Why the political left wants race riots.

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Trump said "We have to fight like hell... or we won't have a country any more". He was using stark words to express injustice and call his supporters to extreme action. A portion of America believed this fervently. The result was the deadly violence on January 6th.

Now we have Maxine Waters calling for "more confrontation" as she claims the trial will be stolen. Other people are claiming that Black people are being "mowed down". A portion of America believes this fervently. They are using stark words to expressing injustice and call liberal supporters to extreme action.

We have two extreme in America. Neither is willing to talk. Neither is willing both listen. Each side is attacking the core pillars of our democracy,

Whoever cheers the extreme rhetoric (on either the right or the left) is responsible for the violence. I don't know if the left really thinks that more images of burning businesses and bombed out police cars will help its cause, or if this is a matter of vengeance.

I am afraid of what is about to happen.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 1 • Views: 1,083 • Replies: 49

At some point both the left and the right in America are going to have to grow up and realize that we are all stuck together. We are going to have to figure out how to live together again without the escalation of political violence.

Everyone cheers the extremism on their side, and the most extreme ideas and statements are rewarded. This can't continue.

It didn't used to be this way.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You full of silliness in my opinion please take note it was not the left who had attack the seat of our government.

We had not seen anything like this since shortly after the founding of our government when Congress had to flee the then capital of Philadelphia in 1783.

Nor was it the left control police department who place reporters on the ground and then took pictures of them.

Nor was it a left control police department that are chasing down and killing blacks beginning at the age of 13.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Why the political left wants race riots.

I think this is an exaggeration. To say "the left wants race riots" means that they are actually hoping for a "not guilty" verdict. I don't believe that. When Rep. Waters calls for "more confrontation" she is using that language for effect. It's not as if she commands brigades of protestors-at-the-ready. And what if the trial goes in favor of the prosecution? The defenders of Chauvin and the cops might get confrontational themselves.

Quote:

Each side is attacking the core pillars of our democracy

While I share your horror and dismay at the prospect of political violence following a "not guilty" decision, the "core pillars of our democracy" are more endangered by longtime structural decay and institutional corruption — stuff like partisan gerrymandering, the filibuster, the cozy relationship between legislators and lobbyists — than by a few nights of rioting in the streets or an afternoon of vandalism in the Capitol.

1 Reply

@hightor,

When Trump called for people to "fight for our country" you called this incitement. Are you now saying that Trump was "using that language for effect".

The left and the press are creating a dangerous situation.

Rule of law used to be a liberal principle.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

When Trump called for people to "fight for our country" you called this incitement.

Yes, as he was addressing an armed, angry mob and directed them to march on the Capitol.

Quote:

Are you now saying that Trump was "using that language for effect".

He often did so in his tweets — as do many other politicians.

Quote:

The left and the press are creating a dangerous situation.

That situation already exists for unarmed non-white people. The left and the press are drawing attention to a long-festering problem.

Quote:

Rule of law used to be a liberal principle.

Political demonstrations are legal — that's a liberal principle.

0 Replies

When you protest the verdict of a trial, you are protesting our system of justice. You are protesting the fact that the defendant has the presumption of innocence and the right to defend himself. You are protesting our jury system where where a diverse group of 12 people are charged with listening to the evidence and making a decision.

Protesting the results of a trial (or the results of a election) is protesting the core of Democracy. Demanding that someone be brought to trial to answer for their alleged crimes is reasonable. The trial is the justice. In a fair trial, you can't preordain the outcome.

Using threats of violence and unrest to change the results of a trial is undemocratic.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Using threats of violence and unrest to change the results of a trial is undemocratic.

You mean to influence the results of a trial; the verdict, once decided, can't be changed except through appeal.

Whether it's "undemocratic" or not is debatable. If a "democratic" justice system consistently delivers results which non-whites feel are unjust and discriminatory, one form of democratic (of the people) response is protest. If the system itself is biased I can see why people would want to denounce it and demonstrate against it. The cumulative effects over a lifetime should be taken into account.

Quote:

Violent acts that are widely publicized and perceived as anti-Black may harm the mental health of observers, particularly Black Americans. We identified 49 incidents of racial violence in the United States, occurring between 2013 and 2017 and receiving widely varying levels of search interest. We show that Black but not White Americans reported poorer mental health in weeks when two incidents of anti-Black violence occurred and when national interest was higher. Reducing racial violence, including police killings of Black individuals, is likely to benefit the mental health of Black Americans nationally.

pnas

1 Reply

@hightor,

They are protesting the results of the justice system. That is just stupid.

If they were protesting the fact that defendants get due process, or the process of a trial by jury, or the rules of evidence.... it might make sense.

I don't see any specific complaint about the justice system (and remember that changing the rules for Chauvin changes the rules for any other criminal defendant). Do you really want to make it harder for defendants in criminal trials to defend themselves?

They are protesting the fact that they didn't get the result they want.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

I disagree.

If Chauvin were just another person, you may have a case. But he's not just an average American - he is a representative of the Law, and as such has qualified immunity. Protesting to effect change is not a bad thing.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

They are protesting the results of the justice system.

The jurors have yet to make a decision in this case.

Historically, non-whites have seen police exonerated for acts of violence against peaceful demonstrators as well as unarmed suspects. The fact that these incidents reoccur with such depressing frequency suggests that the justice system is not serving a portion of the population because the laws are written in such a way as to fundamentally protect the police. These laws have their roots in the Jim Crow era.

1 Reply

@hightor,

What law would you change that would guarantee a guilty verdict in the Chauvin case?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm not a legal scholar. And the idea isn't to rewrite laws so that people are guaranteed to be found guilty. The problem is deeper than the wording of the laws. Maybe laws should address what types of people can become armed enforcers of the law in the first place.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Good Hightor! I agree with this. This is a sensible position. I would vote for that position. I might even march peacefully for that position. That isn't what this thread is about.

However when the verdict comes and people are burning down businesses and throwing things at police, they will be protesting the fact that they didn't get the verdict they wanted.

It is outrage and violence with no sense and no reasonable goals.

I have no problem with addressing systemic racism. My problem is with extremism that puts outrage over dialog, narrative over fact, and confrontation over rule of law.

The extremism is the problem.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

However when the verdict comes and people are burning down businesses and throwing things at police, they will be protesting the fact that they didn't get the verdict they wanted.

False. They'll be protesting the miscarriage of Justice.

maxdancona wrote:

It is outrage and violence with no sense and no reasonable goals.

False. It makes sense to protest against rules designed to let murderers walk away from their crimes.

maxdancona wrote:

I have no problem with addressing systemic racism. My problem is with extremism that puts outrage over dialog, narrative over fact, and confrontation over rule of law.

Yes, Max, you DO have a problem addressing systematic racism. Actually, you have a problem with most of anything that's geared away from the benefit of white men.

maxdancona wrote:

The extremism is the problem.

Ok, this made me laugh. You do realize that this Country was founded by "extremism" yet you're perfectly ok with that.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Quote:

It makes sense to protest against rules designed to let murderers walk away from their crimes.

I am curious.

The rules of a trial are there to protect the right to due process. Any rules for Chauvin apply to any criminal defendant.

Which one would you change?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The one that allows cops to murder black people and walk away.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

The one that allows cops to murder black people and walk away.

That one is called the Sixth Amendment. It is part of the Bill of Rights.

I don't agree that we should change it.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Exactly where does it state cops can kill black people and walk away?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Really Neptune?

If Chauvin "walks away", it will be because the jury determines he is not guilty.

How would you change the process outlined by the sixth amendment?

1 Reply

Forums
» Why the political left wants race riots.

Read Question
Reply to All

Why the political left wants race riots.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know