Debating Christianity and Religion

Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder? Why do they make excuses for the rioters or deny it's happening? Or attempt to shift responsibility for the chaos from the mayors who are allowing it and the rioters themselves, to the President, AG and federal agents who are attempting to stop it?

This seems very odd given the fact the law enforcement agencies and police departments are fully integrated. So, why don't the Democrats support law and order when many, many law enforcement officers are people of color themselves? And a lawful, orderly society helps law abiding minorities as well?

Why support lawless rioters as opposed to supporting integrated police departments and law abiding citizens, of all races?

When given the choice between criminal black lives or law abiding black lives, why do the Dems almost always choose the former and not the latter?

Where are the protests demanding justice for David Dorn, or David Patrick Underwood?

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder?

Why do some posters rely on blanket statements and never provide evidence to support them? One has to wonder if it is something other than facts driving their querries.


Tcg

Tcg wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:59 pm

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder?

Why do some posters rely on blanket statements and never provide evidence to support them? One has to wonder if it is something other than facts driving their querries.


Tcg

Did you see the attacks on AG Barr tonight? Have you been listening to the mayors who are attempting to cover for their own inaction by blaming Trump for the lawlessness in their own cities? Jenny Durkin of Seattle, and Ted Wheeler of Portland, to name a few. It seems they would rather have their cities burn, than to have President Trump or the feds help them put the fires out, literally or figuratively.

The OP made an assertion, it was a starting point. "Democrats almost always side with the forces of chaos." If you disagree with the premise of the OP, kindly show us the examples of those Democrats who side with law enforcement. Are these the exceptions? Or the rule? If you disagree with the premise of the OP, then please demonstrate how it is inaccurate.

-"Catch and release" bail reform in NY from DeBlasio and Cuomo
-NY AG Cy Vance Jr.'s memo that they will not be prosecuting protest related crimes, but instead focusing on police abuse.
-Nancy Pelosi calling federal agents "stormtroopers"
-Joe Biden saying the police by using surplus military equipment "have made themselves the enemy"
-"Defund the police"
-"Defund or abolish ICE"
-"No more prosecutions of illegal border crossing" (Every Dem candidate agreed on this)

The OP was only an introduction. If you wanted more specific, supporting examples, all you had to do was to ask. Or waited for the thread to develop, where examples would be forthcoming.

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder?

Why do you keep starting (in this case) openly partisan threads based on dubious premises while fleeing from conversation after conversation as soon as it looks like you might be running into difficulty?

• You tried to argue that "blue lives matter" is not disrespectful... while showing a contempt for "black lives matter" in every post.
  
  You tried to suggest by reference to Singapore that it's better to err on the side of law and order, but handwaved Singapore's strict gun laws away and, quite ironically, declined to comment on the likelihood that lax gun regulation ruins cops' lives too (and black people's lives even moreso).
  
  More tellingly, you professed an interest in evidence for systemic racism but (despite returning to the thread for other posters) have remained utterly silent on the striking fact that contrary to the expected sticking power of wealth, there seems to be a widespread active impediment resulting in black families actually having a worse than random chance of remaining wealthy from generation to generation!
  
  Perhaps most importantly, your defense of Donald Trump and brazenly double-standard attack on BLM suddenly ceased when proof of his racism - vilifying black peaceful protestors, support for white supremicists, use of Nazi symbolism, irrational 'birther' slander of a president for the infamy of being black - was provided (as if it hadn't been seen often enough before).

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Where are the protests demanding justice for David Dorn, or David Patrick Underwood?

The man charged in the death of David Patrick Underwood is Steven Carillo, associated with the gun-toting far-right 'boogaloo' movement. On the day of the shooting he wrote on Facebook "Go to the riots and support our own cause. Show them the real targets. Use their anger to fuel our fire. Think outside the box. We have mobs of angry people to use to our advantage."
https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/fbi ... -boogaloo/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53076159

Why on earth do you imagine that a far-right gun nut exploiting the unrest caused by yet another police murder of an unarmed black man can or should be used to score political points against the Democrat party? This seems to be blind partisanship at its worst, in a thread scarcely even related to the subject of the forum at all as far as I can tell.


Edit: Except perhaps insofar as examining the way in which a more or less openly racist and constantly gaslighting presidency shapes the perspective and narratives of his constituents? The tendencies were always there to some extent, but now more than ever it seems it's not even remotely about truth or justice for many people, simply "us" versus "them." Over the past couple of years I've got the impression that even the left-leaning folk on my political forum have trended more in that partisan, pick your own truth and damn the 'enemy' direction, albeit perhaps not quite so obviously.

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder? Why do they make excuses for the rioters or deny it's happening? Or attempt to shift responsibility for the chaos from the mayors who are allowing it and the rioters themselves, to the President, AG and federal agents who are attempting to stop it?

Because said instances of chaos, lawlessness and disorder happens to be the righteous causes.

This seems very odd given the fact the law enforcement agencies and police departments are fully integrated. So, why don't the Democrats support law and order when many, many law enforcement officers are people of color themselves?

Because they are part of integrated law enforcement agencies and police departments? Not sure what you are asking here, what's so odd about that?

And a lawful, orderly society helps law abiding minorities as well?

But it also helps to maintain the status quo and harm law abiding minorities. So we have to weight up the pros and cons.

Why support lawless rioters as opposed to supporting integrated police departments and law abiding citizens, of all races?

Same as above re: status quo.

When given the choice between criminal black lives or law abiding black lives, why do the Dems almost always choose the former and not the latter?

Not sure what you are thinking of here, perhaps you meant between criminal black lives vs law enforcing black lives? If so, it's because law enforcement is held to a higher standard than the regular citizens.

Where are the protests demanding justice for David Dorn, or David Patrick Underwood?

No where? They weren't killed by police.

Mithrae wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:30 am

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder?

Why do you keep starting (in this case) openly partisan threads based on dubious premises while fleeing from conversation after conversation as soon as it looks like you might be running into difficulty?

• You tried to argue that "blue lives matter" is not disrespectful... while showing a contempt for "black lives matter" in every post.

And your posts are not openly partisan?? Knee jerk defense of BLM at every turn? Taking offense at when anyone dares to question? Also, Black Lives Matter is not worthy of respect, black people are, but BLM is not. BLM is an extremist organization with an extremist agenda. They have so many suburbanites fooled into believing they are a civil rights group, they are not. They are a bunch of bullies and insufferable scolds. Say anything critical of them and they will get you "canceled". (the Phantom Gourmet in Boston for just one example)

BLM does not speak for all black people. They don't seem to care about black on black violence, or innocent victims killed by their supporters. They (or their supporters) are attempting to destroy the culture. "We're offended, we're going to tear down these statues", "we're going to block traffic and scream at people" "we'll burn the system down if we don't get what we want" They are bullies worthy of contempt.

I don't need BLM or any of their allies to tell me that racism is bad. Every civilized person knows that. Everywhere you turn, "BLM" "BLM", "BLM" and how dare you criticize us?

Yeah, we get it, Black Lives Matter. So we hear. Except if those black lives are the victims of other blacks, or if they are black law enforcement.

I don't enjoy engaging with people who confuse and conflate the Black Lives Matter organization with black people in general.

Also, there is no obligation to engage every poster, nor every post or point someone makes. I find BLM tiresome, as I do their unquestioning disciples. It's not that your arguments are so convincing or irrefutable, but rather I find many of them lately to be doctrinaire, irrelevant or repetitive.

BLUE LIVES MATTER. I don't care if that offends you or anyone else. Or if that's a heretical contradiction of your political orthodoxy.

Sgt Michael Chesna was murdered by a black man about 2 years ago a rock thrown at him, then shot in the the face by the worthless scumbag. In soldarity with the Sgt, Hingham and Weymouth first responders carried "thin blue line" bumper stickers and signs, until just recently when some spoiled brat college student from another state complained that he was offended, and that "thin blue line" signs were offensive to BLM. The towns caved and removed the stickers.

BLM supporters also desecrated Sgt. Chesna's memorials with graffiti. BLM has no shame, and are worthy of contempt.

Why do the fragile sensibilities of college students matter, but those who support law enforcement do not?

Bust Nak wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 5:22 am

Elijah John wrote: ↑Tue Jul 28, 2020 9:30 pm Why, when given the choice do Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder? Why do they make excuses for the rioters or deny it's happening? Or attempt to shift responsibility for the chaos from the mayors who are allowing it and the rioters themselves, to the President, AG and federal agents who are attempting to stop it?

Because said instances of chaos, lawlessness and disorder happens to be the righteous causes.

So the ends justifies the means? Can you see circumstances where lawless tactics discredit an otherwise worthy cause? Also, if I feel my cause is just, do I have a right to break the law or commit violence against other people?

Not sure what you are asking here, what's so odd about that?

The fact that many LEA's are fully integrated refutes the notion of "systemic racism".

They weren't killed by police.

Does it matter? Not if (all) black lives matter. Does the fact they were murdered by rioters, looters or protesters make their lives less important? BLM and their supporters drop the ball here.

Thanks for engaging the topic and for your civil tone.

Gentlemen, please. Let's debate without making any personal comments or accusations.

Elijah John wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:33 am

Mithrae wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:30 am Why do you keep starting (in this case) openly partisan threads based on dubious premises while fleeing from conversation after conversation as soon as it looks like you might be running into difficulty?

• You tried to argue that "blue lives matter" is not disrespectful... while showing a contempt for "black lives matter" in every post.

And your posts are not openly partisan?? Knee jerk defense of BLM at every turn? Taking offense at when anyone dares to question?

You're certainly welcome to show how my posts are openly partisan, if you think you can If the US implodes it's going to have some pretty serious consequences for Australia too, and American culture and rhetoric has a way of creeping over here, but I have no direct skin in the game of your politics. Hence for example I have
- posted in support of retaining the Stone Mountain monument,
- argued that the Confederate leaders didn't commit treason,
- shown that Democratic states are worse in terms of educational inequality against non-whites than Republican states are,
- emphasized that criticism of BLM is not equivalent to criticism of black people,
- noted that police killings of black people are disproportionately lower than the black violent crime and incarceration rates,
- argued in defense of cops who pulled a black protestor from his wheelchair...

Perhaps somehow you have managed both to not see any of that - despite mostly being in threads you've started or viewed - and to vastly exaggerate your perception of my posts critical of your 'side,' but if so that in itself hardly suggests any kind of objectivity or fairness on your part. Are you willing to acknowledge that President Trump's vilification of black peaceful protestors, support for white supremicists, use of Nazi symbolism, irrational 'birther' slander of a president for the infamy of being black and so on are more than enough proof of his more or less open racism?



Edit:

otseng wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 7:10 am Gentlemen, please. Let's debate without making any personal comments or accusations.

It's always seemed strange to me that dubious/unnuanced (if not outright unsubstantiated) vilification of a whole group - such as "Democrats almost always side with the forces or chaos, lawlessness and disorder" - is generally considered on this forum to be more civil than evidenced-based discussion of the perspectives actually advanced by individual posters

Mithrae wrote: ↑Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:30 am Perhaps most importantly, your defense of Donald Trump and brazenly double-standard attack on BLM suddenly ceased when proof of his racism - vilifying black peaceful protestors, support for white supremicists, use of Nazi symbolism, irrational 'birther' slander of a president for the infamy of being black - was provided (as if it hadn't been seen often enough before).[/list]

Re David Patrick Underwood, I stand corrected. Did not realize he was killed by a right wing extremist.

-"Villifying black peaceful protestors'? I doubt it. The President criticizes rioters, black or white.
-President Trump does not support white supremacists, demonstrate or please retract.
-"Nazi symbolism" When, where, how?
- "Birther" accusations against President Trump is a Democrat fallacy and talking point. Remember Trump questioned Ted Cruz eligibility for the presidency too, also please demonstrate that President Obama's race motivated Donald Trump to question his eligibility when there are other, more likely explanations. Or is it a matter of daring to question a person of color automatically means "racism"??