Will Trump be too weak to reduce tensions in Kenosha?

[uptower]

Trump says he plans to visit Kenosha in the midst of a situation in which right wing extremists and looters are increasingly facing off against each other in direct confrontations, resulting so far in several deaths. People are saying that the reason he hasn't tried to reduce tensions is because he's not strong enough to rise to the moment.

Will Trump be too weak to defuse increasing violence in Kenosha during his visit?

Bonus question: if he's too weak to reduce tensions peacefully, what good is he for?

Options:

1)Yes, he will be too weak to reduce tensions
2)No, he's strong enough and will in fact reduce tensions

Since he likely has no intention of reducing the violence to begin with, the question of weakness seems moot. He'll be going down there to take sides with law enforcement, militias and a nationwide audience of bitter white folks and deliver rhetoric that fans the flames of discord. It's a campaign stop photo-op, like his moment with the bible in front of the church, nothing more.

 

[ReubenSherr]

Since he likely has no intention of reducing the violence to begin with, the question of weakness seems moot. He'll be going down there to take sides with law enforcement, militias and a nationwide audience of bitter white folks and deliver rhetoric that fans the flames of discord. It's a campaign stop photo-op, like his moment with the bible in front of the church, nothing more.

The people in a position to “reduce the violence” are the BLM leaders who control the Democratic Party. And who are indirectly instigating this.

What is BLM doing to reduce the violence?

 

[Chomsky]

It’s already “selling,” because it’s true.

These issues with racist cops are all coming from Democratically run cities.

Which is why the poll numbers are moving in Trump’s direction, especially in states most affected by violent rioting.

It’s funny how liberals assume Democrats could not possibly be divisive or corrupt, when they are.

It’s not projection, Chomsky.

Wake up and take a look at your own party.

I've seen some movement in the polls, and with the possible convention bounces I'll wait a bit to see where it goes.

But with Trump, all I see is a guy who causes and/or exasperates problems, then after a PR blitz claims he fixed the problem he caused or heightened. It's like a pyro fire-fighter. Starts a fire to put it out.

As to Trump 'solving' the violent protests problem by 'sending in the troops'? Sending in the troops does little if he doesn't address the underlying problems. The tinderbox remains, only with more anger. We saw this with Portland, where Trump's troops fanned the flames until he was forced to back down to save his having anymore egg on his face.

I see Donald Trump's America, and I don't want any more of it. You keep it. From failed pandemic response, to the subsequent crashed economy, to the schools that can't open, to his fanning the flames of civil unrest, unable to effect any solution - bar threatening to declare martial law. No - Donald Trump's America is not for me. Four years is enough. America has never been worse in my lifetime. I can't imagine what four more would do.

 

[Cardinal]

The people in a position to “reduce the violence” are the BLM leaders who control the Democratic Party. And who are indirectly instigating this.

What is BLM doing to reduce the violence?

So what you're saying is that BLM, people with no military and no more funding than you or me, is stronger than the President of the United States of America?

Are you aware of how weak and pathetic you make trump out to be?

 

[Waddy]

Quit trying to blame Trump. Blame yourselves. Your people got out of hand. They've jumped off the Democrat Plantation. Now you can't control them and they are costing you support. They might burn **** down right up to the election, which will be a disaster for your side. That's why you're pissed now. You don't give a rat's ass about all the property damage and ordinary people getting hurt and killed. You're hypocrites.

 

[Cardinal]

Quit trying to blame Trump. Blame yourselves. Your people got out of hand. They've jumped off the Democrat Plantation. Now you can't control them and they are costing you support. They might burn **** down right up to the election, which will be a disaster for your side. That's why you're pissed now. You don't give a rat's ass about all the property damage and ordinary people getting hurt and killed. You're hypocrites.

You're missing the point. Trump isn't strong enough to earn "blame." He's too weak for that.

 

[Waddy]

You're missing the point. Trump isn't strong enough to earn "blame." He's too weak for that.

Then do like I said, quit blaming him.

 

[Cardinal]

Then do like I said, quit blaming him.

Trump is far too impotent to be given "blame." He's too pathetic for that.

 

[Glowpun]

Trump says he plans to visit Kenosha in the midst of a situation in which right wing extremists and looters are increasingly facing off against each other in direct confrontations, resulting so far in several deaths. People are saying that the reason he hasn't tried to reduce tensions is because he's not strong enough to rise to the moment.

Will Trump be too weak to defuse increasing violence in Kenosha during his visit?

Bonus question: if he's too weak to reduce tensions peacefully, what good is he for?

Options:

1)Yes, he will be too weak to reduce tensions
2)No, he's strong enough and will in fact reduce tensions

From what I have seen out o Trump these past 3.5 years, the guy is just not presidential material. Period. Even if here were smart enough to know something, he just does not have what it takes.

 

[Glowpun]

The people in a position to “reduce the violence” are the BLM leaders who control the Democratic Party. And who are indirectly instigating this.

What is BLM doing to reduce the violence?

To reduce the violence they are having to arm themselves against Trump's brown shirts otherwise knows as the extremist right wing.

 

[Waddy]

Trump is far too impotent to be given "blame." He's too pathetic for that.

You keep drinking that Koolaid. Biden's got this election in the bag !!!!! No need for you to even vote. Stay home, stay safe, keep warm.

 

[Moderate Right]

Trump says he plans to visit Kenosha in the midst of a situation in which right wing extremists and looters are increasingly facing off against each other in direct confrontations, resulting so far in several deaths. People are saying that the reason he hasn't tried to reduce tensions is because he's not strong enough to rise to the moment.

Will Trump be too weak to defuse increasing violence in Kenosha during his visit?

Bonus question: if he's too weak to reduce tensions peacefully, what good is he for?

Options:

1)Yes, he will be too weak to reduce tensions
2)No, he's strong enough and will in fact reduce tensions

You are asking a question about the future. What we do know, 100% for certain, is that Democrat's strategies don't reduce tensions. They have been rioting in Portland every single day for over three months.

 

[switt]

I'm not sure I'd characterize as to weak, after all he could just nuke the place. I think he just lacks the skills.

 

[ReubenSherr]

As to Trump 'solving' the violent protests problem by 'sending in the troops'? Sending in the troops does little if he doesn't address the underlying problems. The tinderbox remains, only with more anger. We saw this with Portland, where Trump's troops fanned the flames until he was forced to back down to save his having anymore egg on his face.

When you talk about addressing the underlying problems in the context of violent protestors, you are validating violent protest.

This is exactly why protests are turning violent on a consistent basis. Violent protestors have the impression that the Democratic Party will have their backs.

Kamala Harris was even involved in helping bail violent protestors out of prison. Chris Cuomo on CNN stated that protests don’t have to be peaceful. The entire theme of the DNC was “Rise Up.”

Only after Biden is defeated will protestors realize that if they choose violence, no one will stand up for them.

 

[Kreton]

Trump says he plans to visit Kenosha in the midst of a situation in which right wing extremists and looters are increasingly facing off against each other in direct confrontations, resulting so far in several deaths. People are saying that the reason he hasn't tried to reduce tensions is because he's not strong enough to rise to the moment.

Will Trump be too weak to defuse increasing violence in Kenosha during his visit?

Bonus question: if he's too weak to reduce tensions peacefully, what good is he for?

Options:

1)Yes, he will be too weak to reduce tensions
2)No, he's strong enough and will in fact reduce tensions

Trump is a very weak and pathetic piece of ****.

 

[Chomsky]

When you talk about addressing the underlying problems in the context of violent protestors, you are validating violent protest.

This is exactly why protests are turning violent on a consistent basis. Violent protestors have the impression that the Democratic Party will have their backs.

Kamala Harris was even involved in helping bail violent protestors out of prison. Chris Cuomo on CNN stated that protests don’t have to be peaceful. The entire theme of the DNC was “Rise Up.”

Only after Biden is defeated will protestors realize that if they choose violence, no one will stand up for them.

No, not at all. And that's why Trump will never succeed here, because all he knows how to do is throw authoritative force at the problem, rather than address the root causes or even attempt to explore the root causes.

 

[ReubenSherr]

No, not at all. And that's why Trump will never succeed here, because all he knows how to do is throw authoritative force at the problem, rather than address the root causes or even attempt to explore the root causes.

When you address root causes of violent protestors, you are validating violence as a form of social reform.

Tim Scott is trying to get a police reform bill through the Senate BTW, and Democrats are interfering with its passage. Why? Because if police reform is passed under Trump, they fear it will benefit the Republicans.

Which is why I don’t think this is really all about police reform. It’s about BLM mandating that we have a black American in the White House.

If people feel this strongly about it, vote Trump, and then in 2024 we’ll run Tim Scott.

 

[Chomsky]

When you address root causes of violent protestors, you are validating violence as a form of social reform.

Tim Scott is trying to get a police reform bill through the Senate BTW, and Democrats are interfering with its passage. Why? Because if police reform is passed under Trump, they fear it will benefit the Republicans.

Not at all. The root problems/concerns are shared by both the legit protesters and (perhaps) the rioters. The problem(s) still needs to be addressed. A problem's a problem, regardless of the populace's actions.

Which is why I don’t think this is really all about police reform. It’s about BLM mandating that we have a black American in the White House.

If people feel this strongly about it, vote Trump, and then in 2024 we’ll run Tim Scott.

I agree. It's about police reform, and also economic inequality, economic-suffering during the pandemic, social-suffering during the pandemic, along with some criminals who are taking advantage of the situation and some who are just plain old anarchists..

 

[ReubenSherr]

Not at all. The root problems/concerns are shared by both the legit protesters and (perhaps) the rioters. The problem(s) still needs to be addressed. A problem's a problem, regardless of the populace's actions.

I agree. It's about police reform, and also economic inequality, economic-suffering during the pandemic, social-suffering during the pandemic, along with some criminals who are taking advantage of the situation and some who are just plain old anarchists..

Then why would Democrats prefer having no bill at all to helping Tim Scott pass whatever police reform legislation constitutes the first initial step?

Not many other ways you can take this except Democrats cannot afford to have Republicans credited with any part of the police reform process.

 

[Chomsky]

Then why would Democrats prefer having no bill at all to helping Tim Scott pass whatever police reform legislation constitutes the first initial step?

Not many other ways you can take this except Democrats cannot afford to have Republicans credited with any part of the police reform process.

Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the bill you mention.