4 ms·
The stark difference in the response to these "protests" vs the DC BLM protests: https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091 https://twitter.co
by czhiddy 6y ago
The stark difference in the response to these "protests" vs the DC BLM protests:
https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091 https://twitter.com/RedR1dngHood/status/1346908557560537091
- ngngngng 6y ago"Some of those that work forces are the same that burn crosses"
- bilbo0s 6y agoIf this is true, America is a circus. How can you govern a nation under these conditions?
- awnird 6y agoIt turns out you can't, which is why the republic is currently being toppled by fascist dictatorship.
- moosey 6y agoHaven't you noticed? We can't!
- ngngngng 6y agoOur founders thought about that quite a bit, the answer they came up with? You can't. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - James Madison As those were spoken over 200 years ago I think we can forgive the phrasing and understand the meaning of "moral and religious." And though at the time I'm sure these intelligent people thought that morality and religiosity were positively correlated, today I'm almost tempted to say that in my own relationships I see an inverse correlation, and I say that as a deeply religious person.
- 8note 6y agoIt doesn't even follow from what's written in the constitution. Religious freedom is not compatible with only certain religious folks being able to use it properly.
- watwut 6y agoTo be fair, to some extend it is like that everywhere. Armed services are generally attractive to people with authoritarian mindset - exactly like those movements. Plus, police can be more or less corrupt, but you never get 0 corrupt cops. You have always proportion of those who are work with criminals - helping or being direct members. You occasionally even have gangs composed of cops only.
- adsche 6y agoI agree in principle. Especially that that response towards BLM was completely unjustified and plain wrong. However, after watching the streams for a while now, I feel, the current response might have been the best to avoid shootings/deaths. Evacuation seems to have worked (so far, fingers are crossed). And I can definitely see right-wing terrorists shooting armed guards to get into the building and the chambers. The events are an absolute disgrace, but any stronger response might have triggered the terrorists even more. EDIT: Sorry, is this really such a stupid argument? Does the symbolism of entering the building trump that of a bloodbath? For context, right-wing groups 'stormed' German parliament a couple of months ago and nobody is talking about it anymore since nothing really happened.
- staplers 6y ago"America doesn't negotiate with terrorists"
- adsche 6y agoI was not sure if this needed a response but here it goes: I don't think this is a negotiation but rather a tactical withdrawal.
- jandrese 6y agoShots have been fired in the capitol building.
- adsche 6y agoYes, one intruder has been shot. No injured guards/ officers/ staff/ journalists reported (afaik). I cannot help but think that this is a comparatively! good outcome when dealing with armed right-wingers. EDIT: Heard on C-SPAN now: 5 reported injured now, 1 law enforcement. At least some of them gas related. I still stand by my opinion but I don't know for how long.
- watwut 6y agoI have seen video of cops with hurt faces. Someone hit them.
- sergiotapia 6y agohttps://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=black%20lives%20matter https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=b...