Mobilizing the national guard against protestors is a really strong way to put him only sending the guard after buildings had burned down, looting had occurred, and the Mayor requested it.
As Governor, I will always defend the right to protest. It is how we express pain, process tragedy, and create change. That is why I’m answering our local leaders’ request for Minnesota National Guard to protect the peaceful demonstrators, neighbors, and small businesses in Minnesota.
this is the perfect response to protests where a handful are violent and destructive. not spraying crowds with pepper spray so Trump can hold a bible upside-down for a photo.
Right wingers always pretend like left wingers want violence to occur at protests. Lock up the people who commit crimes, leave everyone else alone
Out of all of the domestic terrorism that occurred in 2022 how much was committed by the right wing versus the left?
100% by the right. Every single instance.
Taking about violence is not the same as committing violence.
You guys will literally find one single violent liberal and then say that it is “both sides”
Get real, look at the numbers. Go over to truth social and see what they are saying. One guy literally just got arrested for announcing his plans to kill Kamala Harris.
If someone is committing violence against you you have the full justification to be violent back. That is self defense, that will never apologize for it.
edit: there’s a big difference between advocating for violence on people surrounded by security personel who have personally ordered deaths of thousands of people (eg Netanyahu, Putin) vs some random person who happens to be a minority.
I know it’s going to be down voted, but pretending like it didn’t happen or it’s such a great thing is going to do harm, because it’s going to come up. I can’t really find anything about how the national guard was used, and how much force they used against protesters, but I’m certain it was more than was necessary. Sure, some damage had been done to property, but I don’t really care. I so don’t really care about the politically laced response he made either. I care about how the protesters were treated.
There wasn’t an ideal way to handle it though. Even with his mobilization of the national guard, republicans said he was too slow. We all know there was no way to be fast enough for them though, so whatever. Trump praised his response, which is a pretty clear indication to me that it was too aggressive.
Whatever though. It’s politics and not doing so would possibly have lost him the election. I don’t approve of it necessarily, and addressing it is the correct move, not pretending like it shouldn’t be brought up. The more we’re all aware of it the better prepared we are for when Republicans start using it as an attack.
Nah, they for sure were there, were called up by Waltz, and for sure used some level of force. I can’t find anything specific about how much force because the media doesn’t generally like talking about that, but mostly because there’s so much recent news and I’m not spending all day doing research for an internet comment a handful of people will see and doesn’t really matter anyway.
It really isn’t important, but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you) are self-sabotaging, because it’s going to come up. Just be aware with it and come to terms with it. It happened and it’s not ideal. He’s generally pretty good though and I like him. You don’t get to have a perfect candidate, and ignoring the flaws makes your whole foundation fragile.
but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)
I see another flaw in your logic. How am I pretending it didn’t happen? Or is anyone that replies to you in a way that is non-affirmative “pretending it didn’t happen”?
Your post is implying that my post not providing evidence is implication that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen. (The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) What other conclusion could be drawn? What was your intended message if this was not the intent? I can’t find another interpretation of your message except doubting that it happened, so perhaps you can bring light to it?
Holy logical overreaching, batman! My comment was just pointing out a common logical trope nowadays, being certain of something without confirming the evidence to back it up. Everything else after that ( “but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)” … “that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen”) is baggage you’ve tacked on.
You are creating strawmans and overreaching while parting from a lack of logical rigor in referencing evidence (but at least you are honest about that last part). I don’t think I’ve read anyone who is claiming it didn’t happen, just differences on the when, where, and how, nuance that you are admitting your comment lacks.
Mobilizing the national guard against protestors is a really strong way to put him only sending the guard after buildings had burned down, looting had occurred, and the Mayor requested it.
Here’s a quote from Walz at the time.
this is the perfect response to protests where a handful are violent and destructive. not spraying crowds with pepper spray so Trump can hold a bible upside-down for a photo.
Right wingers always pretend like left wingers want violence to occur at protests. Lock up the people who commit crimes, leave everyone else alone
There is absolutely a small faction of leftists who do fetishize political violence. You see them all over Lemmy.
Out of all of the domestic terrorism that occurred in 2022 how much was committed by the right wing versus the left?
100% by the right. Every single instance.
Taking about violence is not the same as committing violence.
You guys will literally find one single violent liberal and then say that it is “both sides”
Get real, look at the numbers. Go over to truth social and see what they are saying. One guy literally just got arrested for announcing his plans to kill Kamala Harris.
If someone is committing violence against you you have the full justification to be violent back. That is self defense, that will never apologize for it.
violence against who?
edit: there’s a big difference between advocating for violence on people surrounded by security personel who have personally ordered deaths of thousands of people (eg Netanyahu, Putin) vs some random person who happens to be a minority.
I know it’s going to be down voted, but pretending like it didn’t happen or it’s such a great thing is going to do harm, because it’s going to come up. I can’t really find anything about how the national guard was used, and how much force they used against protesters, but I’m certain it was more than was necessary. Sure, some damage had been done to property, but I don’t really care. I so don’t really care about the politically laced response he made either. I care about how the protesters were treated.
There wasn’t an ideal way to handle it though. Even with his mobilization of the national guard, republicans said he was too slow. We all know there was no way to be fast enough for them though, so whatever. Trump praised his response, which is a pretty clear indication to me that it was too aggressive.
Whatever though. It’s politics and not doing so would possibly have lost him the election. I don’t approve of it necessarily, and addressing it is the correct move, not pretending like it shouldn’t be brought up. The more we’re all aware of it the better prepared we are for when Republicans start using it as an attack.
I think I found the flaw in your logic.
Nah, they for sure were there, were called up by Waltz, and for sure used some level of force. I can’t find anything specific about how much force because the media doesn’t generally like talking about that, but mostly because there’s so much recent news and I’m not spending all day doing research for an internet comment a handful of people will see and doesn’t really matter anyway.
It really isn’t important, but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you) are self-sabotaging, because it’s going to come up. Just be aware with it and come to terms with it. It happened and it’s not ideal. He’s generally pretty good though and I like him. You don’t get to have a perfect candidate, and ignoring the flaws makes your whole foundation fragile.
I see another flaw in your logic. How am I pretending it didn’t happen? Or is anyone that replies to you in a way that is non-affirmative “pretending it didn’t happen”?
Your post is implying that my post not providing evidence is implication that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen. (The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.) What other conclusion could be drawn? What was your intended message if this was not the intent? I can’t find another interpretation of your message except doubting that it happened, so perhaps you can bring light to it?
Holy logical overreaching, batman! My comment was just pointing out a common logical trope nowadays, being certain of something without confirming the evidence to back it up. Everything else after that ( “but the people pretending it didn’t happen (like you)” … “that there isn’t evidence, and as such didn’t happen”) is baggage you’ve tacked on.
You are creating strawmans and overreaching while parting from a lack of logical rigor in referencing evidence (but at least you are honest about that last part). I don’t think I’ve read anyone who is claiming it didn’t happen, just differences on the when, where, and how, nuance that you are admitting your comment lacks.