BLM quickly losing support

Why is that? The Founder of BLM disavows them. Democrats find that supporting BLM translates to supporting violence. So that Biden does not have to keep defending BLM, best to cut the ropes binding Democrats' to BLM and sending them flying into a dust heap.
Democrats' use Blacks. Write it down. They flat misuse Blacks. But once they are in power, Blacks get kicked to the curb.

I do not want you to defend Biden. Biden lies to you.

 

I mean I've heard this exact same argument again and again and again. BLM is a worldwide phenomenon now. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

BLMs former founder isn't the only one who's gone public to expose the fraud. Tamir Rice's mother is part of a group of victims moms that's critical of the organizations "mission". People that have learned the truth are forming their own groups that actually do substantive work VS promoting marxist ideology.

 

And...?

 

Flash in the pan...

 

They are not need and are increasingly a distraction that hurts the Democratic party. It is increasingly obvious to anyone actually paying attention that BLM is simply the latest incarnation of the S.A.

 

?

BLM is an important tool for mobilizing African Americans. The democrats rely on African American voters. Put two and two together and you can see why the GOP won't get the black vote anytime soon.

 

Ain't it starting to come out that money filling BLMs coffers is filling the pockets of BLMs hierarchy....a scam is a scam is a scam. Unless the DNC is getting a substantial cut as "political donations" BLM will tossed in the gutter quicker than a used Kleenex.

 

Wrong. Most if the business people BLM has ruined and burned out are black, most of the people doing burning under cover of BLM's anarchic bs are white

 

like Christianity, anyone can be part of BLM, good and bad

like Christianity, it's the violent fanatics that one has to worry about

same with musliminity, ect....

 

Well only 26,000,000 million people around the world supported the BLM, going to sure take a lot to quit I guess?

 

Prove that second claim then you can talk. Even then, that's not really the issue. The vast majority of protests were peaceful, and of those that were violent are going to follow general rules. They weren't black owned businesses, they were symbols of their oppression. A black man might own a gentrified store. Doesn't take away from the fact the neighborhood is gentrified and that's one of the causes for people to riot. Riots are natural disasters and needed to be treated as such. Democrats are willing to help rebuild and accomplish political goals at the same time. The violence accomplishes political goals, and that can be a great motivator to get stuff done. There's no reason to break up.

 

I support the NEW BLM.
Blue Lives Matter.

 

Again, Robert - the founders of BLM were three women, not this guy you keep parading around.

 

What do you mean by again???? He says he was the founder. Your argument is with him and not me.

 

So was Jan 6 a natural disaster too?

 

Wasn't a riot. It was an auto-golpe. Sloppy, but an auto-golpe nevertheless.

 

Since Democrats are so FOND OF PROTESTS INCLUDING RIOTS, why are they not in favor of the peaceful protests on Jan 6 at this nations Capitol?
I have been inside the capitol when there was extreme security and never was shot by the cops.

The cop that had the stroke died of natural causes.

 

No it wasn’t. They were armed to the teeth if they wanted an insurrection why didn’t they use their guns?

 

Wait you're saying that you were in the capital on Jan 6th? As in you're openly admitting to a crime?

Because it was... sloppy. Little coordination, too many civilians intermingling. Riots are localized to local conditions. This has too many elements of planning and groups moving into to attack. Think of it like a poorly planned march on Rome.

 

That doesn’t make any sense. They were coordinated by someone but they were sloppy... they had plenty of firearms and more than enough people to take over the capitol and yet they never fired a single shot.

That’s not a coup. That’s a bunch of pissed off people who did some property damage. That’s the definition of a riot.

 

First coups almost always fail. We know it was preplanned (which riots are almost never preplanned, remember localized conditions), and yet the planning was sloppy. Where were the secondary targets? Where was the attempt to get the military on their side, or to exploit divides in elites? They can't fire their guns... because they lack coordination, or there were few targets. Remember coups aren't always bloody, and they can be bloodless. They were probably expecting political help. Doesn't look good politically when you kill cops and defend cop killers.

 

The whole world is racist?

 

They'll find a new name for it next time they want to loot a Target store.

 

Imperialism has its legacy on people to this day all over the world, so... yeah kinda.