I dont think it should be necessary to explain why his both sides rhetoric is actively unhelpful in the face of sustained right wing attack against the protesters.
This is like criticizing the phrase "hands up, don't shoot" on the basis that people shouldn't need to have their hands up to make the case of not being shot. I mean, it's accurate, but you're kind of missing the point.
When people say "hands up, don't shoot!", they're not saying that people with their hands down are just as bad as the cops who are shooting them. They're acknowledging the perceived ambiguity that a black person with hands down is a threat, so the first step in the conversation is to remove that ambiguity so that the police don't use that as an excuse to shoot them.
In the case of BLM in general, the entire protest movement is dealing with people who ambiguously lump them up with violence. Again, the point of denouncing violence is to remove the ambiguity.
You can argue that this response shouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.
I dont think it should be necessary to explain why his both sides rhetoric is actively unhelpful in the face of sustained right wing attack against the protesters.
This is like criticizing the phrase "hands up, don't shoot" on the basis that people shouldn't need to have their hands up to make the case of not being shot. I mean, it's accurate, but you're kind of missing the point.
When people say "hands up, don't shoot!", they're not saying that people with their hands down are just as bad as the cops who are shooting them. They're acknowledging the perceived ambiguity that a black person with hands down is a threat, so the first step in the conversation is to remove that ambiguity so that the police don't use that as an excuse to shoot them.
In the case of BLM in general, the entire protest movement is dealing with people who ambiguously lump them up with violence. Again, the point of denouncing violence is to remove the ambiguity.
You can argue that this response shouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.
This is the same tortured argument we hear over and over. Its ok when your side throws minorities under the bus to appease comfortable white people because youre the good side and anyway its just Smart Politics, a claim that somehow never seems to be put up to any kind of test or rigor. Just something thats get to be taken as self evident as needed.
If Biden wants to stand behind minorities he should just stand behind minorities, not engage in this horseshit everyone needs to be peaceful garbage. He cant have it both ways.
I dont think it should be necessary to explain why his both sides rhetoric is actively unhelpful in the face of sustained right wing attack against the protesters.
This is like criticizing the phrase "hands up, don't shoot" on the basis that people shouldn't need to have their hands up to make the case of not being shot. I mean, it's accurate, but you're kind of missing the point.
When people say "hands up, don't shoot!", they're not saying that people with their hands down are just as bad as the cops who are shooting them. They're acknowledging the perceived ambiguity that a black person with hands down is a threat, so the first step in the conversation is to remove that ambiguity so that the police don't use that as an excuse to shoot them.
In the case of BLM in general, the entire protest movement is dealing with people who ambiguously lump them up with violence. Again, the point of denouncing violence is to remove the ambiguity.
You can argue that this response shouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.
I reject the premise that the protests have been violent. Property damage is not violence. And you cannot condemn the protests for turning violent when the violence is initiated by the police and their supporters.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence."
We all know that despite what TV and movies may have told and conditioned us to, there are vanishingly few situations where police must storm a building like Seal Team 6 to maintain the element of surprise.
Yeah, you can still knock and identify with overwhelming force and there might be some situations where you have to kick down a door slammed in your face.
But no-knock or essentially no-knock warrants where the police don't clearly identify themselves have almost no realistic need. They are more dangerous really, because people only shoot when they don't think you are the police. The most hardcore badguy does NOT want to be a cop killer.
This is the same tortured argument we hear over and over. Its ok when your side throws minorities under the bus to appease comfortable white people because youre the good side and anyway its just Smart Politics, a claim that somehow never seems to be put up to any kind of test or rigor. Just something thats get to be taken as self evident as needed.
If Biden wants to stand behind minorities he should just stand behind minorities, not engage in this horseshit everyone needs to be peaceful garbage. He cant have it both ways.
Can you present any survey data showing that the majority of minorities disapprove of his phrasing? Because right now you're trying to make it sound like you are trying to speak on behalf of all minorities, and speaking as a minority myself, I'm wondering where that's coming from.
This is the same tortured argument we hear over and over. Its ok when your side throws minorities under the bus to appease comfortable white people because youre the good side and anyway its just Smart Politics, a claim that somehow never seems to be put up to any kind of test or rigor. Just something thats get to be taken as self evident as needed.
If Biden wants to stand behind minorities he should just stand behind minorities, not engage in this horseshit everyone needs to be peaceful garbage. He cant have it both ways.
Can you present any survey data showing that the majority of minorities disapprove of his phrasing? Because right now you're trying to make it sound like you are trying to speak on behalf of all minorities, and speaking as a minority myself, I'm wondering where that's coming from.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
In trying to win over a bunch of suburban half brain rotted petite bourgeoisie he helps create a country where one side bays for blood and the other side just saying everyone, people being maimed in the street and the people maiming them, should calm down.
But no-knock or essentially no-knock warrants where the police don't clearly identify themselves have almost no realistic need. They are more dangerous really, because people only shoot when they don't think you are the police. The most hardcore badguy does NOT want to be a cop killer.
If you think about it, the police nearly got themselves killed, because they could easily have been shot dead by Breonna's boyfriend.
I dont think it should be necessary to explain why his both sides rhetoric is actively unhelpful in the face of sustained right wing attack against the protesters.
This is like criticizing the phrase "hands up, don't shoot" on the basis that people shouldn't need to have their hands up to make the case of not being shot. I mean, it's accurate, but you're kind of missing the point.
When people say "hands up, don't shoot!", they're not saying that people with their hands down are just as bad as the cops who are shooting them. They're acknowledging the perceived ambiguity that a black person with hands down is a threat, so the first step in the conversation is to remove that ambiguity so that the police don't use that as an excuse to shoot them.
In the case of BLM in general, the entire protest movement is dealing with people who ambiguously lump them up with violence. Again, the point of denouncing violence is to remove the ambiguity.
You can argue that this response shouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.
I reject the premise that the protests have been violent. Property damage is not violence. And you cannot condemn the protests for turning violent when the violence is initiated by the police and their supporters.
In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? Isn't this like condemning Socrates because his unswerving commitment to truth and his philosophical inquiries precipitated the act by the misguided populace in which they made him drink hemlock? Isn't this like condemning Jesus because his unique God consciousness and never ceasing devotion to God's will precipitated the evil act of crucifixion? We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence."
That has nothing to do with Biden's statements or why Biden is being criticized in this thread.
MLK is speaking out against people who criticize peaceful actions simply because they might precede violent actions later on. Biden's statement criticizes the violent actions while defending the peaceful ones.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying. Jesus, you know exactly how "both sides" rhetoric is damaging. When "allied" party that actively concedes the core tenant of the people they're supposed to be fighting against, that there is a problem with violence on the part of the protesters, they actively aid in legitimizing and solidifying their opposition's position.
Between this an his incredibly asinine policy prescriptions for changing US policing he's Not Helping.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying. Jesus, you know exactly how "both sides" rhetoric is damaging.
Huh? You realize that Biden himself would be a target if that were true?
This is true both in general usage (90% of the time when people use the "both sides" argument, it's mainly criticize centrist liberals and accuse them of being just as bad as republicans, rather than accusing centrist republicans of being just as bad as liberals), as well as in this specific case (Biden is among the protesters who you're claiming he wants to label as "seditious rioters").
When "allied" party that actively concedes the core tenant of the people they're supposed to be fighting against, that there is a problem with violence on the part of the protesters, they actively aid in legitimizing and solidifying their opposition's position.
There has been undeniably some violence among protesters, and even if that number is 0.0001% and statistically insignificant, that's all the right wing base needs to paint their narrative.
And this isn't a new tactic. Support for the civil rights movement because even less popular after the March on Washington, from a 2:1 ratio up to a 5:1 ratio of the people who said that mass demonstrations hurt vs. helped the civil rights movement, because conservatives successfully painted them as violent regardless of the actual facts. There were cartoons were riots would follow everywhere MLK went. And if he were still alive today, I have zero doubt that the right wing smear machine would successfully paint him as a terrorist or terrorist enabler in the eyes of most republicans.
It sucks we have to live in a world where we have to make disclaimers for this audience, but unfortunately, that's still the world we live in. And from my own minority experience, I am jaded enough to separate my personal ideals of how racial politics should work in an ideal world vs. how they actually seem to work in reality.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying. Jesus, you know exactly how "both sides" rhetoric is damaging.
Huh? You realize that Biden himself would be a target if that were true?
This is true both in general usage (90% of the time when people use the "both sides" argument, it's mainly criticize centrist liberals and accuse them of being just as bad as republicans, rather than accusing centrist republicans of being just as bad as liberals), as well as in this specific case (Biden is among the protesters who you're claiming he wants to label as "seditious rioters").
When "allied" party that actively concedes the core tenant of the people they're supposed to be fighting against, that there is a problem with violence on the part of the protesters, they actively aid in legitimizing and solidifying their opposition's position.
There has been undeniably some violence among protesters, and even if that number is 0.0001% and statistically insignificant, that's all the right wing base needs to paint their narrative.
And this isn't a new tactic. Support for the civil rights movement because even less popular after the March on Washington, from a 2:1 ratio up to a 5:1 ratio of the people who said that mass demonstrations hurt vs. helped the civil rights movement, because conservatives successfully painted them as violent regardless of the actual facts. There were cartoons were riots would follow everywhere MLK went. And if he were still alive today, I have zero doubt that the right wing smear machine would successfully paint him as a terrorist or terrorist enabler in the eyes of most republicans.
It sucks we have to live in a world where we have to make disclaimers for this audience, but unfortunately, that's still the world we live in. And from my own minority experience, I am jaded enough to separate my personal ideals of how racial politics should work in an ideal world vs. how they actually seem to work in reality.
And it will never change until we start pushing a different narrative.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying. Jesus, you know exactly how "both sides" rhetoric is damaging.
Huh? You realize that Biden himself would be a target if that were true?
This is true both in general usage (90% of the time when people use the "both sides" argument, it's mainly criticize centrist liberals and accuse them of being just as bad as republicans, rather than accusing centrist republicans of being just as bad as liberals), as well as in this specific case (Biden is among the protesters who you're claiming he wants to label as "seditious rioters").
When "allied" party that actively concedes the core tenant of the people they're supposed to be fighting against, that there is a problem with violence on the part of the protesters, they actively aid in legitimizing and solidifying their opposition's position.
There has been undeniably some violence among protesters, and even if that number is 0.0001% and statistically insignificant, that's all the right wing base needs to paint their narrative.
And this isn't a new tactic. Support for the civil rights movement because even less popular after the March on Washington, from a 2:1 ratio up to a 5:1 ratio of the people who said that mass demonstrations hurt vs. helped the civil rights movement, because conservatives successfully painted them as violent regardless of the actual facts. There were cartoons were riots would follow everywhere MLK went. And if he were still alive today, I have zero doubt that the right wing smear machine would successfully paint him as a terrorist or terrorist enabler in the eyes of most republicans.
It sucks we have to live in a world where we have to make disclaimers for this audience, but unfortunately, that's still the world we live in. And from my own minority experience, I am jaded enough to separate my personal ideals of how racial politics should work in an ideal world vs. how they actually seem to work in reality.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying.
Yes it is though. It's literally what you just said. It's right there.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying.
Yes it is though. It's literally what you just said. It's right there.
Extremely cool to cut all the parts of the post that address the criticism and just repeat the criticism
+3
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
If you are genuinely pissed off that Biden said "don't shoot cops" and consider it a Betrayal Of The Movement I would submit that there is quite literally nothing he could have done that would make you happy
If you are genuinely pissed off that Biden said "don't shoot cops" and consider it a Betrayal Of The Movement I would submit that there is quite literally nothing he could have done that would make you happy
He said don't be violent at the protests before they were violent.
If people don't want violence at the protests I would say an effective way would be not having the cops show up in riot gear, with tanks, and the national guard.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying.
Yes it is though. It's literally what you just said. It's right there.
Extremely cool to cut all the parts of the post that address the criticism and just repeat the criticism
You said a thing, then when called out for saying the thing, proclaimed you did not say the thing.
Fuck out of here with gaslighting bs. Don't wanna get called out for saying something, then don't say it. Take the time to actually say what you mean the first time.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying.
Yes it is though. It's literally what you just said. It's right there.
Extremely cool to cut all the parts of the post that address the criticism and just repeat the criticism
You said a thing, then when called out for saying the thing, proclaimed you did not say the thing.
Fuck out of here with gaslighting bs. Don't wanna get called out for saying something, then don't say it. Take the time to actually say what you mean the first time.
Styro said Biden's quote feeds into the idea that all protestors are violent rioters.
If you are genuinely pissed off that Biden said "don't shoot cops" and consider it a Betrayal Of The Movement I would submit that there is quite literally nothing he could have done that would make you happy
He said don't be violent at the protests before they were violent.
Yes, because he would be accused of actively encouraging violence if he didn't.
The vast majority of protest organizers will say the exact same thing for the exact same reason. So that when people accuse them of fanning the flames of violence after the fact, they can point to their earlier statements to show that they didn't.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying.
Yes it is though. It's literally what you just said. It's right there.
Extremely cool to cut all the parts of the post that address the criticism and just repeat the criticism
You said a thing, then when called out for saying the thing, proclaimed you did not say the thing.
Fuck out of here with gaslighting bs. Don't wanna get called out for saying something, then don't say it. Take the time to actually say what you mean the first time.
I said he fed a narrative, not that he literally called us seditious rioters. I then, I believe pretty clearly, spelled out why I felt his words aided in that narrative's spread and legitimacy. I assume my explanation was effective as you felt the need to cut it out of your criticism.
This board has no problem understanding how both sides messages harm reform efforts on a wide variety of topics. This "gas lighting" nonsense is just silly.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
If you are genuinely pissed off that Biden said "don't shoot cops" and consider it a Betrayal Of The Movement I would submit that there is quite literally nothing he could have done that would make you happy
He said don't be violent at the protests before they were violent.
Yes, because he would be accused of actively encouraging violence if he didn't.
The vast majority of protest organizers will say the exact same thing for the exact same reason. So that when people accuse them of fanning the flames of violence after the fact, they can point to their earlier statements to show that they didn't.
They're going to accuse him of that anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Just say the lack of indictment is bullshit and take a stance.
The right wing narrative is that Joe Biden is a radical marxist who wants to let black people murder white suburbians. Its not going to stop because he undermined the most serious push for changes in policing in generations.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
No one is stopping you from pushing the narrative you have in mind. Just because it wouldn't win an election right now doesn't mean you can't continue to advocate it.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
No one is stopping you from pushing the narrative you have in mind. Just because it wouldn't win an election right now doesn't mean you can't continue to advocate it.
There is nothing that says you would lose if you start pushing against the republican narrative. I mean the opposition is Donald Trump, if you can't push a narrative against him what are you going to do when the republicans have a moderately competent leader?
How much you talk about something says a lot about how important you think it is.
Right. And if Biden didn't talk about violent protests, then the media would insist that he's pro-violence and pro-riot, for failing to condemn them.
And Biden gives me the impression he thinks protest issues are as, if not more, important than police violence.
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what matters is how the media and voters will misinterpret his statement if he doesn't mention that.
All this says to me is that the Biden campaign has decided minority and progressive voters aren’t as important as whoever the fuck they are courting with all the “violent protestors are bad talk”.
They are choosing right now to give more air time, more discussion, more importance to shit that isn’t nearly as bad or as common, because they think those people are more important.
That doesn’t make me feel good about what will happen after the election. Why would they ever change their views? It’s not like those more valuable voters will suddenly disappear or stop caring.
I said he fed a narrative, not that he literally called us seditious rioters.
Which is still a silly accusation, since Biden himself would be a victim of that narrative.
This board has no problem understanding how both sides messages harm reform efforts on a wide variety of topics.
This is insanely ironic, seeing as that's what you're doing to Biden right now, by applying the "both sides" argument to Biden in order to show that Biden's actions are comparable to the other side.
The right wing narrative is that Joe Biden is a radical marxist who wants to let black people murder white suburbians. Its not going to stop because he undermined the most serious push for changes in policing in generations.
You don't speak on behalf of all voters, just like you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
There's not a lot of people in the middle on whether they like or dislike Trump. But there are lots of people in the middle on where they stand on BLM, where they support the movement in theory but who buy into the narrative that protests are largely violent. And that's why the protests organizers have to spend time distancing themselves from that, regardless of whether or not this is "fair."
You also need to remember all the downticket races. Seattle is a city where Hillary won by 87%, but they still elected Jenny Durkhan for Mayor because lots of people are still conservative when it comes to the police.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
Because the threat of a Trump win means you don't fuck around?
If this were an earlier Republican (McCain, Romney, etc), maybe. But a second Trump term is almost certainly going to be significantly worse than the first, if not irrecoverable.
I can understand not wanting to play politics, but Trump remains an existential threat, and risking a loss here in pursuit of moral purity is unacceptable. If Biden were up 20, 25pts, sure, maybe. But he's not, and this is going to be closer than it should have any reason to be, and that's not taking into account the electoral fuckery that will be implemented.
Get the fucker out by any political means. Then have the debate. I get not wanting to concede on this point, but if Biden loses because he pissed off the people he needed to draw away from Trump? We're all fucked.
How much you talk about something says a lot about how important you think it is.
Right. And if Biden didn't talk about violent protests, then the media would insist that he's pro-violence and pro-riot, for failing to condemn them.
And Biden gives me the impression he thinks protest issues are as, if not more, important than police violence.
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what matters is how the media and voters will misinterpret his statement if he doesn't mention that.
All this says to me is that the Biden campaign has decided minority and progressive voters aren’t as important as whoever the fuck they are courting with all the “violent protestors are bad talk”.
They are choosing right now to give more air time, more discussion, more importance to shit that isn’t nearly as bad or as common, because they think those people are more important.
That doesn’t make me feel good about what will happen after the election. Why would they ever change their views? It’s not like those more valuable voters will suddenly disappear or stop caring.
Minority voters don’t seem to agree with you!
Just because minority voters are voting for Biden doesn't mean his policies reflect how they feel in this instance.
How much you talk about something says a lot about how important you think it is.
Right. And if Biden didn't talk about violent protests, then the media would insist that he's pro-violence and pro-riot, for failing to condemn them.
And Biden gives me the impression he thinks protest issues are as, if not more, important than police violence.
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what matters is how the media and voters will misinterpret his statement if he doesn't mention that.
All this says to me is that the Biden campaign has decided minority and progressive voters aren’t as important as whoever the fuck they are courting with all the “violent protestors are bad talk”.
They are choosing right now to give more air time, more discussion, more importance to shit that isn’t nearly as bad or as common, because they think those people are more important.
That doesn’t make me feel good about what will happen after the election. Why would they ever change their views? It’s not like those more valuable voters will suddenly disappear or stop caring.
Minority voters don’t seem to agree with you!
The protester message is met with outright literally violent hostility from one party and mostly awkward silence from the other so of course its polling is mediocre. This is why if you want to change the status quo you cant fucking obsess over polling. National attitudes are defined largely by national dialogue and tribal leadership cues.
"What you want isnt super popular" means as little to me now as the same voices saying it about gay marriage in 2007 meant to me then.
Fight uncompromisingly for what you believe in and demand submission from power.
How much you talk about something says a lot about how important you think it is.
Right. And if Biden didn't talk about violent protests, then the media would insist that he's pro-violence and pro-riot, for failing to condemn them.
And Biden gives me the impression he thinks protest issues are as, if not more, important than police violence.
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what matters is how the media and voters will misinterpret his statement if he doesn't mention that.
All this says to me is that the Biden campaign has decided minority and progressive voters aren’t as important as whoever the fuck they are courting with all the “violent protestors are bad talk”.
They are choosing right now to give more air time, more discussion, more importance to shit that isn’t nearly as bad or as common, because they think those people are more important.
That doesn’t make me feel good about what will happen after the election. Why would they ever change their views? It’s not like those more valuable voters will suddenly disappear or stop caring.
Minority voters don’t seem to agree with you!
Just because minority voters are voting for Biden doesn't mean his policies reflect how they feel in this instance.
Presented with a host of policies both progressive and moderate, they certainly seem to have preferred Biden’s...
How much you talk about something says a lot about how important you think it is.
Right. And if Biden didn't talk about violent protests, then the media would insist that he's pro-violence and pro-riot, for failing to condemn them.
And Biden gives me the impression he thinks protest issues are as, if not more, important than police violence.
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what matters is how the media and voters will misinterpret his statement if he doesn't mention that.
All this says to me is that the Biden campaign has decided minority and progressive voters aren’t as important as whoever the fuck they are courting with all the “violent protestors are bad talk”.
They are choosing right now to give more air time, more discussion, more importance to shit that isn’t nearly as bad or as common, because they think those people are more important.
That doesn’t make me feel good about what will happen after the election. Why would they ever change their views? It’s not like those more valuable voters will suddenly disappear or stop caring.
Minority voters don’t seem to agree with you!
Do they? Minorities think they are Biden's top priority? Or do they just think he will be better to them than Trump? Do we have polling on what minorities think that goes deeper than "support/doesn't support"? (cause that would settle this). From what I have heard minorities are like most people: beating trump is all that matters.
How much you talk about something says a lot about how important you think it is.
Right. And if Biden didn't talk about violent protests, then the media would insist that he's pro-violence and pro-riot, for failing to condemn them.
And Biden gives me the impression he thinks protest issues are as, if not more, important than police violence.
It doesn't matter what he thinks, what matters is how the media and voters will misinterpret his statement if he doesn't mention that.
All this says to me is that the Biden campaign has decided minority and progressive voters aren’t as important as whoever the fuck they are courting with all the “violent protestors are bad talk”.
They are choosing right now to give more air time, more discussion, more importance to shit that isn’t nearly as bad or as common, because they think those people are more important.
That doesn’t make me feel good about what will happen after the election. Why would they ever change their views? It’s not like those more valuable voters will suddenly disappear or stop caring.
Minority voters don’t seem to agree with you!
Just because minority voters are voting for Biden doesn't mean his policies reflect how they feel in this instance.
Presented with a host of policies both progressive and moderate, they certainly seem to have preferred Biden’s...
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
No one is stopping you from pushing the narrative you have in mind. Just because it wouldn't win an election right now doesn't mean you can't continue to advocate it.
There is nothing that says you would lose if you start pushing against the republican narrative. I mean the opposition is Donald Trump, if you can't push a narrative against him what are you going to do when the republicans have a moderately competent leader?
Right now, the republican narrative is two-fold:
1. The protests are violent
2. Democrats support this violence
You're expecting politicians to just completely ignore the second accusation and focus on the first, and that's not how politics works. It's really easy for right wing media to present images of "violence", even if those pictures are out of context or from a completely different even from a completely different country. So it's incredibly hard to beat that narrative. OTOH, the second narrative is much easier to counter, since it's much harder to provide images, but it requires that you be proactive and don't leave any room for ambiguity so that people mistake your silence for an endorsement. Because that's an incredibly common tactic.
Two police officers were shot. Protestors can waste a lot of time arguing whether or not this had anything to do with the protests, and it's going to be a losing battle, because they're always going to come out at a loss from that. Or, they can keep it simple and say "We don't approve of shooting police officers, we believe in peaceful protests" and save some time.
Do they? Minorities think they are Biden's top priority? Or do they just think he will be better to them than Trump? Do we have polling on what minorities think that goes deeper than "support/doesn't support"? (cause that would settle this).
If you're going to argue that minorities support someone different than who they voted for, it's not the burden of other people to prove you wrong.
From what I have heard minorities are like most people: beating trump is all that matters.
Sure, but that's not simply a matter of electing the person you think is "safe."
It's a matter of electing someone who agrees with that goal and who understands that goal, who understands what you're up against, and who will stay pragmatic and focused towards achieving that. And if that means being forced to add a disclaimer about not how you disapprove of violence every time you talk, so be it.
There's an episode of "Fresh Prince" where Will and Carlton get pulled over by the police. Carlton, who's used to privilege and luxury, approaches the situation from a perspective of naivety. Whereas Will, who grew up in Philidelphia, approaches the situation from a perspective of cynicism. Will tells Carlton to keep his hands on the wheel -- not because he thinks this is "right," or because he's defending the police -- but because he understands that this is the reality that we live in. And he's absolutely frustrated with Carlon. Not because Carlton is an idealist or because his ideals are undesirable, but because Carlton doesn't seem to understand that it's not right for the current situation.
In the video, Carlton assumes that his main antagonist is Will, and the police is on his side. He doesn't understand that it's the other way around.
You're under the assumption that your antagonist are the people on this thread, and the general voting public is on your side. Also wrong.
You're free to ignore the people on this thread and try to present your ideals to the general public, just like Carlton ignores the advice from Will. No one hear is going to stop you. But don't expect Will to follow your lead. Not because he thinks your ideals are wrong, but because he knows what to expect from experience.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
No one is stopping you from pushing the narrative you have in mind. Just because it wouldn't win an election right now doesn't mean you can't continue to advocate it.
There is nothing that says you would lose if you start pushing against the republican narrative. I mean the opposition is Donald Trump, if you can't push a narrative against him what are you going to do when the republicans have a moderately competent leader?
Right now, the republican narrative is two-fold:
1. The protests are violent
2. Democrats support this violence
You're expecting politicians to just completely ignore the second accusation and focus on the first, and that's not how politics works. It's really easy for right wing media to present images of "violence", even if those pictures are out of context or from a completely different even from a completely different country. So it's incredibly hard to beat that narrative. OTOH, the second narrative is much easier to counter, since it's much harder to provide images, but it requires that you be proactive and don't leave any room for ambiguity so that people mistake your silence for an endorsement. Because that's an incredibly common tactic.
Two police officers were shot. Protestors can waste a lot of time arguing whether or not this had anything to do with the protests, and it's going to be a losing battle, because they're always going to come out at a loss from that. Or, they can keep it simple and say "We don't approve of shooting police officers, we believe in peaceful protests" and save some time.
Yes, the republican narrative. That is very much my point. Biden is not a republican, so why is he, and the rest of the democratice party, bound to the other party's narrative? As long as the republicans are allowed to determine the narrative the democrats will always start at a big disadvantage. I get your chain of logic, but you have a (seemingly) elephant-sized conceptual block where you don't seem to realize that democrats can (should, really) establish their own narrative, their own framing, and their own talk points and use that whenever possible.
Do they? Minorities think they are Biden's top priority? Or do they just think he will be better to them than Trump? Do we have polling on what minorities think that goes deeper than "support/doesn't support"? (cause that would settle this).
If you're going to argue that minorities support someone different than who they voted for, it's not the burden of other people to prove you wrong.
Good thing I am not arguing that.
From what I have heard minorities are like most people: beating trump is all that matters.
Sure, but that's not simply a matter of electing the person you think is "safe."
It's a matter of electing someone who agrees with that goal and who understands that goal, who understands what you're up against, and who will stay pragmatic and focused towards achieving that. And if that means being forced to add a disclaimer about not how you disapprove of violence every time you talk, so be it.
There's an episode of "Fresh Prince" where Will and Carlton get pulled over by the police. Carlton, who's used to privilege and luxury, approaches the situation from a perspective of naivety. Whereas Will, who grew up in Philidelphia, approaches the situation from a perspective of cynicism. Will tells Carlton to keep his hands on the wheel -- not because he thinks this is "right," or because he's defending the police -- but because he understands that this is the reality that we live in. And he's absolutely frustrated with Carlon. Not because Carlton is an idealist or because his ideals are undesirable, but because Carlton doesn't seem to understand that it's not right for the current situation.
In the video, Carlton assumes that his main antagonist is Will, and the police is on his side. He doesn't understand that it's the other way around.
You're under the assumption that your antagonist are the people on this thread, and the general voting public is on your side. Also wrong.
You're free to ignore the people on this thread and try to present your ideals to the general public, just like Carlton ignores the advice from Will. No one hear is going to stop you. But don't expect Will to follow your lead. Not because he thinks your ideals are wrong, but because he knows what to expect from experience.[/quote]
No, but it would mean supporting the person you think you can win over the one you really want. Which was a common narrative about Biden support from minorities during the primary. This is the what I asked for polling about to establish some truth about (as much as polling established truth)
I don't hold any of the assumptions you assign to me, so this part of your post falls flat. I get your logic, but its not really relevant to what I think. I think our main disagreement comes down to the power or narrative and messaging.
You're confusing the republican narrative on Trump vs. the Republican narrative on literally everything else.
There are lots of people in this country who are pro-police and anti-Trump. And there are even people who are anti-police and pro-Trump. There are people who are pro-BLM in theory but also pro-police, and there are people who are critical of both.
In Seattle, Hillary won 87% of the vote, and yet Durkan was still elected mayor on a pro-police platform, and you have a police union president who wins 70% of the vote with ads like this:
Trump is simply one tip of a multi-faceted iceberg, and there are many people who have separated their views of Trump from their views of the police. The fact you refuse to acknowledge the underlying iceberg is why people are skeptical of your solutions.
And keep in mind that winning doesn't simply mean winning POTUS. It also means winning the downticket races, where people like the police union president posted above are a lot more popular.
No, but it would mean supporting the person you think you can win over the one you really want.
You're assuming those two things are mutually exclusive.
People can really want a person because they think that person can win, and they can think a person can win because they really want him.
Lots of people do this. Ask a Jo Jogensen supporter if they think she can win, and not only will most of them insist that she can, but they insist that she would win very handedly if only she was given the chance to debate. Because they project the fact that they personally like this candidate onto the rest of the population.
Posts
This is like criticizing the phrase "hands up, don't shoot" on the basis that people shouldn't need to have their hands up to make the case of not being shot. I mean, it's accurate, but you're kind of missing the point.
When people say "hands up, don't shoot!", they're not saying that people with their hands down are just as bad as the cops who are shooting them. They're acknowledging the perceived ambiguity that a black person with hands down is a threat, so the first step in the conversation is to remove that ambiguity so that the police don't use that as an excuse to shoot them.
In the case of BLM in general, the entire protest movement is dealing with people who ambiguously lump them up with violence. Again, the point of denouncing violence is to remove the ambiguity.
You can argue that this response shouldn't be necessary in an ideal world, but unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.
This is the same tortured argument we hear over and over. Its ok when your side throws minorities under the bus to appease comfortable white people because youre the good side and anyway its just Smart Politics, a claim that somehow never seems to be put up to any kind of test or rigor. Just something thats get to be taken as self evident as needed.
If Biden wants to stand behind minorities he should just stand behind minorities, not engage in this horseshit everyone needs to be peaceful garbage. He cant have it both ways.
I reject the premise that the protests have been violent. Property damage is not violence. And you cannot condemn the protests for turning violent when the violence is initiated by the police and their supporters.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yeah, you can still knock and identify with overwhelming force and there might be some situations where you have to kick down a door slammed in your face.
But no-knock or essentially no-knock warrants where the police don't clearly identify themselves have almost no realistic need. They are more dangerous really, because people only shoot when they don't think you are the police. The most hardcore badguy does NOT want to be a cop killer.
Can you present any survey data showing that the majority of minorities disapprove of his phrasing? Because right now you're trying to make it sound like you are trying to speak on behalf of all minorities, and speaking as a minority myself, I'm wondering where that's coming from.
You're mistaken if you think I give a shit about polling. There's a moral position and there are immoral positions. Feeding the narrative that we're all just seditious rioters with both sides horseshit is firmly in the immoral category.
In trying to win over a bunch of suburban half brain rotted petite bourgeoisie he helps create a country where one side bays for blood and the other side just saying everyone, people being maimed in the street and the people maiming them, should calm down.
If you think about it, the police nearly got themselves killed, because they could easily have been shot dead by Breonna's boyfriend.
Not only evil but incompetent.
That has nothing to do with Biden's statements or why Biden is being criticized in this thread.
MLK is speaking out against people who criticize peaceful actions simply because they might precede violent actions later on. Biden's statement criticizes the violent actions while defending the peaceful ones.
I'm pretty sure Biden never said that. Just like I'm pretty sure that you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
Given that Biden has openly participated at these protests himself and stood by the protesters, it would be really weird for him to paint himself as a seditious rioter.
Of course he didn't say that. That's not my point or what I'm saying. Jesus, you know exactly how "both sides" rhetoric is damaging. When "allied" party that actively concedes the core tenant of the people they're supposed to be fighting against, that there is a problem with violence on the part of the protesters, they actively aid in legitimizing and solidifying their opposition's position.
Between this an his incredibly asinine policy prescriptions for changing US policing he's Not Helping.
Huh? You realize that Biden himself would be a target if that were true?
This is true both in general usage (90% of the time when people use the "both sides" argument, it's mainly criticize centrist liberals and accuse them of being just as bad as republicans, rather than accusing centrist republicans of being just as bad as liberals), as well as in this specific case (Biden is among the protesters who you're claiming he wants to label as "seditious rioters").
There has been undeniably some violence among protesters, and even if that number is 0.0001% and statistically insignificant, that's all the right wing base needs to paint their narrative.
And this isn't a new tactic. Support for the civil rights movement because even less popular after the March on Washington, from a 2:1 ratio up to a 5:1 ratio of the people who said that mass demonstrations hurt vs. helped the civil rights movement, because conservatives successfully painted them as violent regardless of the actual facts. There were cartoons were riots would follow everywhere MLK went. And if he were still alive today, I have zero doubt that the right wing smear machine would successfully paint him as a terrorist or terrorist enabler in the eyes of most republicans.
It sucks we have to live in a world where we have to make disclaimers for this audience, but unfortunately, that's still the world we live in. And from my own minority experience, I am jaded enough to separate my personal ideals of how racial politics should work in an ideal world vs. how they actually seem to work in reality.
And it will never change until we start pushing a different narrative.
The right wing doesn't need any violence to prove their point, because the cops will raid a medic hut and say everything there is weapons or find innocous items and say they were weapoms. Who gives a shit what those assholes say?
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Yes it is though. It's literally what you just said. It's right there.
Extremely cool to cut all the parts of the post that address the criticism and just repeat the criticism
He said don't be violent at the protests before they were violent.
If people don't want violence at the protests I would say an effective way would be not having the cops show up in riot gear, with tanks, and the national guard.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
People who still need to win, for starters.
If that's not you because you're not running for office, that's fine. But other people are, which means they're not allowed to use the same tactics.
You said a thing, then when called out for saying the thing, proclaimed you did not say the thing.
Fuck out of here with gaslighting bs. Don't wanna get called out for saying something, then don't say it. Take the time to actually say what you mean the first time.
Styro said Biden's quote feeds into the idea that all protestors are violent rioters.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Yes, because he would be accused of actively encouraging violence if he didn't.
The vast majority of protest organizers will say the exact same thing for the exact same reason. So that when people accuse them of fanning the flames of violence after the fact, they can point to their earlier statements to show that they didn't.
I said he fed a narrative, not that he literally called us seditious rioters. I then, I believe pretty clearly, spelled out why I felt his words aided in that narrative's spread and legitimacy. I assume my explanation was effective as you felt the need to cut it out of your criticism.
This board has no problem understanding how both sides messages harm reform efforts on a wide variety of topics. This "gas lighting" nonsense is just silly.
The opposition is the most disliked person in a very long time. If this isn't the time to push the narrative then when is?
They're going to accuse him of that anyway, so it doesn't matter.
Just say the lack of indictment is bullshit and take a stance.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
No one is stopping you from pushing the narrative you have in mind. Just because it wouldn't win an election right now doesn't mean you can't continue to advocate it.
There is nothing that says you would lose if you start pushing against the republican narrative. I mean the opposition is Donald Trump, if you can't push a narrative against him what are you going to do when the republicans have a moderately competent leader?
Minority voters don’t seem to agree with you!
Which is still a silly accusation, since Biden himself would be a victim of that narrative.
This is insanely ironic, seeing as that's what you're doing to Biden right now, by applying the "both sides" argument to Biden in order to show that Biden's actions are comparable to the other side.
You don't speak on behalf of all voters, just like you don't speak on behalf of all minorities.
There's not a lot of people in the middle on whether they like or dislike Trump. But there are lots of people in the middle on where they stand on BLM, where they support the movement in theory but who buy into the narrative that protests are largely violent. And that's why the protests organizers have to spend time distancing themselves from that, regardless of whether or not this is "fair."
You also need to remember all the downticket races. Seattle is a city where Hillary won by 87%, but they still elected Jenny Durkhan for Mayor because lots of people are still conservative when it comes to the police.
Because the threat of a Trump win means you don't fuck around?
If this were an earlier Republican (McCain, Romney, etc), maybe. But a second Trump term is almost certainly going to be significantly worse than the first, if not irrecoverable.
I can understand not wanting to play politics, but Trump remains an existential threat, and risking a loss here in pursuit of moral purity is unacceptable. If Biden were up 20, 25pts, sure, maybe. But he's not, and this is going to be closer than it should have any reason to be, and that's not taking into account the electoral fuckery that will be implemented.
Get the fucker out by any political means. Then have the debate. I get not wanting to concede on this point, but if Biden loses because he pissed off the people he needed to draw away from Trump? We're all fucked.
Just because minority voters are voting for Biden doesn't mean his policies reflect how they feel in this instance.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
The protester message is met with outright literally violent hostility from one party and mostly awkward silence from the other so of course its polling is mediocre. This is why if you want to change the status quo you cant fucking obsess over polling. National attitudes are defined largely by national dialogue and tribal leadership cues.
"What you want isnt super popular" means as little to me now as the same voices saying it about gay marriage in 2007 meant to me then.
Fight uncompromisingly for what you believe in and demand submission from power.
Presented with a host of policies both progressive and moderate, they certainly seem to have preferred Biden’s...
Do they? Minorities think they are Biden's top priority? Or do they just think he will be better to them than Trump? Do we have polling on what minorities think that goes deeper than "support/doesn't support"? (cause that would settle this). From what I have heard minorities are like most people: beating trump is all that matters.
Not relevant to their point at all their spool.
Right now, the republican narrative is two-fold:
1. The protests are violent
2. Democrats support this violence
You're expecting politicians to just completely ignore the second accusation and focus on the first, and that's not how politics works. It's really easy for right wing media to present images of "violence", even if those pictures are out of context or from a completely different even from a completely different country. So it's incredibly hard to beat that narrative. OTOH, the second narrative is much easier to counter, since it's much harder to provide images, but it requires that you be proactive and don't leave any room for ambiguity so that people mistake your silence for an endorsement. Because that's an incredibly common tactic.
Two police officers were shot. Protestors can waste a lot of time arguing whether or not this had anything to do with the protests, and it's going to be a losing battle, because they're always going to come out at a loss from that. Or, they can keep it simple and say "We don't approve of shooting police officers, we believe in peaceful protests" and save some time.
If you're going to argue that minorities support someone different than who they voted for, it's not the burden of other people to prove you wrong.
Sure, but that's not simply a matter of electing the person you think is "safe."
It's a matter of electing someone who agrees with that goal and who understands that goal, who understands what you're up against, and who will stay pragmatic and focused towards achieving that. And if that means being forced to add a disclaimer about not how you disapprove of violence every time you talk, so be it.
There's an episode of "Fresh Prince" where Will and Carlton get pulled over by the police. Carlton, who's used to privilege and luxury, approaches the situation from a perspective of naivety. Whereas Will, who grew up in Philidelphia, approaches the situation from a perspective of cynicism. Will tells Carlton to keep his hands on the wheel -- not because he thinks this is "right," or because he's defending the police -- but because he understands that this is the reality that we live in. And he's absolutely frustrated with Carlon. Not because Carlton is an idealist or because his ideals are undesirable, but because Carlton doesn't seem to understand that it's not right for the current situation.
In the video, Carlton assumes that his main antagonist is Will, and the police is on his side. He doesn't understand that it's the other way around.
You're under the assumption that your antagonist are the people on this thread, and the general voting public is on your side. Also wrong.
You're free to ignore the people on this thread and try to present your ideals to the general public, just like Carlton ignores the advice from Will. No one hear is going to stop you. But don't expect Will to follow your lead. Not because he thinks your ideals are wrong, but because he knows what to expect from experience.
Yes, the republican narrative. That is very much my point. Biden is not a republican, so why is he, and the rest of the democratice party, bound to the other party's narrative? As long as the republicans are allowed to determine the narrative the democrats will always start at a big disadvantage. I get your chain of logic, but you have a (seemingly) elephant-sized conceptual block where you don't seem to realize that democrats can (should, really) establish their own narrative, their own framing, and their own talk points and use that whenever possible.
Good thing I am not arguing that.
Sure, but that's not simply a matter of electing the person you think is "safe."
It's a matter of electing someone who agrees with that goal and who understands that goal, who understands what you're up against, and who will stay pragmatic and focused towards achieving that. And if that means being forced to add a disclaimer about not how you disapprove of violence every time you talk, so be it.
There's an episode of "Fresh Prince" where Will and Carlton get pulled over by the police. Carlton, who's used to privilege and luxury, approaches the situation from a perspective of naivety. Whereas Will, who grew up in Philidelphia, approaches the situation from a perspective of cynicism. Will tells Carlton to keep his hands on the wheel -- not because he thinks this is "right," or because he's defending the police -- but because he understands that this is the reality that we live in. And he's absolutely frustrated with Carlon. Not because Carlton is an idealist or because his ideals are undesirable, but because Carlton doesn't seem to understand that it's not right for the current situation.
In the video, Carlton assumes that his main antagonist is Will, and the police is on his side. He doesn't understand that it's the other way around.
You're under the assumption that your antagonist are the people on this thread, and the general voting public is on your side. Also wrong.
You're free to ignore the people on this thread and try to present your ideals to the general public, just like Carlton ignores the advice from Will. No one hear is going to stop you. But don't expect Will to follow your lead. Not because he thinks your ideals are wrong, but because he knows what to expect from experience.[/quote]
No, but it would mean supporting the person you think you can win over the one you really want. Which was a common narrative about Biden support from minorities during the primary. This is the what I asked for polling about to establish some truth about (as much as polling established truth)
I don't hold any of the assumptions you assign to me, so this part of your post falls flat. I get your logic, but its not really relevant to what I think. I think our main disagreement comes down to the power or narrative and messaging.
You're confusing the republican narrative on Trump vs. the Republican narrative on literally everything else.
There are lots of people in this country who are pro-police and anti-Trump. And there are even people who are anti-police and pro-Trump. There are people who are pro-BLM in theory but also pro-police, and there are people who are critical of both.
In Seattle, Hillary won 87% of the vote, and yet Durkan was still elected mayor on a pro-police platform, and you have a police union president who wins 70% of the vote with ads like this:
Trump is simply one tip of a multi-faceted iceberg, and there are many people who have separated their views of Trump from their views of the police. The fact you refuse to acknowledge the underlying iceberg is why people are skeptical of your solutions.
And keep in mind that winning doesn't simply mean winning POTUS. It also means winning the downticket races, where people like the police union president posted above are a lot more popular.
You're assuming those two things are mutually exclusive.
People can really want a person because they think that person can win, and they can think a person can win because they really want him.
Lots of people do this. Ask a Jo Jogensen supporter if they think she can win, and not only will most of them insist that she can, but they insist that she would win very handedly if only she was given the chance to debate. Because they project the fact that they personally like this candidate onto the rest of the population.