The opposite, actually. The civil rights movement of the 60s was infiltrated, surveilled, and disrupted by secret police, and largely ended with it's greatest leaders being assassinated and mass riots.
Then Nixon launched the War on Drugs in the 70s and mass incarceration began.
In the 80s we saw Democrats and Republicans further ramping up the war on drugs, with the passage of laws such as the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986, while at the same time it was soon revealed that the CIA was helping their Nicaraguan Contra friends raise money by importing billions of dollars of cocaine into inner cities as a part of the Iran Contra conspiracy, initializing the crack epidemic. The investigations into these wrong doings was quickly shut down, the investigative journalist leading the charge was suicided, and the government officials responsible were pardoned.
Fast forward 30 years, and the mass incarceration levels have been holding steady and communities are even weaker by some metrics than they were before the civil rights movement, though perhaps we've made some marginal improvements in states where cannabis has been legalized, but we've still got a lot more to do: namely, ending the tyrannical and racist war on drugs at the Federal level.
That's simply a recognition that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent, and a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified.
In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole.
Trump's tweet was just a recognition of that.
100% of this is happening because police continue to refuse to arrest police.
How, exactly? I mean, it's not like the rioters are following his orders (or maybe you're saying they are?!). If you're just saying it's his responsibility, then sure, but he's not the only one. Aren't community leaders, the police, the governor and the president likewise "allowing" the riots to continue simply because they haven't stopped them?
I mean, Trump literally evoked an image of shooting rioters. Did anyone else do anything similar?
Harsh words, but at the end of the day, people will defend their property with a gun and have every right in doing so.
When you care more about stuff than you do about actual human lives, your evil is showing.
Shooting someone over dollar store items is dumb. But defending your sole proprietorship you have built up and is the only thing you have, understandable.
Secondly, this is a single, solitary reason out of the myriad of other reasons, why we, as as a species, invented insurance.
Please, give up your childish John Wayne fantasies, which, to be honest are barbaric and counter to the very essence of civilization, and join the adults who build societies and systems that protect people.
Martin Luther King.
More recently, though, someone whose business was, in fact, damaged:
"Let my building burn, Justice needs to be served, put those officers in jail."
Ruhel Islam, a Bangladeshi immigrant and owner of Gandhi Mahal Restaurant
https://www.facebook.com/GandhiMahalRestaurant/posts/3030378...
If you value civility and property over justice and human life, well, then, I'm sorry... You might be the baddies.
So no, downvoting you isn't anything to do with the constitution.
Uhm, no
[sic]
Taken from https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-twitter-flags-...
That's just one possible interpretation, if you really want to understand him that way.
1. Introduces the military
2. Says he will assume control
3. Introduces the idea of shooting looters
Given that context, it's extremely difficult to concoct an interpretation where he's not saying he'll direct the military to shoot looters.
I mean, be serious here. Is your defense really that "The president's grammar was poor, so you can't prove he meant what he seemed to say". How many times are you going to try that trick? Wasn't it played out after he vaguely suggested injecting bleach?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52407177
I see I'm being downvoted. Is my account of things incorrect, or is it because I didn't explicitly spell out that it's silly for a president to give brain-dead research advice to experts?
There are many things to criticize him for. But sadly the media is so incredibly lazy that they constantly make up these "scandals" about things he supposedly "meant".
And: you are downvoted because you are not following groupthink. It doesn't matter how factually correct it is.
It's absurd that Trump thought he was in a position to give technical advice to medical researchers, and it's even more absurd that he thought injecting disinfectant could be the way to go. The hubris and ignorance on display here are shocking.
Who would he be implying is doing the shooting other than the Military that will assume control?
What else could 'shooting' possibly refer to, if not the shooting of looters?
But discussion about it isn't possible, sorry. I am heavily downvoted for not following groupthink, so I am rate limited when it comes to posting.
Oh well.
Why aren't people over there more upset about those reporters getting arrested by state police on the street? That was pretty f'ed up. But I guess when it can't be blamed on Trump, people over there just don't care.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
A one-word answer to a question that was clearly probing for more details about your opinions is not an appropriate response.