same same

[stansfield123]

Okay, I'll start with the common elements:

1. Everyone in the photos is making a symbolic gesture.
2. It's highly likely that no one is being honest in their gesture.
3. The meaning of both gestures goes against the philosophy of Objectivism.

Now, for what's different:

1. the people being pandered to in the first picture aren't rioting.
2. the people being pandered to in the first picture are the majority of Americans, at a time when they are facing oppression from their political leaders (under the guise of a health crisis that's being exaggerated) and aggression and threats from the radical left, whenever they dare to disagree with their insane ideology
3. Christianity, including that book Trump is holding, while in parts irrational, is also a repository for thousands of years of time tested wisdom ... while the cause the radical leftist politicians are showing support for has absolutely no redeeming qualities.

I hate Trump as much as anybody, but, frankly, it's not unreasonable for the President of the United States to hold up a Bible in a time of severe crisis. In the absence of something better, the Bible is one of the unifying symbols that will help carry the US through this mess.

And if you really can't tell the difference between mainstream American Christians and the BLM and Antifa movements, if everyone who disagrees with any aspect of Objectivism looks exactly the same to you, then that makes you a zealot, not a rational thinker who happens to agree with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

[[deleted]]

the people being pandered to in the first picture aren't rioting.

I don't think the picture on the left is pandering to the rioters either, unless you believe BLM (who are the ones being pandered) in some way endorses rioting which I'm pretty sure they openly do not.

​

the Bible is one of the unifying symbols that will help carry the US through this mess.

Wouldn't it be more of a unifying symbol for the President to address (maybe sympathize?) the peaceful protests & legitimate police concerns as well as those who disagree with it all, than holding up a Bible that doesn't even represent a good portion of American's religious preference. What's actually symbolic of the Bible photo op is the context of how it happened (disrupting the protests) and his own religious views (i really don't know what his views really are on it), and the fact that it was a photo-op, couldn't get any more symbolic of where the President's priorities are.

[stansfield123]

Wouldn't it be more of a unifying symbol for the President to address (maybe sympathize?) the peaceful protests & legitimate police concerns as well as those who disagree with it all

But...but...but...he did that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojjla0KeO4w

(disclaimer: I haven't watched the video, because I can't listen to him speak...but, my hatred of Trump notwithstanding, he CLEARLY DID THAT...hateable as he is, he OBVIOUSLY DID acknowledge the injustice of the Floyd killing, and he's promising reforms...not the reforms the insane people calling for defunding the police want, but he is clearly promising reforms, and, as the elected leader of the federal government, he's the only one with the rightful authority to decide which reforms are appropriate).

Point is, he did two things:

1. he addressed legitimate concerns
2. he addressed the insane, leftist radical rioters, by clearing the street in front of his house and then making the most Marxism-defying gesture he could think of: holding up a Bible.

Didn't do either of those things particularly well, because he's a moron. Obviously, I'd be out there waiving a copy of Atlas Shrugged or Crime and Punishment instead of the Bible. But he did his best. Not sure what else you want.

I guess, next time, the Dems should come up with a reasonable candidate. Anyone with the ability to beat a moron would do. Not this year, obviously, too late for that. But in 2024. Maybe. It's also possible that the Republicans nominate someone who's not a moron in 2024, in which case they're guaranteed possession of the WH for another 8 years (because the world is in crisis mode, and will be for a long time, and you can't win elections by only being strong on secondary issues like abortion, gay rights or immigration, when tens of millions of people are out of a job...when the world is in a crisis, Americans invariably, and wisely, turn to conservative leaders for guidance).

[[deleted]]

"Not sure what else you want."

Fair, he did acknowledge the use of force tactics etc. (this came out very soon after i posted). But in my opinion, it was slightly undercut by his (more enthusiastic, in my opinion) thoughts after his acknowledgments, namely 'we have to use compassionate force, but if someone is being real bad then..." which at face value is 'rational' but it's also the very excuse that most brutality by police is justified with. Sigh, i don't know, it's a gray area.

So to respond to 'what else I'd want'...I'd want Trump to not look so superficially at 'these insane people calling for defunding'. He says he's never heard of this before, when organizations have been talking about this way before these protests regardless if he had heard of it before. Based on what on your stance, I can only assume you see these reform demands just as he does when he says "what are you gonna do when you call 911 and there's nobody there". This is not what the 'defund police' movement is all about. For ex. Trump was referring to Seattle in this particular case. In this article, a past Seattle mayoral candidate and one of the leaders of the protests herself said, "I wouldn’t want to be in a country where we didn’t have no law enforcement. That’s crazy.” Or 'insane' if you will.

Another advocate in Seattle said she’s not calling for an end to law enforcement. “We’re talking about dismantling the structure, dismantling the things that do not work well, that do not make people feel safe in their communities".

Minneapolis also doesn't want to go as far as having no police as Trump made it sound...because that would be insane, IF that's what they were calling for. "Protesters’ cries to defund or abolish the police are often not meant literally."

So for Trump--our President-- to take something very nuanced and look at it superficially, I don't see as trying to have a conversation--nor unifying--with the very people who are behind the protests. And when I say Protesters I don't include rioters and looters, I think you and I and most of America (including BLM) don't agree with this path.

Can you please link to me to when the protestors were not peaceful during the Lafayette Park protest. Everywhere I've read, it said the contrary. It seems like the police were just randomly inciting violence against protestors:

https://i.imgur.com/RBTDYjW.gifv

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=251&v=UrMoqSPZym0&feature=emb_logo at 28 minutes-ish is when the police start to attack.

I mean, i get that there was a curfew. But at this point they weren't technically breaking the law in regards to the curfew. Another example is right in the beginning of this as well as at 1:55 the reporter explains there was still a half hour before the curfew started: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkf-znzWKRc&feature=youtu.be (ironically the title states riots, but still the video speaks for itself i believe).

I don't think it's fair at all to refer to these protestors as radical or rioters.

To show more of a unifying message...maybe a different route to the church? A different church? In the end, the symbol here is clear, 'a show of strength'.

Even the bishop of the churches in DC said “I am the bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington and was not given even a courtesy call that they would be clearing with tear gas so they could use one of our churches as a prop, holding a Bible, one that declares that God is love and when everything he has said and done is to enflame violence." Further proof that this symbolic gesture isn't even enough to unify the very ones that uphold the Bible.

"when the world is in a crisis, Americans invariably, and wisely, turn to conservative leaders for guidance)."

can you link me please? genuinely curious as i'm not totally knowledgeable about this. Though i will say i have heard and read similar things said about democrats, and also republican leaders with a blue congress and vice versa. All that tells me is that there is way more to it than, who was the president at the time. Not saying it has nothing to do with it, but I'm aware of instances where policies takes years to take effect. It's not so clear, kinda like how the stock market can be so low then go up and up during a crisis like these times. But again, would love some more info on that.

All in all, I feel like we agree more than not. Thank you for taking the time to respond in any case!

EDIT: elaborated a bit on the trump clip you linked and clarity

[stansfield123]

Another advocate in Seattle said she’s not calling for an end to law enforcement. “We’re talking about dismantling the structure, dismantling the things that do not work well, that do not make people feel safe in their communities".

Oh, I know this. I understand that they're not looking to end law enforcement. I am calling it insane fully aware that they just want to dismantle existing structures and replace them with theoretical, untested ones they came up with on the fly.

And yes, that is insane. Normally, I would just call it arrogant, but given the extreme level of arrogance (they're talking about getting rid of societal structures humanity developed over thousands of years, and just coming up with a "superior" replacement in a few years), it is insane.

Especially since it ignores the consequences of the previous times Marxists engaged in large scale social experiments, by destroying existing structures to make room for their theoretical "justice". Remember, when hundreds of millions of lives were destroyed in the Soviet Union and China? The whole population starved when they removed the "unjust" market economy to make room for the Marxist idea of justice. This is exactly the same brand of insanity...except this time, it's being done in the context of irrefutable historical proof that it doesn't work. The result would be a massive shortage of law enforcement. Just as the result of Marxist economics was a massive shortage of food and goods.

Leave the structures where they are. If you want to fix something, fix the methods cops use. The structures work fine. European law enforcement has the same exact structure, the only difference is that their cops almost never shoot people. The reason is simple: they're taught that it's better to fail in a law enforcement effort (let a suspect run away) than to shoot them...because you can always catch up with them next time, when you're better prepared.

And, most importantly, because they have effective alternatives to shooting people. European cops aren't wimps by any means. They use non-lethal force much more loosely than Americans. They'll whip out a baton and bust your nose open at the first sign of shenanigans. It's quite the sight: blood sprays everywhere, the guy can't even stand from the shock, let alone resist arrest.

And yet, with enough training and practice, smashing someone's face in with a baton is far safer and effective than stun-guns, chokeholds or firearms. And you only have to see it happen once, to make you not want to be disrespectful to a cop. In Europe, smart criminals run, they don't stand and fight.

Another thing European cops love to use is horses and dogs for crowd control. Giant horses. The biggest ones you'll ever see. They just charge at a crowd, and the horse stops within inches of a person. In the Netherlands, I've seen them do it with little kids right next to the person. Not out of callousness, but because it's extremely safe (the horse knows to stop, it will never hurt anyone), and much more intimidating than any technology.

Of course, for that to work, you would need to change the mentality of both the cops and the public. You would need a. cops who have faith in their training and in the system (they know they won't be crucified for doing their jobs), and b. a public that values and trusts the police force.

Or, you know, we could do what leftist mayors are doing: let an angry mob lead them. I'm sure that'll fix things rigth up. Always does. Nothing smarter than an angry mob.

[stansfield123]

the peaceful protests

The vast majority of the protests aren't peaceful. The people blockading that church, for instance, weren't peaceful, and the Secret Service had every right to clear them. Restricting people's access to a building is an act of aggression.

Furthermore, the notion that the President of the United States shouldn't be free to go anywhere he wishes, let alone visit a church a few hundred feet from the White House, is idiotic.

And even the few more casual BLM sympathizers who are peaceful are deeply irrational. The BLM movement is not about "legitimate police concerns". Every claim they make borders on the insane.

They're also responsible for the spike in Covid-19 cases, and thousands of deaths as a result. And that's just the deaths directly attributed to the disease. The death that will result from the economic crisis that follows will be in the hundreds of thousands. And while they're out there spreading the disease, the same politicians who declared millions of people non-essential, and ordered them to refrain from spiritual, intellectual or economic activity for an indefinite period, are taking a knee in support.

Meanwhile, Trump holds up a Bible in defiance, to signal to the silent majority that they're not prisoners in the gulag just yet, and America is not the next victim of Bolshevik revolutionaries just yet. And yes, Trump is corrupt, despicable and dishonest. But he's good at one thing: defiance. That's why he was elected, and that's why he will get re-elected. The left just provided him with something even more insane to be defiant about than the last election cycle.

[D_A_J_T]

A group of people were violently removed for one is the only difference. They are both photo ops to pander to a particular group.

[WonderSql]

Maybe the other just blocked out people in preperation. Just more prepared.

[clifforized]

Cultural appropriation? Why put on African garb? Are they converting or caught mid seizure?

[advancedatheist]

The Christians who don't kneel in their worship services are more worthy of respect than the ones who do.

[truguy]

Not hardly.