Why does the majority of rioting occur in Democrat run cities?

1. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   
   Why do Democrats seem to like their cities being burned, looted and having riots?  In the most recent burning, looting and rioting, Democrat mayors and even governors seemed to not only refuse to end the riots, they participated with the rioters.  Is this what Democrats call leadership?  It seems as if Democrats have little or no respect for those who pay taxes and run businesses.  After a city is destroyed by rioting it takes years to recover.  Most cities will never get back to the success they had before a riot.  Do the Democrat leaders actually comprehend what they are doing to their city and its citizens?
   
   https://www.newsbreak.com/nevada/las-ve … ests-riots

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Because Those in charge of those cities do nothing to stop it. Sooner or later it's going to get through the thick heads of those politicians that the rioters are not their friends, do not share their political ideology and will always turn on them and never support them.
      
      I just hope the American taxpayer never has to foot the bill for the destruction of those cities and I hope decent people begin the exodus.

      replyreport
      1. 94

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Of course the taxpayer will foot the bill - who else would do it?
         
         But I have wondered - if a major federal building is destroyed, wouldn't that make a nice chunk of federal money coming into the city to rebuild it?  Has that thought crossed the minds of local (Democrat) politicians demanding that those buildings NOT be protected, that they be given to the rioters for their pleasure?

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            They are destroying so many businesses, many of these businesses will not rebuild or consider anything but leaving a gaping hole in the landscape. The cities involved will be left to look like war zones. It the citizens rebuild that will be on their dime. Every day I calculate in my head how much this will end up cost the taxpayers of the cities involved. However, it does not appear they care, one does not hear of any cries from the citizens of the cities involved. So, guess many are behind all the crazy. Can't even imagine the loss of property value in these cities.

            replyreport
            1. 94

               wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               It will be declared an emergency need and the feds will foot the bill.  Until the next time it happens; after people are trained to riot and burn they aren't going to stop.
               
               Except perhaps where federal forces stop it by force; they might learn with a little jail time and some fines big enough to hurt them as badly as they have hurt others.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  I have to agree. Trump will most likely declare it an emergency and have to step in to stop the violence.  He will then be able to tally up the bill and campaign on the sad fact that these Democratic cities lack to control their problems are costing "us all" money. 
                  
                  Either way, the Dems lose due to poor decision making. They always look so foolish. Not sure how or why anyone would support this kind of violence and underlying cause to attempt to overthrow the Government.  Dangerous game.

                  replyreport
                  1. 94

                     wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     With their insistence of appeasement over law enforcement they already look incredibly foolish.  Hard to believe they could look any worse than they already do...unless you're a liberal and share the concept that breaking the law is alright if your cause is just.  Or if it's not - doesn't seem to matter much.

                     replyreport
                     1. 81

                        Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I keep wondering if those who are doing the looting/rioting/smashing/burning are kids who have gone nuts from too much screen time.

                        replyreport
   2. 82

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think a better question would be why do they 'allow' it. It seems a bit prejudicial to say that they "like" it. But whatever way you phrase it, the question of "why" is a valid one.
      
      And yes, I think this is what they call "leadership." Pandering to 'the people' regardless of the economic reality, and the reality of the examples of history.
      
      Wilderness' use of "paying the Dane-geld" is a good example of the repeated results of such Democrat actions, as in, can you show any city's success story when they follow the route of Seattle or San Fransisco, or Portland?
      
      The poem that originated his term explains it nicely in its last three stanzas:
      
      ". . . And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
        But we've  proved it again and  again,
      That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
        You never get rid of the Dane.
      
      It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
        For fear they should succumb and go astray;
      So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
        You will find it better policy to say: --
      
      "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
        No matter how trifling the cost;
      For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
        And the nation that pays it is lost!"
      
      I think San Fransisco was the first city to adopt, (in the 70s), this trend, and just look where it stands now.
      
      GA

      replyreport
   3. 86

      Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think the Democratic leaders care much about anything but getting Trump out. They have done everything they could possibly do and now have hoped this violent rioting they call peaceful protests just might be a card they can play in the election.  They have not considered that this kind of supported violence to over through our Government buildings is abhorrent to the majority of American citizens. Perhaps many feeling the protests are more of a ploy to over through the Government. Pretty scary stuff.
      
      They could care less about their citizens or their tax dollar, they don't have the common sense to consider where all these riots will lead.
      
      The Dems can only do one thing to recover and rebuild after they decide to maintain peace, and that is a nice big tax increase on the citizens, as Joe has stated he is planning for all of us. Guess these fools will get a big double hit on their taxes. Common sense is such a problem for left-leaning citizens.
      
      To answer the question, they don't comprehend much of anything, they have no common sense what so ever. LOL, They do one thing well, dummy down those that are like them.

      replyreport
2. 99

   dougwest1posted 4 years ago

   I'm just thankful I don't live in a city like Portland or Seattle. All the rioting has to lower property values and make the good people of the city want to leave.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed, many do leave... from NY to CA the exodus from these Democratic 'havens' is at all time highs currently.
      
      These people are fleeing to places like Florida, Texas, and low population states like MO and WY.
      
      Here in Florida, in the county I live and work in, prices are still rising on property despite the looming Recession and Covid issues threatening... this is a prime area to "escape" to, and this is also an affordable area (compared to CA and NY) to move to.
      
      Trying to find a bargain here in this market is impossible right now.

      replyreport
3. 94

   wildernessposted 4 years ago

   Perhaps a look at one typical Democrat run city would be helpful.  Portland, Or., maybe.
   
   We see a mayor participating in a riot (at the very front of the riot) that got bad enough he was tear gassed.
   
   The mayor told rioters "I think what we're doing tonight is actually the best thing we can do right now,".
   
   A city that bans police from working with federal law enforcement, first in controlling illegal "immigration" and now in protecting the city from rioters.  Law is not a consideration to them.
   
   A city that passes laws forbidding arrest of those participating in riots if they but claim they are "journalists" (writing on HubPages, maybe?) or are "peaceful", at least for the moment.  (Will the driver of a getaway car for bank robbers be set free next, as a non-participant?)
   
   Local politicians taking their personal security force to visit a riot, but refusing protection for the people of the city.
   
   A mayor that deems using non-lethal means (tear gas) to protect property as an "egregious overreaction"...while the rest of the city burns.
   
   A mayor that says property must not be protected because it is not "de-escalation" - appeasement is far preferable to protection of the public or its property.
   
   Bottom line: these people (Democrat or not) live in a different reality, one where loud voices and violence are to be given whatever they want.  Law and order is to be set aside in the appeasement policy, and violence is not only condoned but encouraged.  A reality where their job is more important than their city, where the people electing them don't matter.  Only the loud voices of idiots demanding anarchy.  They "pay the Danegeld" without being smart enough to recognize the effects of that action.
   
   https://www.foxnews.com/us/portland-may … ng-session

   replyreport
4. 96

   Readmikenowposted 4 years ago

   I think it is a prime example of the sheer utter incompetence of Democrat leaders.  This is the party of Maxine Waters, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Hank (Guam is going to tip over) Johnson and others.  I suppose we can't expect anything stable or successful with them.  We can hope, but that is about all.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Somewhere (Oregon?) one of the Mayors that got elected ran as an Antifa candidate... so its less about incompetence and more about Communist, Marxist, Anarchist, "revolutionary" movements taking hold in a large enough percentage of the populace to make an impact.
      
      Look when you have hundreds of Universities pumping out graduates that have degrees in Social Justice and like minded criteria, how can you expect anything less than the growing anarchy we are seeing today?
      
      https://medium.com/@mtracey/two-months- … a7e3e4e006

      replyreport
5. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   ...but to keep it up night after night,
   I think they are being paid.

   replyreport
6. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   I also suspect the planet has been taken over by aliens.

   replyreport
7. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   ... through the internet.

   replyreport
8. 81

   Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

   And (American) Dems have REALLY been taken over by aliens.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   I find it interesting that not one overt liberal here on hub pages has commented in this thread. It tells me there is no excuse and no justification for the failures in the democratic controlled cities.

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Experience has taught me when the left is confronted by the truth, they avoid it at all costs.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

         IT appears this to be true. If the narrative is something they can't defend they flip the subject or ignore the subject. I prefer it when they openly discuss, which some actually do here. I always like to be able to hear both sides.
         
         In regards to the question --- "Why does the majority of rioting occur in Democrat-run cities?"
         
         It well appears that this kind of rioting is accepted by the liberal citizens of the Dem cities. They are of the mindset there is nothing wrong with fighting for a cause. They vote in representatives that represent their mindset. It is apparent they have not requested any outside help, and are furious that Trump has sent in troops to protect our Federal buildings. They want them torn down, burned. This might lead one to conclude they hope to do away with our government, our Constitution. On the other hand, the citizens of these dem cities may just be afraid to speak up...
         
         I mean would anyone want these thugs on their doorstep? Many of these far-left states have talked about seceding from America. Perhaps this is a good idea. It certainly would solve the nightly protesting and the destruction of their cities or would it?

         replyreport
10. 81

    Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years ago

    Apparently, on some level these cities have complied with someone, or some force, whether it be a political party or an economic influence.
    "Someone" is paying the rioters, looters, burners and smashers. (They do not shoot, so as to not be shot.)
    The leaders of these blue cities/states have agreed to what we see going on.
    
    How come? Is the question.

    replyreport
    1. 86

       Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

       You may be giving this bunch to much credit. In my view the liberal ideology that the Mayor's and Governors have adopted in regards to "let the protester/rioters" do what they feel they need to protest their cause. I am not sure anymore about what that cause is?  I am very sure if they brought their part into a red state they would be met with Mayors and governors that would keep law and order. To answer your question--- It certainly is evident that the Mayors and Governors support the protesters as well as the rioters. They have required the police to stand down.

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          You said the mayors and governors support the protestors and rioters because they wish to separate themselves from this nation. Why do they want to do away with our constitution and our form of government?
          
          Someone else mentioned it is because they are on the moral side of the issues.
          
          So, what is that "moral side" ? To senselessly destroy people and property and express delirious anger for the sake of standing in solidarity against one cop who was a bad apple amongst the many good cops who keep us safe and sound and maintain civility and peace on a daily basis??
          Is it moral to defund the police?
          Or make them inferior in power and number?

          replyreport
11. 61

    pcthoughtsposted 4 years ago

    Because rioting (in part) is an unfortunate by-product of peaceful protesting that was completely ignored. So, to answer your question, frankly, it's because Democratic leaders are the only ones right now with the audacity to stand on the moral side of social issues.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Kathryn L Hillposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Its one thing to be a conscientious objector; its another thing to be a protester.
       Protesting by its nature is not peaceful.
       It is passive aggressiveness, which leads to aggressiveness.
       Protestors, therefore, should go home and clear the way for true peace.
       
       But they do not.
       
       Instead, they roll out the red carpet to the looting, burning and destruction of public and private property and the maiming of innocent bystanders and local and federal police.

       replyreport
    2. 96

       Readmikenowposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       "Democratic leaders are the only ones right now with the audacity to stand on the moral side of social issues."
       
       I disagree.  I believe Democrat leaders are the only ones willing to permit lawlessness and destruction of private property.  They are the ones with cities in ashes and cinders.  Their approach may do more harm to their side of moral issues than help.
       
       Their approach is not only unsuccessful...it displays complete and total incompetence in leadership.

       replyreport
       1. 87

          LADS Familyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yep.

          replyreport
    3. 86

       Sharlee01posted 4 years agoin reply to this

       The audacity, a willingness to take bold risks. Is it moral or even can it even be considered common sense to tackle the problem of police violence with violence against our Government?  Not sure if these protesters are even aware of what they are protesting for any longer. They have unleashed their anger at the federal government buildings. The Federal Government has no power or legal ability to tackle police reform. The individual States are responsible for that reform.
       
       It appears to be the agitators have hijacked the protest, and made it a quest to overthrow our Federal Government.  In my view promoting any form of violence that has caused injury to over 150 Homeland security officers resembles anything moral.

       replyreport
    4. 70

       Ken Burgessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

       Interesting perspective.
       
       Kind of similar then to the belief that "looting is reparations" and not a crime.
       
       I like to think there are more reasonable viewpoints, hopefully the majority of people are of similar mind about these matters as expressed in the video below.
       
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE5qEwY5Zwg

       replyreport
       1. 94

          wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          "First I will tell you what I want.  And then, if you do not give it to me, I will turn violent and destroy anything I can reach.  I will also, to the limit of my ability, remove any of your ability to protect yourself from my rampage."
          
          Your video is one of the saddest things I've seen yet in this entire thing.  To remove a person's ability to protect themselves, because they let it be known they had the capability in the face of a violent riot, is beyond my comprehension.

          replyreport