SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump is being urged by some advisers to formally address the nation and call for calm, while others have said he should condemn the rioting and looting more forcefully or risk losing middle-of-the-road voters in November, according to several sources familiar with the deliberations.
[...] During a staff call Friday, Trump's top domestic policy aide Brooke Rollins argued for a measured response to riots the night before, advice that was echoed by Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner. Several advisers feared, and hoped to avoid, another Charlottesville moment, when Trump was criticized after declaring in 2017 that "very fine people" were among the Nazi mobs that descended upon Charlottesville, Virginia.
[...] While aides like Kushner have pushed for a more restrained response, Trump is also hearing from several advisers who warned that by not condemning the protests after the death of Floyd, an unarmed 46-year-old black man, that turned into rioting and looting, he is risking losing some demographics that will be key to his election victory in November, like suburban women voters.
As Protests and Violence Spill Over, Trump Shrinks Back
The president spent Sunday out of sight, berating opponents on Twitter, even as some of his campaign advisers were recommending that he deliver a televised address to an anxious nation.
how the George Floyd protests left Donald Trump exposed
“Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed this violence personally, some have even been its victims. I have a message for all of you: the crime and violence that today afflicts our nation will soon – and I mean very soon – come to an end.”
These were the words of Donald Trump, not in May 2020 but July 2016, as he accepted the Republican presidential nomination at the national convention in Cleveland.
[...] Not even Trump’s harshest critics can blame him for a virus believed to have come from a market in the Chinese city of Wuhan, nor for an attendant economic collapse, nor for four centuries of slavery, segregation, police brutality and racial injustice.
But they can, and do, point to how he made a bad situation so much worse. The story of Trump’s presidency was arguably always leading to this moment, with its toxic mix of weak moral leadership, racial divisiveness, crass and vulgar rhetoric and an erosion of norms, institutions and trust in traditional information sources. Taken together, these ingredients created a tinderbox poised to explode when crises came.
Antifa: Trump says group will be designated 'terrorist organisation'
"It's ANTIFA and the Radical Left. Don't lay the blame on others!" Mr Trump tweeted on Saturday.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Friday June 05 2020, @08:35AM (15 children)
You act like rioting doesn't have consequences. If you don't want to be heartbroken, don't watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeAC3nYK7xc [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2020, @11:03AM (1 child)
Sitting on grass is rioting? You sound worse than CCP at Tienanmen Square.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2020, @12:36AM
"The one thing that is the same in all cultures is the police."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by stretch611 on Friday June 05 2020, @11:27AM (1 child)
There is a big difference between rioting and peaceful protests.
And someone that unleashes tear gas on peaceful protests needs to be locked up.
-- Donald Trump from a 1990 playboy interview
Does that sound like someone who cares about democracy, or a fascist?
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2020, @01:02PM
or people
(Score: 5, Informative) by Kitsune008 on Friday June 05 2020, @02:15PM (3 children)
Who said rioting has no consequences? No one.
There is a HUGE difference between protests(which are a right guaranteed by the Constitution), and rioting(which is NOT a right).
The specific event that was being described was a peaceful, law-biding group of protestors(led by the church pastor) were shot w/ rubber bullets, tear gassed, and clubbed away from the front of St. Johns, just so the Cheeto in Charge could take a photo op to prove he was not cowering in a bunker.
We can argue the semantics of fascism, Nazi -like, authoritarian, etc., but it was a blatant, illegal, out of proportion denial of the protesters right of assembly and free speech.
You can keep trying to put lipstick on that pig, but most of us can still tell that it's a pig.
(Score: 2, Informative) by bradley13 on Friday June 05 2020, @05:39PM (2 children)
You should realize that at least part of this is nonsense. Trump walked through the area just a few minutes later. Certainly tear gas cannot have been used. Likely mist of the rest is exaggerated as well.
Trump is not my favorite person in the world, but people suffering from TDS are doing no one any favors. They just damage their own cause, because they are so obviously deranged.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2020, @06:10PM
Is it your argument that using flashbangs, smoke bombs, beating peaceful protestors with shields and truncheons while they exercise their constitutional rights is perfectly okay?
How very authoritarian of you. Good show!
As for exaggeration, there is a whole lot of video (some of it from foreign news sources with no skin in the US political game -- who documented not only the assault on Americans, but who were attacked themselves while on-scene.
Let's have a little review. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states, in it's entirety: [congress.gov]
The Presidential oath of office [wikipedia.org] (duly sworn by every president) is:
Let's examine the circumstance here:
1. The President is *sworn* to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution;
2. The Constitution (First Amendment) guarantees freedom of speech without government interference (this is not an absolute guarantee, but peacefully expressing one's views is well within the sphere of protected speech);
3. The Constitution (First Amendment) guarantees the freedom of the press from government interference;
4. The Constitution (First Amendment) guarantees the right of individuals to peaceable assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances;
5. The President (or his assignees -- it's irrelevant who, the president *is* the executive branch) is responsible (and has sworn to do so) for preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution;
6. In this case, the President interfered with the rights of free speech, the free press and the right of people to peaceably assemble, in direct violation of the Constitution he *swore* to preserve, protect and defend.
Please let me know if there's anything in the above to which you disagree or if there's anything in the above which you believe to be false or inaccurate. I'll happily respond and engage with you on a sane, rational level. This ought to be good!
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 06 2020, @06:42AM
You mean the cult of Trump as victims of TDS?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 05 2020, @08:54PM (6 children)
You've got mental problems. Severe mental issues, most likely stemming from over comsumption of Fox News and the opinion programs on that network.
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday June 06 2020, @03:05AM (5 children)
So you are OK justifying the murder of that girls sister by rioters. She probably had insurance or something right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2020, @03:46AM (4 children)
Not at all. That is a tragedy and the criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
What I am not OK with is you trying to conflate criminal rioters with peaceful protesters in order to excuse the violent fascism of the police instigated by the President of the United States.
Is that simple enough for you? Or do you want to continue pushing your fascist apologia?
(Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Saturday June 06 2020, @08:21AM (3 children)
Fascist?
You think the deplatforming, the "protesting" speakers to the extent they're driven away, the bootlicking, the media manipulation, the crazy adherence to ideology instead of science (e.g., it's bad to protest lockdowns because of CV19 but it is safe to protest approved social issues despite the virus), the redefinition of looting to some form of non-violence, the meltdowns when an opposite opinion is expressed up to and including trying to get people fired (e.g, Lee Fang) -- the only fascists I see are in the woke left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2020, @12:20PM (2 children)
The groups and individuals protesting police brutality don't necessarily have aligned views on anything except that police brutality is wrong. It's not a left/right issue. Police brutality is wrong, using police to stop 1st Amendment protected speech and hamper the police is unconstitutional, and accepting 1984 because it came from your party is garbage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 06 2020, @12:22PM
Oops, that should be "hamper the free press," not "hamper the police."
(Score: 2, Funny) by hemocyanin on Tuesday June 09 2020, @11:25PM
You keep presuming I'm a Republican. This is not the case. It is also true that I'm not a Democrat, but that doesn't make me a Republican.