2020 Protests megathread

[Middle-aged Europe]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

That's not what's happening though.

[MasterJedi]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

Yes, it’s true. We need law and order, against those that glorify the racism and police brutality like you.

[Calthrina950]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

Yes, it’s true. We need law and order, against those that glorify the racism and police brutality like you.

How is this acceptable? Ought hatred to be followed by more hatred? While I've expressed my strong, strong revulsion at what was done to George Floyd, and indicated my support for the peaceful protests regarding this whole affair (which, as a black person, deeply touches me), I've also expressed my frustration and anger with the riots that have taken place. I think Fuzzy Bear is approaching this from the same angle. He is not, in my view, trying to condone the use of police force, or to justify what these officers did. What he is emphasizing-and I agree-that the rioters, by targeting businesses in many of these urban communities, are doing more harm to their cause than good, and that constitutional rights need to be preserved even for the most loathsome among us. Constitutional rights also need to be preserved for those who are the most defenseless or the most voiceless.

[Estrella]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

That's not what's happening though.

With a bit - but just a little bit - of trolling, you could say that it is happening and those radical political groups are the police departments. After all, they are threatening the freedoms, norms and values of America by violently attacking peaceful protests that threaten their interests by calling for investigations into their unlawful actions.

[Middle-aged Europe]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

Yes, it’s true. We need law and order, against those that glorify the racism and police brutality like you.

How is this acceptable? Ought hatred to be followed by more hatred? While I've expressed my strong, strong revulsion at what was done to George Floyd, and indicated my support for the peaceful protests regarding this whole affair (which, as a black person, deeply touches me), I've also expressed my frustration and anger with the riots that have taken place. I think Fuzzy Bear is approaching this from the same angle. He is not, in my view, trying to condone the use of police force, or to justify what these officers did. What he is emphasizing-and I agree-that the rioters, by targeting businesses in many of these urban communities, are doing more harm to their cause than good, and that constitutional rights need to be preserved even for the most loathsome among us. Constitutional rights also need to be preserved for those who are the most defenseless or the most voiceless.

If that's what Fuzzy wants to tell us by posting Nigel Farage conspiracy theories, okay fine.

It does strike me as a bit odd though that someone is translating now for us what he "really" means as if he's incapable of articulating what he means. Maybe that's indeed the case, I don't know. But if it's the case it also means that his posts can't be taken "fully serious" anyway.

[Calthrina950]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

Yes, it’s true. We need law and order, against those that glorify the racism and police brutality like you.

How is this acceptable? Ought hatred to be followed by more hatred? While I've expressed my strong, strong revulsion at what was done to George Floyd, and indicated my support for the peaceful protests regarding this whole affair (which, as a black person, deeply touches me), I've also expressed my frustration and anger with the riots that have taken place. I think Fuzzy Bear is approaching this from the same angle. He is not, in my view, trying to condone the use of police force, or to justify what these officers did. What he is emphasizing-and I agree-that the rioters, by targeting businesses in many of these urban communities, are doing more harm to their cause than good, and that constitutional rights need to be preserved even for the most loathsome among us. Constitutional rights also need to be preserved for those who are the most defenseless or the most voiceless.

If that's what Fuzzy wants to tell us by posting Nigel Farage conspiracy theories, okay fine.

It does strike me as a bit odd though that someone is translating now for us what he "really" means as if he's incapable of articulating what he means. Maybe that's indeed the case, I don't know. But if it's the case it also means that his posts can't be taken "fully serious" anyway.

I don't know what you are trying to insinuate by this. I hope that you are not suggesting that I am a troll or something akin to it. You seemed to have ignored the points which I've highlighted concerning the need to protect constitutional rights and the need to fight injustice where and when it occurs. But doing so cannot be done in a way that is violent, or that exceeds the bounds of civil society. Now, I don't condone what law enforcement has done in response to many of these riots, and particularly not what they've done in response to peaceful protests. Their actions are further evidence that thorough reform is needed within those departments.

[Middle-aged Europe]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

Yes, it’s true. We need law and order, against those that glorify the racism and police brutality like you.

How is this acceptable? Ought hatred to be followed by more hatred? While I've expressed my strong, strong revulsion at what was done to George Floyd, and indicated my support for the peaceful protests regarding this whole affair (which, as a black person, deeply touches me), I've also expressed my frustration and anger with the riots that have taken place. I think Fuzzy Bear is approaching this from the same angle. He is not, in my view, trying to condone the use of police force, or to justify what these officers did. What he is emphasizing-and I agree-that the rioters, by targeting businesses in many of these urban communities, are doing more harm to their cause than good, and that constitutional rights need to be preserved even for the most loathsome among us. Constitutional rights also need to be preserved for those who are the most defenseless or the most voiceless.

If that's what Fuzzy wants to tell us by posting Nigel Farage conspiracy theories, okay fine.

It does strike me as a bit odd though that someone is translating now for us what he "really" means as if he's incapable of articulating what he means. Maybe that's indeed the case, I don't know. But if it's the case it also means that his posts can't be taken "fully serious" anyway.

I don't know what you are trying to insinuate by this. I hope that you are not suggesting that I am a troll or something akin to it. You seemed to have ignored the points which I've highlighted concerning the need to protect constitutional rights and the need to fight injustice where and when it occurs. But doing so cannot be done in a way that is violent, or that exceeds the bounds of civil society. Now, I don't condone what law enforcement has done in response to many of these riots, and particularly not what they've done in response to peaceful protests. Their actions are further evidence that thorough reform is needed within those departments.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I don't think you're a troll and in principle I more or less agree with what you've written regarding the protests.

I was just making an observation that you're apparently trying to "decipher" Fuzzy's posts for us in a manner of "now what Fuzzy actually means is..." which raises the question whether he really means what he posts or whether he merely is incapable of articulating his thoughts to us.

[Middle-aged Europe]

New NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll:
59% of all voters - including 54% of whites - say that they are more concerned about George Floyd's death than they are about violent riots.

Question 21: "As you may know, an African American man died in Minneapolis after a police officer pinned the man to the ground and put his knee on his throat for about eight minutes. There have now been a number of protests, some of which have turned violent. Although both may be of concern to you, which one concerns you more…"

The actions of the police and the death of an African American man: 59%
Protests that hve turned violent: 27%
A bit of both: 13%

Among whites
The actions of the police and the death of an African American man: 54%
Protests that hve turned violent: 30%
A bit of both: 15%

Among African Americans
The actions of the police and the death of an African American man: 78%
Protests that hve turned violent: 15%
A bit of both: 6%

Among Hispanics
The actions of the police and the death of an African American man: 65%
Protests that have turned violent: 27%
A bit of both: 6%

Partisan breakdown: 81% of Democrats say they're more concerned about Gorge Floyd's death than they are about protests that have turned violent, but only 29% of Republicans.



Question 9a: When it comes to the country these days, do you generally feel that things in the country are….

Under control: 15%
Out of control: 80%
Some of both: 3%

Partisan breakdown: 92% of Democrats and 66% of Republicans say that the country is out of control.



Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6938425-200266-NBCWSJ-June-Poll.html (Pages 9 & 15) & https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/country-out-of-control-305451

[parochial boy]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

The wider world is watching the police beat up protestors and the free media and being egged on by a president who is attacking his own country's democratic institutions while doing so.

The wider world is deeply, deeply fearful of whether the USA will remain a free country, but it isn't the protestors they're scared of.

[Rover]

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1269426617257996288?s=19
What does "defund the police" mean? Private security firms? vigilantism? unaccountable militia?

[HillGoose]

What does "defund the police" mean? Private security firms? vigilantism? unaccountable militia?

lmao no cap private police would actually slap. then they have to be re-voted in every so often just like normal officials and if another company can do it better, cheaper, or less brutally then they can get elected.

privatize everything 2k20!

[Frodo]

White House wanted 10k active duty troops to quell protesters

The White House wanted to have 10,000 active duty troops on the streets of Washington and other cities earlier this week to quell protesters, but Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and Chairman of the Joint of Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley pushed back at the use of any active duty troops, according to a senior defense official.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

What does "defund the police" mean? Private security firms? vigilantism? unaccountable militia?

It means you should learn how to use a search engine.

There’s a growing call to defund the police. Here’s what it means

Does defunding the police mean disbanding the police?

That depends on who you ask, said Philip McHarris, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University and lead research and policy associate at the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability.

Some supporters of divestment want to reallocate some, but not all, funds away from police departments to social services. Some want to strip all police funding and dissolve departments.

The concept exists on a spectrum, but both interpretations center on reimagining what public safety looks like, he said.

It also means dismantling the idea that police are “public stewards” meant to protect communities. Many Black Americans and other people of color don’t feel protected by police, McHarris said.

Why Protesters Want to Defund Police Departments

The idea that police are the only answer to preventing crime and protecting people is one that has been so ingrained into American society that it can be hard to imagine a different reality. But amid a national uprising against police brutality and systemic racism, activists say it’s time to reimagine what the public actually needs.

In the wake of George Floyd’s death, proponents say it’s time to defund police departments and put that money toward community programs, like after-school programs for students and housing assistance for disadvantaged communities. Among racial-justice activists, the idea isn’t new: organizers, including in Minneapolis, had already been calling to defund the police for some time. But now the idea has been taken up by protesters across the country, who say efforts to reform police departments have been unsuccessful and it’s time to curtail the role police play in society.

[Rover]

What does "defund the police" mean? Private security firms? vigilantism? unaccountable militia?

It means you should learn how to use a search engine.

There’s a growing call to defund the police. Here’s what it means

Does defunding the police mean disbanding the police?

That depends on who you ask, said Philip McHarris, a doctoral candidate in sociology at Yale University and lead research and policy associate at the Community Resource Hub for Safety and Accountability.

Some supporters of divestment want to reallocate some, but not all, funds away from police departments to social services. Some want to strip all police funding and dissolve departments.

The concept exists on a spectrum, but both interpretations center on reimagining what public safety looks like, he said.

It also means dismantling the idea that police are “public stewards” meant to protect communities. Many Black Americans and other people of color don’t feel protected by police, McHarris said.

Why Protesters Want to Defund Police Departments

The idea that police are the only answer to preventing crime and protecting people is one that has been so ingrained into American society that it can be hard to imagine a different reality. But amid a national uprising against police brutality and systemic racism, activists say it’s time to reimagine what the public actually needs.

In the wake of George Floyd’s death, proponents say it’s time to defund police departments and put that money toward community programs, like after-school programs for students and housing assistance for disadvantaged communities. Among racial-justice activists, the idea isn’t new: organizers, including in Minneapolis, had already been calling to defund the police for some time. But now the idea has been taken up by protesters across the country, who say efforts to reform police departments have been unsuccessful and it’s time to curtail the role police play in society.

Defunding definition: verb, prevent from continuing to receive funds.
Which basically means gutting the police budget. Sounds good in theory after the tragic scenes we've witnessed from George Floyd murder to the handling of the protests.
But it also means police departments won't have the money or resources to protect the weakest and most vulnerable in society, i.e. Victims of domestic violence, homicide victims, victims of burglary, victims of Pedophilia, etc. But of course the far left are so blinded in their hatred towards to the police, they can't see the flaws with "defund the police".

It's interesting how the left have always preached against generalizing and scapegoating any community, race, creed, institution. Yet, they're quite happy to generalize cops as bad, evil people with glee and passion.

[Gass3268]

https://twitter.com/mboorstein/status/1269740951108554753?s=21

[Badger]

The Australian protests were held today.

1. It was mostly suburban white people on an Instagram crusade who would avoid Aboriginal people under any other circumstances.
2. What about African Australians? They got left out by the media.

This is just a media narrative.

I dont think the Aboriginal crime rate would sustain any reasonable analysis that would show anything other than the fact that the crime rate attributable to Australian Aboriginals is proportionally much higher than their population base.

The crime rate is out of control in outback towns. Most of it is not reported. Massive levels of alcoholism, chemical dependency, sexual and physical assaults. You have children under 12 with STD's in remote populations.

The protests might be legit in the US, i cannot say, but blaming non-whites in Australia about the same issue is barking up the wrong tree.

It's because of COVID-19 restrictions and a movement on Instagram that everyone now wants to join in and make similar protests in countries without the same issues.

The media will never show the truth about everyday life in Australia like what we really see from the drunk Aboriginal population.

https://youtu.be/ZEMiUEtpWd4

https://youtu.be/h_oK_bgs164

https://youtu.be/ymqw2czq6X0

That guy is just randomly singling out Asian people for abuse and physically assaults two Asian men on a bus because they are simply Asian.

He leaves the Indian guy alone, but goes hard against the Asian people.

You wont see that ever played on the nightly news.

Point 2 really makes you look stupid. I don't know why you have to link videos about indigenous people being drunk and the media doesn't report on that like they don't report on that for every single group.

Some major level racism there, dude. If only we knew the plight of what goodly anglo-australian like you put up with it from those drunken Blackie's.

 I mean, racism has its degrees but yours is just ( chef's kiss).

huh?

Referring to the OP,  Meclazine.

[Badger]

It's nice that things are mostly peaceful right now and the police will soon be held accountable for their actions. With that being said, a lot of people in this movement have alternative goals that go well beyond the scope of "black lives matter", like abolishing capitalism. Protests attract a lot of nutters!

Define "a lot".

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1269752052936314886

[Dr. Arch]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1269752052936314886

This timeline continues to deliver.

[Storr]

https://twitter.com/alexburnsNYT/status/1269752052936314886

This timeline continues to deliver.

"Mitt Romney marches with BLM protestors" literally sounds like a 2015-16 Onion headline.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

It's interesting how the left have always preached against generalizing and scapegoating any community, race, creed, institution. Yet, they're quite happy to generalize cops as bad, evil people with glee and passion.

I agree that a number of people on the left have a blind spot when it comes to the police. It's both sad and counterproductive. Judge police not by their job occupation but rather by their character.
I would note though that the elements of the left-of-center who generalize cops to be bad, evil people are a loud minority and most understand there is such a thing as unequivocally good cops.

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/mboorstein/status/1269740951108554753?s=21

Romney himself actually said "black lives matter" to the camera that was trailing him:

https://twitter.com/haleytalbotnbc/status/1269747994980528128

[Progressive Pessimist]

Woke Romney is the best Romney!

[Calthrina950]

newsweek.com/trump-right-demand-law-order-america-opinion-1509174?utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=automatic

There continues to be much criticism and outrage over President Trump's response to the growing unrest in America. But what people fail to understand is that the enemy is not simply at the gates—it is inside the castle running amok.

The American public, and indeed the wider world, should not want a president who stands idly by as radical political groups, perhaps used as the pawns of others, attempt to violently overthrow the freedoms, norms and values of the most powerful country on earth.

Absolutely true.

Yes, it’s true. We need law and order, against those that glorify the racism and police brutality like you.

How is this acceptable? Ought hatred to be followed by more hatred? While I've expressed my strong, strong revulsion at what was done to George Floyd, and indicated my support for the peaceful protests regarding this whole affair (which, as a black person, deeply touches me), I've also expressed my frustration and anger with the riots that have taken place. I think Fuzzy Bear is approaching this from the same angle. He is not, in my view, trying to condone the use of police force, or to justify what these officers did. What he is emphasizing-and I agree-that the rioters, by targeting businesses in many of these urban communities, are doing more harm to their cause than good, and that constitutional rights need to be preserved even for the most loathsome among us. Constitutional rights also need to be preserved for those who are the most defenseless or the most voiceless.

If that's what Fuzzy wants to tell us by posting Nigel Farage conspiracy theories, okay fine.

It does strike me as a bit odd though that someone is translating now for us what he "really" means as if he's incapable of articulating what he means. Maybe that's indeed the case, I don't know. But if it's the case it also means that his posts can't be taken "fully serious" anyway.

I don't know what you are trying to insinuate by this. I hope that you are not suggesting that I am a troll or something akin to it. You seemed to have ignored the points which I've highlighted concerning the need to protect constitutional rights and the need to fight injustice where and when it occurs. But doing so cannot be done in a way that is violent, or that exceeds the bounds of civil society. Now, I don't condone what law enforcement has done in response to many of these riots, and particularly not what they've done in response to peaceful protests. Their actions are further evidence that thorough reform is needed within those departments.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, I don't think you're a troll and in principle I more or less agree with what you've written regarding the protests.

I was just making an observation that you're apparently trying to "decipher" Fuzzy's posts for us in a manner of "now what Fuzzy actually means is..." which raises the question whether he really means what he posts or whether he merely is incapable of articulating his thoughts to us.

I'm glad that you didn't misconstrue what I was trying to say. I've expressed my viewpoint before that Fuzzy Bear has been given too much hay by many on this forum, and I certainly think this was the case here. But I certainly think that each poster should take responsibility for their words, and should be able to effectively defend their own arguments.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Melbourne, Australia

Right wing pro-Israeli reporter Avi Yemini goes to the BLM rally with 40,000 people on the weekend to ask if anyone has heard of Justine Damond:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Justine_Damond

A white Australian woman shot in her pyjamas in Fulton, Minneapolis in 2017 by Mohamed Noor, an African-American Minneapolis Police Department officer.

This is essentially a "right meets left" argument in Australia in 2020.

https://www.facebook.com/424135517668782/posts/3120749214674052/?d=null&vh=e

Some of the people gave really good answers. Keep in mind Avi has the microphone and the edit button. So he has gone there to stir up people and there would have undoubtedly been better answers from some.

If he was not so belligerent, and listened to the answers to his questions more fully, he would have engaged more in the conversation and had more interesting content for his video.

I think he cut them off (and the videos political content) by asking the same scripted questions repeatedly and too fast before they had an opportunity to talk.