UNDGrad06

All of these jumps to conclusions are so beautiful! Could it be possible that the Reverend hates all of those things, and also doesn't want their church being used as a political photo opportunity? That is an option you know.

Wait? Is this your position, or mine? If it is your position, this is a free country and you are allowed believe whatever you want to believe. That is the great thing about America! If you are saying it is my position, it has missed the mark completely.

So I give my position on one very specific situation on how to potentially not escalate the matter, thus keeping everyone (police, protester, and President) as safe as possible in that situation, and I am now giving out hugs in my community? Nowhere have I given my position one the protests, the violence that has sprung up around the protests, or the incident that has led to the current events. It seems as if nuance is not only dead, but it has been beaten to death by jumps in logic and painting with broad strokes.

Still doesn't make it a good strategy. Why were the, on all accounts, peaceful protesters being asked to disperse 15 minutes before the mandated curfew? Was an unlaful assembly pronounced? Hard to believe that would be the case in the area around the White House, which is a common free speech zone. The only reason seems to be so the President could get a photo opportunity. Frankly there are better avenues for the President to get whatever message he wants across in the current environment. There is no reason to arbitrarily escalate a situation if it is not absolutely necessary.

So they decided to tear gas a peaceful protest, thus potentially escalating the situation, just so the President could walk over and have a photo opportunity in front of a church, whose leaders were not even informed of his presence or frankly even want him there. That doesn't seem like a very good strategy to stopping the "riots and looting" or for anything at all to be honest.