If the riots are a democrat thing, like people say...?

Post Reply New Topic

It may be worth looking up whatever news event you are interested at https://web.ground.news/. It lists the sources (with links), along with an idea of which\how many news organisations are reporting on it from each side.

It's a good way to see how both the left and the right are "interpreting" the same event.

Protesting (peacefully) is a right in a democracy, rioting is not. Often peaceful protests turn into riots due to agitators who may not even be there to protest.

Or "counter protesters" who arrive to provoke riots...

It would be nice if one day the peaceful protesters were to turn around and isolate the agitators\do something to allow the police to remove them from their midst (or in many cases, denounce them), but most times the organisers just ignore it, giving the impression to those not part of the protest that through their silence\inacation regarding the actions of the agitators that they implicitly endorse the actions (looting\rioting).

Thus far, the only reporting I have seen from BLM regarding looting\rioting has been a single BLM organiser endorsing looting - no other officials have come out to ask people not to riot or loot, nothing was released to say that they did not endorse what that organiser said. This then re-inforces the views of those who were against the group, but also has the potential to drive away people who were undecided on how they felt regarding the group(s) behind the protests, however worthy the cause of the protests may be.

It's not unheard of for those agitators to be hostile to the cause or even to be police.

If one person says something and one hundred denounce it that still draws more attention to the original comment, and when you know your detractors will use that one comment to smear you no matter what, attracting more attention to the original comment is a bad idea.

This pattern of bashing a group for a scandal no matter how many denounce it is common enough that you can probably find an example involving groups or causes you're sympathetic to as well.

Oh okay but if the rebublicans are just saying that the rioters are democrats, hoping to spin the election there way, if that's the motive, are a lot of people going to believe that though?

It's not so much that they are saying the rioters are Democrats so much as the Republicans are saying it needs to stop, while the Democrats encourage it or stay silent.

So you have one side who have come out and stated they are against it, another which gives the impression they support it. People will see this and make their own judgements of the parties based on this.

Oh okay, but if the democrats are not a part of the riots, then why are they encouraging it?

The ones who aren't a party to them hope they can use them to make the Republicans look bad...

No actual logic behind it, but that seems to be their plan.

But how does rioting by the "democrats", make the republicans look bad? Wouldn't that make the republicans look better if it's the "democrats", who are rioting?

They hope the public is ignorant\uninformed enough to think it is the fault of the President rather than those rioting...Hence the "defunding" of police, efforts to remove federal officers from defending federal property, etc. then claim that the President is letting it all happen.

Or that they can goad him into calling in the military to stop the riots, then claim that trump is turning troops on his own citizens.

Oh okay. Is the real goal to defund the police is that the protestors are pro-crime actually? I mean it seems really steep to defund the police everywhere because of a few bad apples, unless I am wrong?

That's the impression I get...Particularly when they resort to criminal acts to try and get what they want, and no-one pushing for defunding makes an effort to stop it.

Oh okay. Well some of the demands of black lives matters seem kind of questionable. For example, one of the demands was they want all black convicts to be re-tried by a jury of the peers. But what they don't seem to understand is, is that re-tried means tried again. Where as almost all people charged with felonies choose to plea bargain. So would the convicts even want to be tried, if this demand was met, rather than finishing out their plea bargains?

Well on the news recently the headline read "Man killed in fight between BLM protestors and Trump supporters". This happened in Portland.

However, if the media is portraying the riots as a democrat thing, than were the BLM actually fighting with Trump supporters, or is the media just portraying those people as Trump supporters?