3 ms·

Does the federal government really rely that much on the DC mayor's opinion when it comes to protecting federal buildings, especially the seat of government? T

Does the federal government really rely that much on the DC mayor's opinion when it comes to protecting federal buildings, especially the seat of government? That's fascinating. I realize the relationship between the federal government and DC is nontraditional, so I probably just don't understand the dynamics.

jariel 6y ago
The streets where the rally took place, and the streets in front of WH, Capitol building are her turf. There were huge protests there this summer, so she knows the story. It just seems odd and that there's not more discussion specifically about this what with a lot of blame and finger pointing going on.
- avs733 6y ago
  Because if this rally had been met with the force that BLM had it would be a never ending news cycle of playing the victim
avs733 6y ago
In reality: no When it’s politically convenient to push a blame democrats narrative on the national review: absolutely I’m kind of amazed reading these comments at the continued inability of many HNers to recognize bad faith arguments...
- jariel 6y ago
  I'm sorry but it's not 'bad faith arguments' to take the word of the mayor of DC at face value. Nobody seems to have provided here any evidence against the fact that she has very publicly stated that she was prepared, two days before the event. Just the opposite - the 'convenient' 'bad faith' argument is to blame racism without a single iota of evidence, and cover up possibly the negligent actions of a mayor who happens to be Black and Female. In the eyes of CNN, no female of colour will ever be blamed for anything - that is a problem. I have no stake in the game - I don't care one way or the other. I don't doubt for a second that a kind of assumptive racial issue could have led to less people on the hill, that it could have been a more general misunderstanding, but it's entirely possible that the major really screwed up (among more complex conspiracy theories which I highly doubt). But the National Review using the Mayors own signed and publicly projected document is not even bias frankly. It looks really bad for her at first glance, and it seems blatantly biased of CNN not to highlight her public statements and have her on to talk to her about what happened instead of 'blaming racism' which is really lazy. I'd love to know more actual details about the situation instead of lazy propagation of bias.

jariel 6y ago

The streets where the rally took place, and the streets in front of WH, Capitol building are her turf. There were huge protests there this summer, so she knows the story. It just seems odd and that there's not more discussion specifically about this what with a lot of blame and finger pointing going on.

avs733 6y ago
Because if this rally had been met with the force that BLM had it would be a never ending news cycle of playing the victim

avs733 6y ago

In reality: no When it’s politically convenient to push a blame democrats narrative on the national review: absolutely I’m kind of amazed reading these comments at the continued inability of many HNers to recognize bad faith arguments...

jariel 6y ago
I'm sorry but it's not 'bad faith arguments' to take the word of the mayor of DC at face value. Nobody seems to have provided here any evidence against the fact that she has very publicly stated that she was prepared, two days before the event. Just the opposite - the 'convenient' 'bad faith' argument is to blame racism without a single iota of evidence, and cover up possibly the negligent actions of a mayor who happens to be Black and Female. In the eyes of CNN, no female of colour will ever be blamed for anything - that is a problem. I have no stake in the game - I don't care one way or the other. I don't doubt for a second that a kind of assumptive racial issue could have led to less people on the hill, that it could have been a more general misunderstanding, but it's entirely possible that the major really screwed up (among more complex conspiracy theories which I highly doubt). But the National Review using the Mayors own signed and publicly projected document is not even bias frankly. It looks really bad for her at first glance, and it seems blatantly biased of CNN not to highlight her public statements and have her on to talk to her about what happened instead of 'blaming racism' which is really lazy. I'd love to know more actual details about the situation instead of lazy propagation of bias.