US protests - what would you do?

Agreed. Play time is over.

Priv wrote:

ok, so it's pretty clear that threatening protesters (both those exercising their first amendment and those looting) with guns, dogs and the army and using tear gas to get to a church to stage a fake photo is probably making things worse, not helping.

It's easy to criticize those in power - it's harder to offer constructive alternatives. So if you were in the White House, what would you do?

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

I think this is reasonable. We saw what the President did with Coronavirus. He started up two task forces. An official one, and then whatever Jared Kushner was doing on the side. You could do the same thing regarding systemic racism in America. Get community leaders, law enforcement, governors, mayors, maybe some academics from the appropriate fields of study. Have them meet and come up with proposals. Do press briefings. Let the people in the streets know they are heard and you're taking action.

That would defuse the situation a lot more than threats and shows of force, and may actually lead to some progress.

No matter what happens there will always be complaints, but why not get more minorities in to law enforcement and try and have them govern and clean up their communities? Then at least there wouldn't be the blaming and racial issues that get blown out of proportion like we are seeing now. Also get more employed as community workers, street department workers and parks and rec workers to create jobs and try and create some pride for their neighborhoods.

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

I think this is reasonable. We saw what the President did with Coronavirus. He started up two task forces. An official one, and then whatever Jared Kushner was doing on the side. You could do the same thing regarding systemic racism in America. Get community leaders, law enforcement, governors, mayors, maybe some academics from the appropriate fields of study. Have them meet and come up with proposals. Do press briefings. Let the people in the streets know they are heard and you're taking action.

That would defuse the situation a lot more than threats and shows of force, and may actually lead to some progress.

That sounds really sensible - find the people who can represent the view of the first amendment protesters and openly and publicly welcome a proper dialogue

Priv wrote:

ok, so it's pretty clear that threatening protesters (both those exercising their first amendment and those looting) with guns, dogs and the army and using tear gas to get to a church to stage a fake photo is probably making things worse, not helping.

It's easy to criticize those in power - it's harder to offer constructive alternatives. So if you were in the White House, what would you do?

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

Disagree on last point. There is no rationale behind your demand that "FIRST I need the streets calm."

The right approach is to push all of these simultaneously.

Priv wrote:

ok, so it's pretty clear that threatening protesters (both those exercising their first amendment and those looting) with guns, dogs and the army and using tear gas to get to a church to stage a fake photo is probably making things worse, not helping.

It's easy to criticize those in power - it's harder to offer constructive alternatives. So if you were in the White House, what would you do?

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

The answer would be "F u it's too late for listening". Now start again, What would you do?

Priv wrote:

ok, so it's pretty clear that threatening protesters (both those exercising their first amendment and those looting) with guns, dogs and the army and using tear gas to get to a church to stage a fake photo is probably making things worse, not helping.

It's easy to criticize those in power - it's harder to offer constructive alternatives. So if you were in the White House, what would you do?

My take would be:

- I understand that you're angry

- I will listen to your grievances

- I will try to help

- But first I need the streets calm

^^Seems absolutely reasonable. One could only hypothesize the president has no interest in diffusing the situation.

The Number Why wrote:

Disagree on last point. There is no rationale behind your demand that "FIRST I need the streets calm."

The right approach is to push all of these simultaneously.

that might be fair - though the leverage of dialogue in exchange for calm (quid pro quo :-D) might be persuasive to the community leaders and spokespeople and they might be able to have some influence on the wider communities.

Everydog wrote:

The answer would be "F u it's too late for listening". Now start again, What would you do?

It probably would the answer from some people. Those people aren't going to get into a dialogue whatever happens. Let's start with the easier, more reasonable people who are open to constructively moving forward rather than destroying and looting, yes?

If we get 70% of people calm, that's a win.

What would you do?

I think a lot of people were calm enough, maybe 70%. I don't know what to do. I don't even know what to suggest as far as short term when these things happen.

Long term I am kind of buying into a basic living wage.

I like this thread so far. I think we need to remember two things:

1. I don't think the violence is being perpetrated by the true protesters

2. I don't think anyone wants to work alongside the president

Taking those things into consideration, the situation may be more difficult than your plan of action, but it is worth a try.

It is time for us - all of us - to recognize the original sin of the USA. We need to make amends and that will need to involve a lot of people coming together. It will require trust and transparency.

I think Trump needs to reach across the aisle and ask someone trustworthy to begin the process. Trump cannot do this himself, obviously. Pence cannot do this. Ivanka cannot do this. I believe Obama could do this, but he may not want to. We need someone who is willing to take a risk, someone who is not worried about re-election, someone who can stand above the politics and bickering and DO WORK. We need a true leader. It is a Herculean task, but I think 90% of our population would line up behind that person like Moses if they had the ability to articulate the message in the right way.

Priv wrote:

If we get 70% of people calm, that's a win.

70% (or more) of the people are already calm. There are only a small number of agitators intent on escalating animosity and uninterested in addressing the root issues.

Sadly one of them is the president.

If so many decent black Americans , and less than perfect but not criminal thug black people were not racially profiled , maybe we would society would have a better chance of staying calm when these things happen.

The guy in La Mesa California wasn't even roughed up , It looked like he was racially profiled , expected to like it, was then bullied and blamed for and arrested for assault of a police officer.

Stop these things.

I think cops should work together and at each incidence on is the the cop and one is a referee. They can take turns at roles until they all learn it well. Dispatchers when they get calls about blacks can try to determine if racial profiling is being done by the caller. Nip it in the bud.

UsedToBeKnowItAll wrote:

I think this is reasonable. We saw what the President did with Coronavirus. He started up two task forces. An official one, and then whatever Jared Kushner was doing on the side. You could do the same thing regarding systemic racism in America. Get community leaders, law enforcement, governors, mayors, maybe some academics from the appropriate fields of study. Have them meet and come up with proposals. Do press briefings. Let the people in the streets know they are heard and you're taking action.

That would defuse the situation a lot more than threats and shows of force, and may actually lead to some progress.

This is true. Unfortunately a lot of Americans turn off when governors or academics speak against something they believe. They'll soon be calling them deep state, cultural marxist, antifa supporting academics with an agenda. It'll rile them up even more.

There's nothing 1 president can do to eliminate racism but I think to address this most recent issues the President should:

1) recognize the police often operate like paid thugs. Govt needs to stop treating and arming them like soldiers.

2) commit to reform of criminal laws, i.e. you're more likely to be criminalized for dealing drugs or for sex work but traffickers or middle class users/clients are less likely to be caught.

3) recognize crimes are not always commited by 'bad' people. Crime is not one homogenous phenomenon, it encompasses a wide range of behavior which can be found everywhere. Drug users or shop lifters often need healthcare not prison time.

It seems African Americans are over-policed and as a result more are being killed by cops. If a president committed to these things it would begin to address the problem.

Blacks comprise only 12% of the population. A fair number of that population is not calm right now. A smaller percentage of the white population is not calm. I estimate the total in the country that is not calm to be about 10%.

I don't mean that 30% of the population is rioting. I mean getting 70% of the rioters calm would be a win. Most of them, most of the time, would be mostly law-abiding people.

Agree that this is deep-rooted, and that the police don't help themselves, and that profiling is common. I don't think it's as simple as sorting the police:

- why are the police profiling? because statistically pro-rata, there is more violent crime committed in poor communities with a high concentration of black and minority ethnic people

why? Because for many years these people have been disadvantaged by the welfare, education, healthcare and criminal justice systems so in many cases people getting money to feed their kids means that sometimes they operate outside the laws that were written by people unlike them and designed to keep them in their place.

why? Because people with wealth and power often want to conserve that wealth and power so they divide people who threaten that status quo and treat them as 'other'.

We need to work across the historical boundaries - as said up ^ there - led by someone who doesn't need to keep a party or a voter base happy and recognise that if we make life better for the most disadvantaged in society, we make life better for all of us

This is an excellent thread

I would have gone to Minneapolis. I would have sat down with local government and community leaders. I would have said I’m hear to listen. I would have stated how can we prevent this from happening anymore? I would have stated that I will use whatever resources I have as President to help. I would not have posted about it on Twitter. Instead I would have made an official statement that displayed empathy and solidarity with the family and friends of the victim.

The thing is I don’t think Trump is capable of this. I actually believe he is on the autistic spectrum. He is not able to see from others perspectives. He believes the world revolves around him. He appears to only care about reelection. Thus why he is flashing a Bible to appeal to white evangelical voters instead of doing the aforementioned.

I’m greatly concerned with this coming election. Especially with the safety of my family. This country has become extremely volatile and we need calm leadership. Unfortunately we are not receiving that.

Bring in a mediator.

The trust in authority is so eroded right now in the US that I would consult with the UN to possibly bring in an international peacekeeping force to help us through this time of crisis.

Despite recent international difficulties the US has many long lasting relationships with allies who are still willing to assist.

This is the best thread I have read on this forum in a long time.