on social media or almost anywhere else. The tribe concept is apparently easier in theory than practice. And things haven’t even gotten Peak Bad yet.
When we refuse to keep an open mind or show respect to those with whom we disagree, we have become part of the problem and not part of the solution.
I come here less and less because of these dynamics on the discussion boards. I agree that most of us have so many advantages yet we are sinking to the lowest common denominator rather than using them to move forward in ways that are practical and positive. Is there a solution? Were the guidelines relaxed or changed?

I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Colombia in the early 1980’s. At that time the country had just emerged from a 20 year period of violent confrontation know as the Violencia. One of my long lived memories is of riding two days on horseback into the mountains and stopping to talk with a barefoot farmer hoeing his beans. Not far into the conversation he asked: “Who really killed Kennedy?” Not really a surprising thought from an illiterate farmer living in a remote homestead. Like the USA, Colombia had it’s progressive young leader assassinated during a campaign for the Presidency. As a matter of fact the president of a Co-op I worked with was standing alongside him on the podium at the time.
All this preceded the Colombia of Pablo Escobar fighting to be Kingpin of drug exports to the USA and CIA funding right wing death squads fighting for control of their share of the proceeds.
The Colombia I knew was a neo-feudal society with a veneer of a two party political system and democracy overlaid on it. The serfs who worked the land were total political slaves to the Owners. Unlike the US, Colombia required that every citizen vote, so the Overlords would round up all their serfs and take them to the polls for every election. The flaw in this system was that all the government ministries and the spoils of “democracy” transferred with electoral victory so there was a strong incentive to prevent the Overlords of the opposing political party from bringing their serfs to the polls. Led and mobilized by their Overlords, this eventually led to the continual massacres and slaughter that took 20 million lives over the decades of Violencia. So far in the US we just use redistricting, blacklining, Diebold voting machines, mail fraud, and hanging chads instead of mass murder.
The political solution that eventually emerged and brought an end to the Violencia, and allowed Colombia to progress toward it’s current second world status was simple. By law every four years the political leadership transferred between the Liberales and Conservadores, but all the bureaucrats held their former posts.
As the USA moves in the direction of collapse and open armed conflict perhaps we should take a lesson from our southern neighbors and just trade Figureheads every four years. In reality there is only one consensus party in the US-- call it the War Party, the UniParty or the 1% Party. The system of hugely expensive circuses to maintain divisive confusion among the rabble who even bother to vote has worked stunningly well for decades, but it has finally reached the point where it lacks any credibility. How can an intelligent being have any reaction but disgust or anger when his Malignant Overlords serve up a Leader who wakes up every morning and looks in the mirror to determine the Truth for the Day, and the other Team can’t find in their entire organization a Figurehead who isn’t certifiably brain dead?

Yes, this is the story I’ve been hearing now for some time. I have a different take, and I will try to share it briefly here as concisely as I can.
We live in a social structure under which moving forward requires the three branches of government to agree or be willing to cooperate and compromise. When the branches are held by opposing groups, progress can still take place, but it requires leadership capable of generating and supporting compromise.
Under divided government, a politician seeking goal set A will not get it without compromise. Now, it is in human nature to try to shift blame to others. Those who support A but kibbitz from the sidelines, such as myself, are free to complain about the compromise, and ignore any progress towards A that the elected politician or politicians may have made, on the grounds that it is insufficient. We will be praised for doing so, face no electoral cost to ourselves (having no position to lose, or to fail to reach), and may accumulate substantial groups of “turned off” followers, who are pleased at the eloquence with which we defend our pure version of A.
These “turned-off” follower groups have the perverse effect of shifting the political dynamic in the direction of not-A, making it necessary for those elected officials who favor A to make further compromises.
Eventually, when the compromises required to “play” on the new game board reach a threshold, those who favor A abandon their elected officials, declaring there is no difference between them and the other side.
I’m pretty certain that I’m not alone in seeing this dynamic at play; in fact, in my own personal conspiracy theory, I believe the supporters of not-A have actively encouraged it. Thus, the first success towards (for example) the principle that all Americans are entitled to health care becomes, due to the necessary compromises, a handout to the power players who are guaranteed to have their snouts at the trough, and the politicians who invested substantial political capital in this improvement in the design of our society are called sellouts rather than successes. This works to the benefit of those supporting not-A, at no effort or expense on their part.
Those who fall for this are, in my opinion, worthy of the term which “Thors Hammer” feels free to bestow on someone who has put in political effort for half a century. Yet they’ll call themselves “woke.” At least that adds a bit of comedy to our collective tragedy.

Uh, nope. Here’s a little bit of history for you:
“The New York Times supported Stalin and communism as the way to the future”
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/the-ny-times-supported-stalin-communism-as-the-way-to-the-future/
Except it was the way to the grave for the millions starved to death by Stalin in Ukraine during the Holodomor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
And for the millions and millions of others who died at the hands of the communists both in the gulags and out dating from the Communist revolutions through the period between WW1 and WW2, during WW2 (including the Katyn Forest massacre), and after WW2 (including the civilian ethnic German holocaust which exceeded even the Jewish holocaust in numbers killed).
And lest you think that those millions “only” died from executions, starvation, exposure, overwork, and war, you may want to familiarize yourself with some of the more brutal accounts, if you can stomach them. For example, the Soviet communists who confronted non-communist Christians in some of the eastern European countries brutally gang raped the women in front of their men and their children. Any man who objected or attempted to intervene was instantaneously shot, a fate actually preferable to what was to follow. Women had their breasts sliced off, metal rods inserted up their vaginas and puncturing their viscera and pushing out through their abdomens, and then were crucified by being nailed to barn doors.
Or how about the doctor who had done nothing wrong and had, in fact, done all he could to help people but happened to be the wrong ethnicity and religion. He was brutally beaten, had all his major joints dislocated, had his long bones all broken, then had his four limbs amputated, and then was put in a pen with hogs to be eaten alive.
So pardon me when I am alarmed at the hate demonstrated by such political candidates as Pam Keith suggesting an “open season” on killing political opponents and rags like the NY Times saying nothing in opposition.
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/florida-democrat-suggests-its-open-season-on-killing-republicans/
Such statements seem insane but we’ve seen this type of insanity in the past and there’s nothing to say it won’t be repeated in the future.