• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Some Questions of Those on the Left who find Property Destruction Acceptable

I have a question for those here on this forum who self-identify as political left-wing or left-leaning and who either find nothing to condemn about property destruction, vandalism, and/or looting, or find it even acceptable or laudable:

Why are you okay or even happy with it?

Is it because property destruction, looting and vandalism are crimes that you cannot summon moral outrage for because it is far less terrible when compared to unjustified police killings and abuse?

Is it because you cannot see the havoc it wreaks on the lives of those whose property is ruined (presuming it is private property) versus those of people who have been killed on video? Perhaps you presume that the property owners have adequate insurance coverage which will pay cover and make good their losses?

Or is it for less emotive and more ideological reasons? Is it because the property owners, whatever their ancestry or the means of their attainment of property, are the conscious or unconscious beneficiaries of a system that has oppressed black Americans and/or exploits workers and the landless, and thus they deserve the destruction visited upon their property? Perhaps you would hope that this destruction spurs systemic change as those with economic power plead with those in political power to better the situation of the permanent underclass in order to avoid further unrest which threatens their property?

All of the above? None of the above? Are there other reasons?

Keep in mind, this is not a "gotcha" or my opportunity to heap abuse on top of you. I genuinely want to know your reasoning and hopefully I or other members on this forum, left, right, center or non-aligned can have a civil discussion with you.

DISCLAIMER: Before anyone rushes to answer, please keep in mind that this question is NOT aimed at self-identified left-wing or left-leaning members of this forum who are against property destruction, looting and vandalism. Only for those who are not.

Have you eve heard of the Boston Tea Party? There are many times when only a few million people in the streets for a month or more destroying and protesting is the way that social and political changes happen. Look at the French. They will take to the streets and protest at the drop of a croissant and their have one of the freest and most progressive societies in the world.
Violent public protests are the reason we have voting rights, a 5 day week, unions, and workers rights, ended wars and minority rights for various groups. The damage is ultimately minor and insured, but the change that happens is often permanent.

The Berlin wall and the iron curtain didn't fall because of people writing angry op-ed letters. It fell in 1991 because millions of people in Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries took to the streets and didn't go home until walls and dictators fell and were often publicly executed.
 
I'm waiting for the anarchists to show up at Pelosi's mansion or Obama's or Clinton's. Somehow, I think the police would suddenly be quite popular again.
 
Have you eve heard of the Boston Tea Party? There are many times when only a few million people in the streets for a month or more destroying and protesting is the way that social and political changes happen. Look at the French. They will take to the streets and protest at the drop of a croissant and their have one of the freest and most progressive societies in the world.
Violent public protests are the reason we have voting rights, a 5 day week, unions, and workers rights, ended wars and minority rights for various groups. The damage is ultimately minor and insured, but the change that happens is often permanent.

The Berlin wall and the iron curtain didn't fall because of people writing angry op-ed letters. It fell in 1991 because millions of people in Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries took to the streets and didn't go home until walls and dictators fell and were often publicly executed.

In my earlier reply to Felis Leo, there was an emotional sticking point that I could not put words to and thus did not put it in that original reply ... but here, I think you hit the nail in the head.

You made me think as you are correct, this has caused positive social change to happen for the long term ... :)

Perhaps it is the "we won't take this" aspect of it that gets embedded into society for a period of time after.
 
Have you eve heard of the Boston Tea Party? There are many times when only a few million people in the streets for a month or more destroying and protesting is the way that social and political changes happen. Look at the French. They will take to the streets and protest at the drop of a croissant and their have one of the freest and most progressive societies in the world.
Violent public protests are the reason we have voting rights, a 5 day week, unions, and workers rights, ended wars and minority rights for various groups. The damage is ultimately minor and insured, but the change that happens is often permanent.

The Berlin wall and the iron curtain didn't fall because of people writing angry op-ed letters. It fell in 1991 because millions of people in Poland, East Germany, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and other countries took to the streets and didn't go home until walls and dictators fell and were often publicly executed.

Please. These people are protesting to take away rights, not protect them. They are anarchists and Marxists. If it were up to them, we'd end up looking exactly like Eastern Europe from the 50's and 60's.
 
it's just a damn shame that it has to come to this all because people aren't treated equal under similar circumstances.

i'm against all the violence. period.





maybe we can go back in time and never have the first black slave brought to the USofA. then we don't have all the racist crap we still have.

I dont recall you denouncing leftists rioting. Are you sure you are against violence? It seems you would have spoken out against already after months of seeing it on TV. Are you against it now because it is getting closer to the election and you lefties have realized it will be your downfall and the #1 reason Biden will lose? OR do you actually mean it? In which case I'd love to see those posts of denouncement. Do you have any for your rioting leftists?
 
I have a question for those here on this forum who self-identify as political left-wing or left-leaning and who either find nothing to condemn about property destruction, vandalism, and/or looting, or find it even acceptable or laudable:

Why are you okay or even happy with it?

Is it because property destruction, looting and vandalism are crimes that you cannot summon moral outrage for because it is far less terrible when compared to unjustified police killings and abuse?

Is it because you cannot see the havoc it wreaks on the lives of those whose property is ruined (presuming it is private property) versus those of people who have been killed on video? Perhaps you presume that the property owners have adequate insurance coverage which will pay cover and make good their losses?

Or is it for less emotive and more ideological reasons? Is it because the property owners, whatever their ancestry or the means of their attainment of property, are the conscious or unconscious beneficiaries of a system that has oppressed black Americans and/or exploits workers and the landless, and thus they deserve the destruction visited upon their property? Perhaps you would hope that this destruction spurs systemic change as those with economic power plead with those in political power to better the situation of the permanent underclass in order to avoid further unrest which threatens their property?

All of the above? None of the above? Are there other reasons?

Keep in mind, this is not a "gotcha" or my opportunity to heap abuse on top of you. I genuinely want to know your reasoning and hopefully I or other members on this forum, left, right, center or non-aligned can have a civil discussion with you.

DISCLAIMER: Before anyone rushes to answer, please keep in mind that this question is NOT aimed at self-identified left-wing or left-leaning members of this forum who are against property destruction, looting and vandalism. Only for those who are not.

Let me preface by saying that I don't in any way condone violence or looting.

That said, let me ask you a question. What do you remember of the Boston Tea Party?
Do you remember a bunch of oppressed citizens fighting against a tyrannical government?
Or, do you remember a bunch of thugs destroying the rightful property of an innocent company, the British East India Company, innocent victims who were just trying to import tea?

So...while I don't condone the violence and looting, I hardly think it is original, all that shocking and I can understand some of why it is done.
 
Please. These people are protesting to take away rights, not protect them. They are anarchists and Marxists. If it were up to them, we'd end up looking exactly like Eastern Europe from the 50's and 60's.

What rights are being taken away by making black lives and other minorities matter and putting and end to police violence/abuse by holding cops accountable and demilitarizing the police forces?
There anarchists kiddies are about 1% of the protesters are are ultimately don't matter.

You need to learn what Marxism is because its the current boogeyman for conservatives because you dont understand it.
 
Oh look, even more hysterical babbling from you. I’ll wait for you to provide the name of any current politician who was “in power in 1937” like you stated :lol:

Trump is a blowhard moron whose run the country into the ground. And even after all the screaming about “****holes”, again, Chicago is still far better off than deep red hellholes.....like Bum**** Nowhere, Louisiana, where the locals switch off between their sisters and the farm animals.

No amount of unhinged wailing about how much you hate Democrats changes the facts. Deal with it.
:lamo

Its not babbling...its simply factual. You and the other leftists CONTINUE to vote for the same piece of **** rats that have run Chicago since 1937. You OWN that cesspool. You own the ****hole in Minneapolis. You just make yourself look stupid when you try to blame the people that are NOT in power and ignore the responsibility of the people YOU put in power and people like you have put in power for 83 years.

Your corrupt piece of **** rat politicians YOU vote for have been in power for over 8 decades, and all they managed to do is destroy the black American families.

YOU did that.
 
In my earlier reply to Felis Leo, there was an emotional sticking point that I could not put words to and thus did not put it in that original reply ... but here, I think you hit the nail in the head.

You made me think as you are correct, this has caused positive social change to happen for the long term ... :)

Perhaps it is the "we won't take this" aspect of it that gets embedded into society for a period of time after.

The politicians will ultimately be forced to listen and acquiesce to the peoples demands when the economies are shut down because there are millions of people in the streets and the cities are burning. This is the way it has always happen. We don't get social change with a dozen angry op-ed letters to the ABJ.

Look at the Stonewall riots, women rights, unions protests, civil rights riots (Hough riots in Cleveland) and then the Vietnam protests. A few people died but we got social change because the politicians were forced to listen.

I'm waiting for the anarchists to show up at Pelosi's mansion or Obama's or Clinton's. Somehow, I think the police would suddenly be quite popular again.

Why would they show up at Nancy's or Hillary's place when there are much more important targets elsewhere? Nancy could force the city of SF at address rent costs and homelessness but there are other people in California politics that are closer to home and more responsive.

Hillary has not been important for more than a decade, despite your obsession with her cankles and frumpy pantsuits.
 
Last edited:
What rights are being taken away by making black lives and other minorities matter and putting and end to police violence/abuse by holding cops accountable and demilitarizing the police forces?
There anarchists kiddies are about 1% of the protesters are are ultimately don't matter.

You need to learn what Marxism is because its the current boogeyman for conservatives because you dont understand it.

Uh huh. They don't want to reform the police. They want to get rid of them entirely. That can only lead to rampant criminality which will have law abiding people cowering in their homes with nobody to protect them and the leftists also want to keep them from protecting themselves by taking away their firearms. That's not freedom, that's enslavement. The people burning down cities are the face of this movement. If they weren't then somebody over there or in the Dem party would be loudly condemning them but they are not. I've been a student of history for most all my adult life and I know very well what Marxism is and what it looks like.
 
The politicians will ultimately be forced to listen and acquiesce to the peoples demands when the economies are shut down because there are millions of people in the streets and the cities are burning. This is the way it has always happen. We don't get social change with a dozen angry op-ed letters to the ABJ.

Look at the Stonewall riots, women rights, unions protests, civil rights riots (Hough riots in Cleveland) and then the Vietnam protests. A few people died but we got social change because the politicians were forced to listen.



Why would they show up at Nancy's or Hillary's place when there are much more important targets elsewhere? Nancy could force the city of SF at address rent costs and homelessness but there are other people in California politics that are closer to home and more responsive.

Hillary has not been important for more than a decade, despite your obsession with her cankles and frumpy pantsuits.

Hillary was your nominee 4 years ago but she hasn't been important for more than a decade? She wasn't important as SOS?
 
Hillary was your nominee 4 years ago but she hasn't been important for more than a decade? She wasn't important as SOS?

She was SOS from 2009-2013. She is very busy now as a private citizen running an underground pizza empire, redeveloping the Benghazi embassy as a falafel & koshari restaurant, and designing her pantsuit line.
 
She was SOS from 2009-2013. She is very busy now as a private citizen running an underground pizza empire, redeveloping the Benghazi embassy as a falafel & koshari restaurant, and designing her pantsuit line.

I see you couldn't scurry away from your claim fast enough. Thanks for admitting your error.
 
Uh huh. They don't want to reform the police. They want to get rid of them entirely. That can only lead to rampant criminality which will have law abiding people cowering in their homes with nobody to protect them and the leftists also want to keep them from protecting themselves by taking away their firearms. That's not freedom, that's enslavement. The people burning down cities are the face of this movement. If they weren't then somebody over there or in the Dem party would be loudly condemning them but they are not. I've been a student of history for most all my adult life and I know very well what Marxism is and what it looks like.

Nobody wants to get ride of them entirely. That would be ludicrous, so you need to stop being so literal in your thinking or finding a news source that doesn't lie to you.. Just because they use the word defunded doesn't mean that there would be no cops. The donuts and coffee shops would close without their patronage. Show some respect to bakers and baristas man.

The idea of defunding the police means to demilitarize them, hold them accountable and instead of them responding to domestic incidents have social workers and others who are more suited to those situations, plus using some of that money for economic means to preemption the violence by giving the poor economic and educational opportunities. It is only ignorant people ho think in black and white that believe that there would be no cops. It is about redefining their role, demilitarizing the police and holding them accountable for their actions with open civilian review.

You have no idea what Marxism is because you have been fed a steady diet of conservative lies about Marx. Karl Marx didn't mandate the idea of poor breadlines and dictatorships of eastern Europe or Russia so stop the BS. I have found very very few conservatives who can accurately tell the different between a total or mixed market private economy, that can be socialist, and capitalism.

I have a minor in political philosophy. I was asked to teach teach these concepts at my Alma-mater once but I have very severe social anxiety and it would have been a disaster, despite being very flattered to being asked.


I see you couldn't scurry away from your claim fast enough. Thanks for admitting your error.

I didn't scurry anywhere, so stop projecting. You and other conservatives seem to believe that sHillary Clinton is some evil American Rasputin looking to rise from the ashes of a failed political campaign and take over the US with Obama, Alinsky, AOC, and George Soros. I'll let you in on a little secret. Most liberals and progressives dont like her because she is far too conservative. 40 years ago Hillary would have been a centrist republican and she still is, despite what Fox News and Q'anon spoon feeds you.. She is not a far left radical. Hillary and John Kasich are a lot alike.
 
Last edited:
Nobody wants to get ride of them entirely. That would be ludicrous, so you need to stop being so literal in your thinking or finding a news source that doesn't lie to you.. Just because they use the word defunded doesn't mean that there would be no cops. The donuts and coffee shops would close without their patronage. Show some respect to bakers and baristas man.

The idea of defunding the police means to demilitarize them, hold them accountable and instead of them responding to domestic incidents have social workers and others who are more suited to those situations, plus using some of that money for economic means to preemption the violence by giving the poor economic and educational opportunities. It is only ignorant people ho think in black and white that believe that there would be no cops. It is about redefining their role, demilitarizing the police and holding them accountable for their actions with open civilian review.

You have no idea what Marxism is because you have been fed a steady diet of conservative lies about Marx. Karl Marx didn't mandate the idea of poor breadlines and dictatorships of eastern Europe or Russia so stop the BS. I have found very very few conservatives who can accurately tell the different between a total or mixed market private economy, that can be socialist, and capitalism.

I have a minor in political philosophy. I was asked to teach teach these concepts at my Alma-mater once but I have very severe social anxiety and it would have been a disaster, despite being very flattered to being asked.

Defunding = eliminating. There is no way around it. As for Marx, his ideas were ludicrous and unworkable and could only result in what actually happened. The worst part is that he led a very bourgeois life in England and was quite conscious of keeping up appearances and advancing himself in society. Engels, too. Then, they prescribed the destruction of the very system that gave them a comfortable life. They've been indirectly responsible for more human misery than just about anyone. As for socialism, what liberals like to point to as examples, such as the Scandinavian countries, are NOT socialist. They are capitalist with a few socialist trappings. They take exception to being called socialist.
 
:lamo

And again you attempt to do this ridiculous pathetic dodge to avoid the FACT that the same piece of **** rat politicians YOU vote for have been in power since 1937, and have created the ****holes YOU are responsible for. Trump doesnt have a ****ing thing to do with the cesspool YOU created in Chicago. Not a thing. Trump doesnt have a thing to do with the ****hole people like you created in Minneapolis. Thats ALL...100% YOU.

You did that. You can squirm and dance all you like...you just cant avoid the FACTS.

YOU did that.YOU created those ****holes.

Okay. So then why is he running for re-election on the premise that he can do.somethign about it?
 
Defunding = eliminating. There is no way around it. As for Marx, his ideas were ludicrous and unworkable and could only result in what actually happened. The worst part is that he led a very bourgeois life in England and was quite conscious of keeping up appearances and advancing himself in society. Engels, too. Then, they prescribed the destruction of the very system that gave them a comfortable life. They've been indirectly responsible for more human misery than just about anyone. As for socialism, what liberals like to point to as examples, such as the Scandinavian countries, are NOT socialist. They are capitalist with a few socialist trappings. They take exception to being called socialist.

Defunding is not eliminating. We simply spend too much on police and we assign them too much jurisdiction and involvement with issues theyre not best suited to deal with.

Teachers generally find themselves having to buy supplies for their classes that they should have to pay for. It's okay to funnel some of that urban assault vehicle money towards other goals in society.
 
Okay. So then why is he running for re-election on the premise that he can do.somethign about it?
The president can affect positive growth in the economy...that helps. Prior to the pandemic the nation was at all time lows for all minority groups and women. Jobs that Obama insisted couldnt come back were back and more coming. That is the role of the President. The president doesnt run cities. The president cant tell the corrupt rat ****s people like you vote for how to run Minneapolis, Chicago, Baltimore, Portland, and every other rat infested ****hole in this country.

The true dark comedy here is watching you ****ing 'people' supporting the very people that COULD but havent made the changes you insist you want even though they have been in power and had ALL the authority and ability to affect those changes fior DECADES. And rather than acknowledge the ****holes you people have spent decades creating and the inept piece of **** politicians you support, you **** yourself and shriek that Trump hasnt un****ed your miserable existence in 3 whole years.
 
Defunding = eliminating. There is no way around it. As for Marx, his ideas were ludicrous and unworkable and could only result in what actually happened. The worst part is that he led a very bourgeois life in England and was quite conscious of keeping up appearances and advancing himself in society. Engels, too. Then, they prescribed the destruction of the very system that gave them a comfortable life. They've been indirectly responsible for more human misery than just about anyone. As for socialism, what liberals like to point to as examples, such as the Scandinavian countries, are NOT socialist. They are capitalist with a few socialist trappings. They take exception to being called socialist.

This is a discussion about what defunding police means, from what you probably think is lefty-socialist NPR. You don't need your secret Bernie Sanders decoder ring to listen to our far left socialist plans.
Defunding The Police: What Would It Mean For The U.S.? : NPR

This is from the somewhat liberal Brookings think tank,
Defund the police” means reallocating or redirecting funding away from the police department to other government agencies funded by the local municipality. That’s it. It’s that simple. Defund does not mean
abolish policing. And, even some who say abolish, do not necessarily mean to do away with law enforcement altogether. Rather, they want to see the rotten trees of policing chopped down and fresh roots replanted anew.
Camden, New Jersey, is a good example. Nearly a decade ago, Camden disbanded (abolished) its police force and dissolved the local police union. This approach seems to be what Minneapolis will do in some form, though the nuances are important.

Different from abolishing and starting anew, defunding police highlights fiscal responsibility, advocates for a market-driven approach to taxpayer money, and has some potential benefits that will reduce police violence and crime. Below, I outline some of the main arguments for defunding the police.
Con't at What does ‘defund the police’ mean and does it have merit?
 
The objections to attacks on property are largely motivated by the defenders of the wrong police violence the protests are about, not being able to make arguments for defending them, but they want SOMETHING to argue and look right on, so they use the property attacks to change the subject from the police wrongs, and have something to say they feel right about.

What 'property violence is wrong' is usually actually saying is, 'shut up about the police violence'. That's not really an 'honest' discussion; it's more like people yelling 'shut up' over and over. 'Looters! vandals! Arsonists!' It's just 'shut up! shut up!'
 
The president can affect positive growth in the economy...that helps. Prior to the pandemic the nation was at all time lows for all minority groups and women. Jobs that Obama insisted couldnt come back were back and more coming. That is the role of the President. The president doesnt run cities. The president cant tell the corrupt rat ****s people like you vote for how to run Minneapolis, Chicago, Baltimore, Portland, and every other rat infested ****hole in this country.

The true dark comedy here is watching you ****ing 'people' supporting the very people that COULD but havent made the changes you insist you want even though they have been in power and had ALL the authority and ability to affect those changes fior DECADES. And rather than acknowledge the ****holes you people have spent decades creating and the inept piece of **** politicians you support, you **** yourself and shriek that Trump hasnt un****ed your miserable existence in 3 whole years.

So Donald Trump can’t do anything about this stuff ya’ll are so cranky over?
 
So Donald Trump can’t do anything about this stuff ya’ll are so cranky over?

Y'all? Cranky? Thats your collection of idiots burning and looting businesses and carrying on a 90 day **** parade in Portland.

I dont need the president to be the moral compass of the country. I dont need him to step in and fix city and state problems. I need a president to lead the executive branch. All that **** going on in those cities? YOU did that. Those are the piece of **** rat politicians you support and the mindless ANTIFA ****wits you embrace.
 
Y'all? Cranky? Thats your collection of idiots burning and looting businesses and carrying on a 90 day **** parade in Portland.

I dont need the president to be the moral compass of the country. I dont need him to step in and fix city and state problems. I need a president to lead the executive branch. All that **** going on in those cities? YOU did that. Those are the piece of **** rat politicians you support and the mindless ANTIFA ****wits you embrace.

Yeah yeah, I get it. This is all Democrats’ business.

So, again, why is Trump running on cities?
 
GOP logic: The country is a crime infested hellscape, and Democratic mayors are responsible.

GOP logic: Trump has no authority over a plague or crime, but you should vote for him so he can clean up the crime part tho.

You guys have given up. Your party platform is simply “Donald Trump” and your arguments reflect likewise now.
 
Yeah yeah, I get it. This is all Democrats’ business.

So, again, why is Trump running on cities?
Oh...I think there is definitely validity to pointing out the cities and the ****holes the rat party has made them. If people that werent mindlessly skull****ed by the rat party have the opportunity to see the cesspools the rat party has created it might impact some undecided voters. The mindless o-bots...no...they will do what they have always done...and they will get the same results. And then they will piss and moan and cry about wanting 'change'.
 
Back
Top Bottom