Its hard to separate the actual protesters and the people just their to observe at this point.
That's the problem in $CURRENT_YEAR. People attending a protest with the sincere desire to voice their feelings and demand action now get drowned out by the extremists on both sides of the issue at best and find themselves caught in a crossfire of violence at worst. I think that's why many normies shy away from protests these days -- because of the groups that attend solely to provoke altercations.
Still, I'll agree that Diego is the rare exception that actually wants to make his part of the world a better place by actively doing something that makes a difference. It's hard not to respect that, and I hope his unemployment ends soon.
Will this image ever not be relevant and do they seriously think Christianity has never had that debate before? I wish they'd at least be honest with themselves that they're just adherents of a new religion called BLM now and worshipping graven images of George Floyd if any of them even remember who he is at this point.
Even though I'm sure these folks have a retort for it, I can't help wondering if they overlook Mark 12:14-17 where the Pharisees try to catch Jesus in a Catch-22 when they ask which is more important: The law of the land or religious law. Jesus' TL;DR response is "Strive to obey both" which is what they neither expected nor wanted to hear.
I've seen this come up in terms of immigration when the local clergy tend to release a statement each year suggesting that the Christian thing to do is to overlook illegal immigration if the people are oppressed in some way. There's still laws in place that spell out how to cross the border and seek asylum legally. Laws still have to be obeyed lest society devolve into pure chaos (as we've seen in CHOP and its spinoffs).
The attack on how people depict Jesus is so disgusting. How dare they try to destroy beautiful historic art worth more than any of their miserable, empty lives?
Regardless of spirituality, the fact people are so quick to vandalized or destroy irreplaceable artwork should be cause for concern. The argument that images of problematic historic figures deserve to be destroyed is a slippery slope; what happens should the people they look up to as historical figures face erasure because their pasts are somehow deemed problematic in the futrue?
Did the black security official just kick a restrained detainee?
Right off the bat I see three violations of #8CANTWAIT.
Yet another example of the "Rules for thee, not for me," mentality these groups espouse. As further evidence, look at their, "It's OK when
we do it" attitude they have towards doxing and cancelling their critics.
Bah, he's a big softy. His problem is he's too nice.
He seemed to know enough to know that the best response to Kim Jong-Un's saber rattling was more of the same. Even if the USA/PRK relationship has chilled a bit since the milestone meeting at the Demilitarized Zone, the fact he was able to defuse the situation without armed conflict is still impressive. Maybe he is too nice at times, but he's usually unafraid to call out who or what he hates.
Said he told the Republicans they had to get tougher, bragged that he stopped violence in DC twice... and didn't answer the man's question.
This is something both main US Political Parties do. I'm not sure if my state's governor still has daily COVID-19 press conferences, but she loved to give long non-answers to legitimate yet pointed questions about when stuff would reopen or why certain places reopened ahead of others that seemingly had a lower risk of infection.
If you want to reduce a risk of a blood bath you surprise them.
Especially in today's social media age where press conferences go viral in real-time (or pretty near close to it) for all, including those being targeted, to see/hear/etc. Why tip off a target unnecessarily even tough today's mainstream media feels it has the right to know every minuscule detail of everything?
Granted I haven't watched it, nor do I follow Trump closely nor am I a massive fan of Trump, but if voter-fraud prevention is a major concern much like what I said above in a previous post you don't want to announce your plans before hand/give your enemies enough time to find how to exploit the flaws in the system.
Realistically, I'm not sure how serious mail vote fraud is. I know those arguing on either extreme are wrong, but nobody on either side of the debate seems willing to admit the reality is somewhere in the middle in this era where "compromise" is treated as an undesirable four letter word.
Personally, I think the biggest issues with sending ballots through the mail are (1) the lack of reliable mail service presently seen in various part of the country and (2) the occasional postal carrier that's found to be hording or otherwise not delivering mail properly whether by choice or some sort of mental issue. Regardless, I'll agree with
@stupidpieceofshit that it's best to keep internal control methods under wraps as much as possible to -- as they put it -- keep them from finding "flaws in the system."