The Killing of George Floyd: The Last Straw?

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Most recently and most obviously Maxine Waters. Pelosi might seem less overly disappointing, given her track record.

I'm not often thrilled with Rashida Tlaib either.

I often hear how much people hate Pelosi but I'm not sure why. People may not like her policies but I find that she is professional and honest.

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not often thrilled with Rashida Tlaib either.

I often hear how much people hate Pelosi but I'm not sure why. People may not like her policies but I find that she is professional and honest.

It's telling, how much preperation was involved in preparing for an equital...

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It's telling, how much preperation was involved in preparing for an equital...

What does it tell us?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

What does it tell us?

That, justice is an individual perspective...

[iNow]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I often hear how much people hate Pelosi but I'm not sure why.

Because she's effective and often wins the toughest battles against those who oppose her. If they can't beat her, they can at least scapegoat her as evil incarnate. 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

I often hear how much people hate Pelosi but I'm not sure why.

She’s a “librul” and that’s enough. They make up the reasons after the fact to justify the hatred. It’s all part of the narrative.

[uncool]

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

She’s a “librul” and that’s enough. They make up the reasons after the fact to justify the hatred. It’s all part of the narrative.

Mehh.

I'm pretty strongly against Republicans, but there is valid reason to dislike her. She's a blatantly pandering politician who is willing to say things, not because they are true, not even because she believes them, but because they are convenient to the current narrative she wants.

In other words, a typical politician. And, in my opinion, not as bad as many Republicans (see: Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham), but one of the more blatant on the Democratic side of the aisle, if only because of her prominence.

Edited April 23, 2021 by uncool

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, uncool said:

She's a blatantly pandering politician who is willing to say things, not because they are true, not even because she believes them, but because they are convenient to the current narrative she wants.

Would you please provide an example or two?

[uncool]

  

56 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Would you please provide an example or two?

Before I do, I want to make clear: I do not think of any of this as disqualifying, or even that important. I think of Nancy Pelosi as, for the most part, a pretty typical politician; I think that nearly every politician at her level has similar hypocrisies.

For a recent example (that is on-topic): Pelosi's response to Maxine Waters's statement that protesters should get "more confrontational". Maxine Waters said "[...] and we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational, we've got to make sure that they know that we mean business" in response to a question of what protesters should do if the Chauvin verdict wasn't 3 guilties (manslaughter, murder 3, murder 2 - though she may have only heard "what should protesters do?" without the specific circumstances). The phrase "more confrontational" got pushback, which led Pelosi to say "No, Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement."

I don't think that she can believe this is as simple as that, given her support for the impeachment of Trump for the riot at the capitol. She appropriately noted there that even if Trump said to protest peacefully, that the context easily allowed people to interpret it as support for intimidation. The same is true, if on a much smaller scale (and with less direct import), for Waters's comment.

Now, I agree that this is arguable, and not only that, but that there are many, many worse cases. But there is reason to dislike her beyond "liberal".

Edited April 23, 2021 by uncool

[zapatos]

No disrespect intended, but it seems to me you are making quite a stretch to say that statements such as:

4 minutes ago, uncool said:

"No, Maxine talked about confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement."

should earn Pelosi the description of:

59 minutes ago, uncool said:

She's a blatantly pandering politician who is willing to say things, not because they are true, not even because she believes them, but because they are convenient to the current narrative she wants.

Are you really that confident that Waters did NOT mean confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement, or that Pelosi KNOWS Waters intended violence and Pelosi is just covering for her?

[uncool]

I accept that this is an impression, and that I probably overstated with "blatantly".

My point isn't simply that Maxine Waters called for violence; my point is that the method in which Pelosi analyzed Waters's statement is very different from the method in which she analyzed Trump's statements. And yes, there are reasons to do so - Trump has been and was blatantly dishonest, and blatantly pandered to white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. But I don't think that someone who can analyze Trump's statements and see beyond the perfunctory "Peacefully protest!" can think that Waters's statement was only about "confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement".

[MigL]

I would have to agree. 
Incitement is always dependant on the incited, and has little to do with the well-meaning ( or lack thereof ) of the inciting statement.
Politicians should know their audience, and how they'll react to their statements.

I have gotten a little tired of N Pelosi, mostly because its been years since she last blinked ( her eyelids, actually her whole face, are stretched so tight  😄 ).
I'm also tired of the games. The two eaders ( house and senate, when under different control ) always did things, not for the good of the country, but to make the other guys look bad.
That kind of political tit-for-tat should stop, and Americans should demand that their government work for them, and not try to score points against the opposition.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

She’s a “librul” and that’s enough. They make up the reasons after the fact to justify the hatred. It’s all part of the narrative.

Funny, in many cases that situation also applies to Australia. The two main parties in Australia, Labor [left of centre] and Liberal [right of centre] must vote along party lines, with the odd exception when a conscious vote is allowed. I believe all politicians should vote according to their conscience, all the time. An old ex PM of Australia, John Howard, was instrumental in achieving our strict gun laws after a massacre by a nut. His politics general were abhorent to me, but on this point, I supported him 100%, as did most Labor politicians. Yet when in 1972 we elected the first Labor government for 23 years, with our greatest ever PM, Gough Whitlam, who almost immediately gave Australia probably the best health care system one could ever wish for, it had every  bloody Liberal politician screaming his or her arse off! That health care system is still maintained today, and so readily accepted and appreciated by the general populace, that no politician, right of the political spectrum would dare to attempt to scrap it.

Could it be partly the case/situation in the US, that Police forces knowing that any man and his dog could have a weapon, are always scared and terrified of being involved in such incidents, and thereby lies the reason for their itchy trigger finger and sometimes excessive force? I'm speaking in  general of course and certainly not in the obviously "over the top" abhorent situation with Floyd death.

This seems to actually be the situation with the Aussie woman a while back, that called the cops thinking a prowler was on the loose, and was actually shot by one of the attending police. In essence, could the absence of any reasonable gun laws be the cause of such incidents in the US?

2 hours ago, MigL said:

.I'm also tired of the games. The two eaders ( house and senate, when under different control ) always did things, not for the good of the country, but to make the other guys look bad.
That kind of political tit-for-tat should stop, and Americans should demand that their government work for them, and not try to score points against the opposition.

Bingo!! seems to also apply in Australia in many many cases.

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Could it be partly the case/situation in the US, that Police forces knowing that any man and his dog could have a weapon, are always scared and terrified of being involved in such incidents, and thereby lies the reason for their itchy trigger finger and sometimes excessive force? I'm speaking in  general of course and certainly not in the obviously "over the top" abhorent situation with Floyd death.

While our fetish for weapons is part of this, the other issue is that non-white people end up getting killed at a significantly higher rate than white folks.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, uncool said:

I accept that this is an impression, and that I probably overstated with "blatantly".

My point isn't simply that Maxine Waters called for violence; my point is that the method in which Pelosi analyzed Waters's statement is very different from the method in which she analyzed Trump's statements. And yes, there are reasons to do so - Trump has been and was blatantly dishonest, and blatantly pandered to white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. But I don't think that someone who can analyze Trump's statements and see beyond the perfunctory "Peacefully protest!" can think that Waters's statement was only about "confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement".

I have no doubt that Pelosi gives the benefit of the doubt and the "most favorable interpretation" to her friends and colleagues. I mean, I do it too. But I also believe that approach is near universal and generally expected amongst nearly everyone. On the other hand it wouldn't surprise me to learn that in private Pelosi spoke much differently to Waters on the comment she made.

What this boils down to is that it seems to me that in this case, Pelosi's response fell within the norm and is deserving of no more derision than of every single Republican congressman who responded similarly to Pelosi, but of course on the other side of the coin. How is their collective condemnation any worse than the collective support of the Democrats?

In my mind people show their true colors not when they speak out in support of their own regarding issues where the meaning behind one's words are open to interpretation, but when they choose to go against their own when it is clear their own have crossed the line.

How did Pelosi and Democrats respond when fellow Democrat Al Franken was accused of sexual misconduct? Al Franken was forced to resign with the condemnation of his own party.

And how did Republicans respond when Trump was accused of sexual misconduct? They dismissed his activities as locker room talk and helped elect him President.

I'm sure I can be less than 100% equitable, but to me Pelosi was within normal behavior on this one, and the Democrats in general rise head and shoulders above the Republicans.

 

 

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, uncool said:

Peacefully protest!" can think that Waters's statement was only about "confrontation in the manner of the civil rights movement".

In that context I would like to add that the civil rights protests were at that time, considered unlawful. Moreover, there were also peaceful protests, but also many violent clashes. For example after a police officer shot an African American Soldier on leave during WWII, outraged African American groups protested and it resulted in significant property damage and altercations.

During the 60s (i.e. during the civil right movements) there were many waves of violent and non-violent protests. The common denominator is basically the protests were in response to injustice (e.g. not being allowed to enter certain stores, murder of black folks by police and so on). There is a big difference between those clashes instigate by either white or black folks, though and I would be careful to draw an equality here.

The race riots in the Jim Crow era were dominantly instigated by white mobs and were often accompanied by lynchings and violent overthrow of governance. Some of the most famous once are the Tulsa race riots of 1921 (or massacre) where white folks, many of which deputized attacked and destroyed a whole district where more affluent African Americans lived. Death tolls are not known but estimates range into the hundreds.

During the Wilmington insurrection in 1898 we saw a case where we saw insurrectionists overthrowing the biracial city government again with estimated hundreds of deaths. So the riots incited by the white groups were aimed at destroying affluence and influence gained by black folks and basically crippling their ability to participated in the democratic system. The recent capitol insurrection was less lethal but followed a similar pattern.

In fact the violence was not a byproduct of protests, it was the very means to reach their goals. In contrast, the riots occurring during the civil rights period in the 60s were borne from protests (both violent and nonviolent) were borne out of protests against oppression and/or unequal treatment and the violence itself was not the endgame (for the most part).

One specific tactic employed by Dr. King in Selma was to incite violence against them in order to create public support that could be used by the White House to pass the bill, which was politically problematic to pass otherwise. However, in modern times the violence against peaceful protesters and journalists(!) have been quickly dismissed by showing the damages caused by certain subgroups of the movement. As such, it does appear that civil-rights type of protests might actually not be terribly effective anymore.

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

it does appear that civil-rights type of protests might actually not be terribly effective anymore

I’d argue they remain effective, just not quite as effective as the opposition they’re facing in the form of modern social media campaigning and the related targeting of specific micropopulations which in aggregate tend to drive macro-level resistance to those protest movements 

Edited April 24, 2021 by iNow

[CharonY]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d argue they remain effective, just not quite as effective as the opposition they’re facing in the form of modern social media campaigning and the related targeting of specific micropopulations which in aggregate tend to drive macro-level resistance to those protest movements 

Fair enough.

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d argue they remain effective, just not quite as effective as the opposition they’re facing in the form of modern social media campaigning and the related targeting of specific micropopulations which in aggregate tend to drive macro-level resistance to those protest movements 

By the Democrats as pawns...and ignoring that poverty is by far the greatest factor...

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By the Democrats as pawns...

Are there people that the Democrats are NOT using as pawns?

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

By the Democrats as pawns...and ignoring that poverty is by far the greatest factor...

I might need you to clarify this one.

To clarify my own point, I was saying that the effectiveness of protest movements gets blunted by the intentional cascade of disinformation and trigger issues through social media by those seeking to attack the credibility of the protesters and circumvent discussion or action on the issues their protests are meant to illuminate. 

Then you said something about democrats acting as pawns and ignoring poverty. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

I might need you to clarify this one.

To clarify my own point, I was saying that the effectiveness of protest movements gets blunted by the intentional cascade of disinformation and trigger issues through social media by those seeking to attack the credibility of the protesters and circumvent discussion or action on the issues their protests are meant to illuminate. 

Then you said something about democrats acting as pawns and ignoring poverty. 

I understood that. And don't disagree.

 

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are there people that the Democrats are NOT using as pawns?

Rich Democrats that tow the party line...for starters

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Rich Democrats that tow the party line...for starters

Do Republicans use those who are not rich Republicans as pawns?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Do Republicans use those who are not rich Republicans as pawns?

Not in the same sacrificial sense.

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not in the same sacrificial sense.

How are the poor Democrats sacrificed?