sirdroseph wrote:
 
Good points; a lot of different entities will always seek chaos for different reasons.  However, your "bottom line" is somewhat confusing.  "Looting, breaking things, and setting things on fire" have historically been done by people or groups who feel otherwise deprived of wealth, or power, or a "voice", not silver-spoon billionaires who go on to become President of the U.S..  He may not have been physically doing any of those things out in the streets, but he's been breaking things and looting for about 50 years in other ways and he's far from blameless with the state of things today.  If you're looking for the embodiment of someone who is defiantly and proudly unburdened by "personal responsibility", Trump's your man.

 cc_rider wrote: 

 sirdroseph wrote:
 
Well said, all of it.

Years ago I read 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', and it really changed how I thought about, well, everything. Personal responsibility is its core theme.
c.

 cc_rider wrote: 
I was more so talking about the external and internal forces that want anarchy and destruction and are inciting and providing material and anger to exacerbate and usurp justified discontent against legitimate long term injustices.  Trump incites for 2 reasons; 1. he is an ignorant idiot  2. he uses the violence to rally the law and order voters who are genuinely afraid to gain votes and re election.    The forces I am talking about are doing this to sow discontent and destroy the very fabric of our Republic, these groups vary and do not necessarily coordinate or even like each other,  anti Facist, Facist, anarchist, Communist, Marxist, Black separatists, white separatists, Russians, Chinese, FBI and other federal agencies who gain power through violence and last but not least opportunist who see a chance to break shit and loot.   Bottom line is I have yet to see Trump break anything, loot or set anything on fire.  There is nothing more sexy and rare than personal responsibility. Our own actions are the only thing that we have full control of.

 sirdroseph wrote:
 McConnell is the one I lay a lot of blame on. But Graham, Cornyn, Cruz, etc. etc. have a lot to answer for. The Cabinet is quite a rogue's gallery too, but they'll be out with Trump. DeVos, for example, is particularly odious in my eyes.
c.

 davidharper wrote: 
True, but remember he is only the cheerleader. Nothing gets done without the players.  After Biden or whatever, those players will remain on the field and must be dealt with one way or the other.

 davidharper wrote:
 He has a lot of help, but yeah, it feels that way.
c.

I'm beginning to believe Trump may actually destroy America.

This mess in Chicago reinforces everything the orange one has been saying. Sad and frustrating.
c.

Ted Cruz’s Hearing on Anarchist Protest Violence Was a Total Farce
Cruz kept mentioning Democrats’ failure to condemn a murder that was actually carried out by the far right — and refused to be corrected.

Holy SHIT! You'd almost think the Fed presence was a problem!

 westslope wrote:
 

"I am talking about protesters soliciting the help and cooperation of municipal and state police to maintain public order. Imagine the amount of ink that would be spilled in covering such a novel cooperative arrangement. Imagine all the skeptics and fence sitters that might take the core themes of the demonstration much more seriously with such an approach. Think about the in-depth interview article multiplier."

IIRC the police were regularly walking with demonstrators in earlier BLM-related protests, e.g. the ones responding to Michael Brown's death. 

 westslope wrote:
 
You do remember when BLM stopped the Toronto Gay Pride parade because there was a group of gay police participating? So much for intersectional activism and building bridges. I do hope other groups do more to educate and de-escalate the police. Yes, there is an outrageous problem in many police departments, but the carrot and stick approach is time-tested.

The thing I struggle with is that non-violent protest is received more positively but seldom seems to lead to change.

 haresfur wrote:
 
Yes, am aware and that was most inspirational  but it was also spontaneous.  In general, I see no interest in the police taking a position; just keeping peaceful demonstrations safe for law-abiding demonstrators and members of the public would be a major accomplishment.  It would also be a huge public relations success for the movement organizing the political demonstration.

I am talking about protesters soliciting the help and cooperation of municipal and state police to maintain public order.  Imagine the amount of ink that would be spilled in covering such a novel cooperative arrangement.  Imagine all the skeptics and fence sitters that might take the core themes of the demonstration much more seriously with such an approach.   Think about the in-depth interview article multiplier.   

In my experience, journalists dine out on violent conflict but as a question of personal opinion, they do not like it.   Courageous, determined non-violent protest is received much more positively.  

 westslope wrote:
 
Not sure if they have been invited, but there are accounts of a number of police chiefs who walked with demonstrators in the immediate aftermath of Minnesota.

 BlueHeronDruid wrote:
 

go figure

TOTAL ANARCHY WITHOUT FEDERAL AGENTS!

Question and this is a serious question:

Have any demonstration organizers in the USA ever invited police to to walk among the demonstrators to assure orderly behaviour and to protect peaceful demonstrators from outside violent agitators or criminals?

Freekin' white people

The Portland 'Wall of Moms' movement is falling apart after a local Black Lives Matter group accused them of 'anti-Blackness'

Federal Agents at Protests Renew Calls to Dismantle Homeland Security