Maxine Waters Incites Riots?

[Twilight Hue]

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, I say. Welcome to the new era of politics.

Good to know they are at Trumps level. No doubt Trump is a great and inspiring leader that even his opponents want to follow his example.

Just warms the cockles of the heart dosent it?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, they have the right to protest; however, they do not have the right to riot.
You do know the difference between a protest and a riot don't you?
Just in case you don't.
Protest is a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval in a peacful manner
Riot is a disturbance of the peace created by an assemblage of usually three or more people acting with a common purpose and in a violent and tumultuous manner to the terror of the public

Rioting is a license to rob stores which most are there for.

 

[The Hammer]

Good to know they are at Trumps level. No doubt Trump is a great and inspiring leader that even his opponents want to follow his example.

Just warms the cockles of the heart dosent it?

*Shrug*

 

[lewisnotmiller]

No you're right, we should adress her call for people to continue protesting, which I wholeheartedly support. People should be free to express themselves, and the right to public protest is one of the most important ones in a functional democracy - and I suppose in America, too.

Encouraging people to protest in a general sense is one thing. Elected officials threatening to 'get more confrontational' if a conviction is not upheld is another thing entirely.
At best this appears misguided. More likely grandstanding.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course democracy functions.
Just look at who isn't President anymore.

Democracy is completely functional, for a given value of 'completely'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course it is. It's just recognizing the hypocrisy of those Republicans ignoring much more offensive conduct from their own is inconvenient to partisan tirades. They expect democrats to hold the moral high ground (which they do, none of what Maxine said here is even problematic let alone illegal) while they violate it at every turn. At this point the tactic is so banal it's no wonder it gets commented on.

Do you not see her commenting on judicial process as 'problematic'?
The rest of your post I largely agree with.

 

[sun rise]

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, I say. Welcome to the new era of politics.

Since a couple of people wanted to cancel my comments because they did not meet their approval, I'll take a different tack.

To pick up the mantle of the last administration, it's time to own the cons by supporting Maxine Waters.

 

[Kooky]

Encouraging people to protest in a general sense is one thing. Elected officials threatening to 'get more confrontational' if a conviction is not upheld is another thing entirely.
At best this appears misguided. More likely grandstanding.

Grandstanding doesn't quite strike me as worthy of condemnation in and of itself, let alone a criminal act.

 

[Kooky]

Of course democracy functions.
Just look at who isn't President anymore.

I mean, in some ways you're not wrong - an attempted coup is a perfectly typical reaction to a failed bid for the presidency in many countries around the world.
But I would argue that accepting your opponent's victory and not pulling out all stops to prevent it is part and parcel of a working model of representative democracy, as is a legislative that does not blockade any attempts to make laws and budgets without which a government does not function (which has already happened twice in a single decade, and is bound to happen a third time once Republicans regain a congressional majority).

 

[Kooky]

Yes, they have the right to protest; however, they do not have the right to riot.
You do know the difference between a protest and a riot don't you?
Just in case you don't.
Protest is a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval in a peacful manner
Riot is a disturbance of the peace created by an assemblage of usually three or more people acting with a common purpose and in a violent and tumultuous manner to the terror of the public

I suppose, since the American public is uniquely terrified of Black men out on the streets, it only makes sense to condemn all of BLM as riots.

Would you qualify the police response to BLM as riotous in nature as well? We have a clear case of an assemblage of police officers acting with a common purpose in a violent manner, with the express goal to terrify the civilian population into abandoning their protests.

I suppose not, and I suppose we let slip the clear terrorism of the US police in these months for the same reason that the opponents of BLM steadfastly refuse to qualify a right-wing vigilante shooting at protesters as "terrorism" or "political assassination". Some things - right-wing vigilantism, police brutality against leftist protesters and people of color - have become politically normalized in US culture, whereas leftist protests have been built up as both a shocking surprise, and as a threat to the social order.

 

[Augustus]

Do you not see her commenting on judicial process as 'problematic'?

I can absolutely guarantee that had a certain former President done such a thing that it would have been cause for endless howls of outrage over his contempt for the rule of law and how using a threat of violence to prejudice a legal judgement proves his fascistic tendencies.

US politics is such a great demonstration of the cognitive failings that prevent humans from being anything more than intermittently and inconsistently rational beings.

 

[Kooky]

I can absolutely guarantee that had a certain former President done such a thing that it would have been cause for endless howls of outrage over his contempt for the rule of law and how using a threat of violence to prejudice a legal judgement proves his fascistic tendencies.

I am puzzled that the people of this forum are still shocked when voting public and media alike judge an office holder, who has the legal power to nullify any criminal conviction with a stroke of his pen, rather differently than they do an obscure legislator without any influence on the judiciary or executive branch, who is giving an opinion to a civilian non-state movement she holds no power over.

It does not seem hard to grasp to me that we live in a culture that holds different people to different moral or social standards based on the power they hold over other people's lives and the responsibility they shoulder, what with the adage that "with great power comes great responsibility".

Is this really such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

 

[Revoltingest]

Democracy is completely functional, for a given value of 'completely'.

Nuthin's perfect.
Democrats wanted Biden over other primary candidates.
And more voters wanted Biden than Trump.
We might not like the choices of our fellow Ameristanians,
but these dubious leaders are still chosen by voting.

 

[Revoltingest]

I mean, in some ways you're not wrong...

That might be the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

 

[Augustus]

I am puzzled that the people of this forum are still shocked when voting public and media alike judge an office holder, who has the legal power to nullify any criminal conviction with a stroke of his pen, rather differently than they do an obscure legislator without any influence on the judiciary or executive branch, who is giving an opinion to a civilian non-state movement she holds no power over.

It does not seem hard to grasp to me that we live in a culture that holds different people to different moral or social standards based on the power they hold over other people's lives and the responsibility they shoulder, what with the adage that "with great power comes great responsibility".

Is this really such a difficult concept for people to grasp?

So you agree if Trump had said it, it would have been unacceptable and an incitement to violence that deserved howls of outrage, but because it's merely a high-profile Democratic Congresswoman then we should hold her to lower standards and find excuses?

In a more general sense, it's ok for high profile elected politicians to use the threat of violence to prejudice an ongoing legal case as long as they are not the President [Trump]?

I'm going to disagree with you on that point of principle.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Donald Trump is a pig devil.

If such things exist, that’s absolutely how I’d picture one.

 

[Kooky]

So you agree if Trump had said it, it would have been unacceptable and an incitement to violence that deserved howls of outrage, but because it's merely a high-profile Democratic Congresswoman then we should hold her to lower standards and find excuses?

I will answer questions posed in good faith.

I've seen you make good faith efforts of partaking in debates in the past, so I know you are capable of discussing issues without resorting to these games of distorting the wording of an argument to sucker somebody into some sort of rhetorical 'gotcha' moment, so if you really want to listen earnestly to a dissenting opinion, you are welcome to make a good faith attempt at discussion.

In a more general sense, it's ok for high profile elected politicians to use the threat of violence to prejudice an ongoing legal case as long as they are not the President [Trump]?

Since the congresswoman from the OP article was not threatening anybody with violence, you clearly are referring to a hypothetical case unrelated to that, correct?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Grandstanding doesn't quite strike me as worthy of condemnation in and of itself, let alone a criminal act.

To be fair, I never suggested it was criminal. I'd disagree with the 'condemnation' part, when it relates to the justice system, but that's just my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I can absolutely guarantee that had a certain former President done such a thing that it would have been cause for endless howls of outrage over his contempt for the rule of law and how using a threat of violence to prejudice a legal judgement proves his fascistic tendencies.

US politics is such a great demonstration of the cognitive failings that prevent humans from being anything more than intermittently and inconsistently rational beings.

I'm intermittently and inconsistently rational, but I'll agree regardless.

 

[Augustus]

I will answer questions posed in good faith.

I've seen you make good faith efforts of partaking in debates in the past, so I know you are capable of discussing issues without resorting to these games of distorting the wording of an argument to sucker somebody into some sort of rhetorical 'gotcha' moment, so if you really want to listen earnestly to a dissenting opinion, you are welcome to make a good faith attempt at discussion.

If that is not what you were saying, then your reply seems to not have a great deal of connection to my post.

I made the point that had Trump done exactly the same thing, many people would have been howling with outrage over him doing this.

Do you accept this as likely to be true?

She was not threatening anybody with violence.

That is debatable*, but do you not see a problem with an elected official prejudicing a criminal trial by calling for people to be 'more confrontational' if the trial does not return the verdict she wants to see?

Do you accept that had Trump used exactly those words regarding an ongoing criminal trial, much of the media and a large proportion of society would see it as a disgraceful threat to a fair and independent legal process?


* I am of the opinion that we should give the benefit of the doubt to people in the case of such ambiguities. Most of the media, and large proportions of the public prefer to play the game of 'what is the worst possible interpretation I can give those words so I can engage in cheap point scoring'. The context of my post was that, no matter how much of a **** you think Trump was, a lot of the media and a lot of the public spent 4 years doing exactly that yet sing a very different tune regarding 'their side'. Yes the pro-Trump crowd are equally hypocritical now the roles have reversed.