But protests involve confrontation and that only leads to riots, frequently by the police at the start. That clearly is counter productive at least according to dudalb, so the clear answer is to do nothing. Just accept that the cops are vicious violent thugs above all laws of god and man and everything gets to be much easier.

If Chauvin is acquitted and there are riots because of that acquittal, then that acquittal will be the reason for the riots- you can argue that they're not justified, and certainly not "good optics," but that doesn't make them the result of what Waters said, her "call to violence" would be a whisper to a hurricane. Can you (or MTG or McCarthy) say the same about the Capitol riots? That they would have happened if Trump hadn't spent two months beforehand stirring the pot with lies and then the morning exhorting his faithful to fight and march? "Just as guilty" is misleading- there's no equivalence here, between what Waters said and what the GOP did in reaction to the respective situations, but a forced one.

I think somebody needs to take their political blinders off.

If only the other party would try to woo another demographic than "monster", it'd be nice.

To the highlighted: nice accent, there! ;)

1. I'm having a sale on Brooklyn Bridges, if you're interested.
2. I don't think you're using the word "nihilistic" correctly.

The Republican party spent the last 4+ years exulting in cruelty and insanity, and there's little now to indicate regret. In fact, at the state level, they appear inclined to continue their attempt to absolutely destroy democracy. The Republican party is irredeemable. Anything that hastens its destruction is, therefore, a good thing.

In a country that's less than 250 years old, you have to go back about 170 years to find an example of a political party being destroyed and replaced.

Also recall I added the caveat "...with anything short of a war..." What was the context of the Whigs falling apart? Oh, Yeah, it was the lead-up to the US Civil War.

So, yeah, I think it's safe to say the Republicans will be around for a while yet. So either figure out how to fix them, or just get used to the **** show.

Or maybe we need another leadup to another Civil War.

I think you may be out of touch with the not insignificant portion of the U.S. electorate who believe that the protesters deserve the treatment they get from rioting cops.

Unless it's them. In which case they turn into Karens.

And that's why you need to swallow your pride, get a Disqus account and join us over at the OANN comment section. We're taking the fight to them-and we're winning ... *


*You'll never forget your first "Cry harder, snowflake!" It feels so good just to let it out ...

If Chauvin is acquitted it will be a vivid demonstration that blacks are second-class citizens in the USA, whose lives are of lesser value to other races.

The US Civil Rights movement would have utterly failed without confrontation.

Perhaps violence is needed?

If Chauvin is acquitted then I expect there will be more cases of "pre-emptive self-defense" against police by blacks who will (rightly) believe their lives are in danger.

You are dealing with people who took kneeling at a football game to be too confrontational. There simply is no such thing as non-confrontational protests not matter what you seem to think.

But I get it property is always more important that the lives of mere blacks.

Please.

When Watters says "march" or "confront" she means exactly that. Not "riot", "beat", "kill", or the like. She's entirely correct that this is about confronting those in the wrong.

Compare to Dolt 45's long record asking his stans to "knock the crap out of" protestors, directing police to "be rough" when arresting suspects, and so forth - once going so far to claim he'd pay for bail and defense for anyone who physically attacked a protestor (he didn't, of course).

I'm unconcerned with bad faith arguments from GOP leaders or hangers-on in this, and I see no reason for her to be either.

I agree. She said nothing in support of violence or lawlessness or unreason, except perhaps to disagree with curfews, and even that was equivocal. Her comments were immediately spun, and it was, I think, shameful for the judge in the Chauvin case to suggest that her comments would form a basis for an overturning of the verdict on appeal.

The kind of biased spin that's applied to statements like this is exactly what makes hers apt and on point.

Wait. Are you implying that the criticisms of Maxine Waters may have been based on racism? How is that possible if her critics didn't repeatedly call her the n-word?

I know, it's pretty far fetched, isn't it? I suspect, though, that some of those critics are singing solemn hymns in autumn.

The only other person in recent memory I can recall being misinterpreted in this way recently is Eric Holder. This is outside of the usual social media nonsense, of course.

I won't accuse dudalb of being racist or anything, but when it's Waters on one side, and the Jewish Orbital Laser conspiracy theory woman on the other...this isn't a "both sides" issue.

I am a litle scared that the US is starting to resemble Spain right before it's civil war.

I still want to know what non confrontational protests are. Holding a sign up inside your own house maybe?

The kind that libs like. Permitted by the city and designed in such a way not to bother anyone. Probably involve "activists" hugging a cop for a photo-op and then the mayor reads off some empty platitudes. Everyone clears out 2 hrs before sundown.

You know, pointless.

The parallels are distinct and interesting.

We clearly need to totally reevaluate Stonewall as the criminal act it was and not view it as some kind of protest against police brutality. Anyone who commemorates is clearly supporting rioting because of its ties supporting gay rights means supporting rioting against the police.

And we can finally side with the right side of bloody sunday instead of those criminals blocking the road. The police should have been the heroes in the movie Selma and Stonewall.

But the Gravy SEALS showing up at a state house with their knock-off AR-15s, cool guy rigs and "tactical" sunglasses pissing and moaning about getting a hair cut is okay.

Well, looking at the roster of anti-protest bills that are being masqueraded as "anti-riot" legislation, I'd say it depends on whether or not the protest is in favor of black people (and presumably other marginalized groups), or gun-waving right wing rallies.

After attacking the Green Deal for years and demanding AOC debate her on it, Greene effectively admits that she never read it.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/marjo...b0c1b89645039a

:sdl:

You don't think there is a continuum between protest and rioting?

MTG, Rick Perry, Louis Gohmert, Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert are all good reasons for why I want the side of the debate that argues in favor of "Voters should have a minimum IQ higher than a box of rocks to vote".

Except those same arguments were used to suppress the black voters during Jim Crow.

Greene apparently confronted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the floor of the House Wednesday. Someone took a photo and Greene used it in a Tweet [see below]. AOC has not responded -- its not clear Greene was actually challenging her to a debate in the photo -- and Thursday Greene went on the attack. In a Tweet Greene ranted that if AOC won't debate Greene it proves she (AOC) is 'a scared and stupid little girl.' Greene also said she had finally read the 14-page Green New Deal House resolution introduced by Ocasio-Cortez in 2019 and Tweeted it is a "communists[sic] manifesto." (Even some conservative news sources observed, the phrase Greene was looking for is "communist manifesto," it's not plural.)

Some observers have said, not entirely joking, Greene behaves more like someone from the world of professional wrestling than a member of Congress.

Huffington Post speclated on Greene's real motives.

Below is a link to Greene's 47-second Tweet in which she accuses Ocasio-Cortez of being a scared stupid little girl, "exactly what she is."

Greene Tweet

Nice bit of right-wingery there. Before she read it it was, presumably, too big, its bigness and complexity its fault. Now, having read it, it's "little," its smallness and lack of complexity its fault.

Not only is it no joke, it's exactly what people like her and Gaetz operate, by design. It's self-promotion.

It's all about creating a brand, not about doing the hard work of legislating.
I blame Newt Gingrich. he is the one who started this .

I said it before, it's the 'roids from all that crosstraining crap she does. Either that or she's a man in disguise. Looks like one to me. Sorry if it offends anyone here but I can't stand looking at her. She creeps me out.

Have trouble recognizing snarky sarcasm, do ya?

I hope AOC does accept.

Occasio-Cortez comes prepared - armed with facts, figures, and a deep technical understanding of the ecology and the economics of the Green New Deal... MTG on the other hand took four days to read a 14-page document.

AOC will utterly demolish and humiliate Taylor-Greene... she will tear the "Jewish Space Lasers" idiot to shreds. MTG's only chance of coping will be to shout everything down and play pigeon chess. To that end, AOC will have to insist on some rules, for example a moderator who can turn off the debater's microphones if they won't shut up.

It reminds me somewhat of one of Dara O Briain's famous quips - AOC is the Professor of Dentistry, and MTG is the eejit who removes teeth with a string and a door.

If someone is wrong and ugly too, I don’t see what skin it is off anyone’s nose to just say they are wrong and keep the other part to themselves.

They’re not wrong because they’re ugly or ugly because they’re wrong. Why, it’s almost like their looks are completely irrelevant.

Fixed that for you.