The 2020 Election trump v. Biden

[Phil1111 1,149]

30 minutes ago, Coreece said:

So then why do you keep coming up with idiotic shit to justify it?

Having a bad day?

[billvon 2,995]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

So then why do you keep coming up with idiotic shit to justify it?

?? I am not justifying it. WTF are you talking about?  

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

So then why do you keep coming up with idiotic shit to justify it?

?? I am not justifying it. WTF are you talking about?  

First, I apologize for my tone - that wasn't fair.

People here including you say that you condemn the violence, rioting, looting, arson. . .BUT you know, reasons. . . because trump, because racism, because nobody's listening, because this is just a way to express a reasonable "demand that police stop killing minorities, or that it's just like the tea party, etc, etc, blah blah blah. . .

 

But there is no excuse for this shit.  It doesn't help and only undermines legitimate efforts of those that ARE listening, especially those working on a local level to implement implicit bias training along with violence prevention and other social programs to address some of the underlying issues.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but this is a multi faceted issue that goes beyond just white/black, left/right - and it's going to take a concerted effort to address those issues - but if all we do is continue to get pissed off and point fingers in an attempt to garner votes during election years, then the problems will never be addressed.

 

And another thing, it's really not just about black people out there rioting, because from my perspective, what I'm seeing is a bunch of pissed off underprivileged white kids on the left and bunch of pissed off boogaloo shitheads on the right exploiting the situation and using it as an excuse to be one giant collective asshole from which to dump all their shit on the rest of us.

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Coreece

[JerryBaumchen 1,364]

20 minutes ago, Coreece said:

But there is no excuse for this shit.

it's really not just about black people out there rioting

Hi Coreece,

IMO neither you nor I can know what it truly means to be a black person in this country.  So I say, there is an 'excuse for this shit.'

IMO black people rioting are only a very few,  It does seem to me that the actual rioting, destruction, fire setting, etc are by outside agitators looking for somewhere to cause trouble.

But, I could be wrong; I've been wrong before.

Jerry Baumchen

[wmw999 2,452]

Coreece, there’s a lot of truth to that final statement. I see a lot of peaceful protests that are ruined by the few; just like most people don’t loot after a tornado or hurricane. 
But when you consider that the violence rate against minorities (especially blacks) by the authorities is significantly higher than that against whites (not to mention little old ladies like me), without their necessarily offending more, it pisses people off after awhile. 
I’m female; because of that, I’m more sensitive to feeling patronized by actions and words that are intended as kindness. Why? Because I’ve also been patronized more than the vast majority of white men, simply because I’m a female. 
Now imagine you’re African American; you know you’re more likely to get popped for anything you do simply because you stand out (speeding-red-sportscar syndrome). After awhile, I can imagine some people (not even close to a majority) saying fuckit. 
No one wants to have to be the good example all the time. 
Doesn’t excuse it, but does give some explanation about the loss of patience. My father thought integration was happening fast enough in the early 1960’s; no need for protests. He later admitted he was dead wrong. 
I’m trying to be part of the solution as much as I can be; just as my company used to actively recruit at historically black universities, I’m trying to actively find a minority company to consider when I need some service. Not to guarantee hiring, but to guarantee consideration. 
Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,497]

43 minutes ago, Coreece said:

People here including you say that you condemn the violence, rioting, looting, arson. . .BUT you know, reasons. . . because trump, because racism, because nobody's listening, because this is just a way to express a reasonable "demand that police stop killing minorities, or that it's just like the tea party, etc, etc, blah blah blah. . .

Everything after the BUT is an invention that exists only in the minds of you, Turtlespeed and Tucker Carlson.

No-one else here has said anything of the sort -  your entire accusation is unfair, not just your tone.

Quote

But there is no excuse for this shit.  It doesn't help and only undermines legitimate efforts of those that ARE listening, especially those working on a local level to implement implicit bias training along with violence prevention and other social programs to address some of the underlying issues.

Does it though? The widespread protests this summer are bringing a level of commitment to institutional change from companies, organisations and governments both local and national that I have never seen in my lifetime. The accompanying riots don't seem to be deligitimizing anything, probably because most people aside from you and the T's can easily distinguish the legitimate protesters from the opportunist rioters.

Edited September 3, 2020 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,465]

18 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

After awhile, I can imagine some people (not even close to a majority) saying fuckit. 

New York Times Co v. Sullivan was a landmark ruling making it much, much harder for public officials to sue for defamation. This case was triggered by a full page advertisement in the NYT decrying the actions of police against mostly black civil rights protesters in 1960.

So here we are 60 years later of people trying to find peaceful solutions to problems which in the 60s had already been playing for decades and decades and decades. How long do we think people can be and should be subjected to increased targeting, increased violence, increased death rates before we can understand them giving up on peaceful protest?

[jakee 1,497]

5 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

New York Times Co v. Sullivan was a landmark ruling making it much, much harder for public officials to sue for defamation. This case was triggered by a full page advertisement in the NYT decrying the actions of police against mostly black civil rights protesters in 1960.

So here we are 60 years later of people trying to find peaceful solutions to problems which in the 60s had already been playing for decades and decades and decades. How long do we think people can be and should be subjected to increased targeting, increased violence, increased death rates before we can understand them giving up on peaceful protest?

Consider that there is still a living survivor of the Tulsa race massacre, still suing the city for their active complicity in murdering scores of people and destroying an entire black neighbourhood (a fact which no sane person disputes), who has never yet seen a cent in damages.

I don't even understand how that's possible, let alone understand how anyone could think it's right.

Edited September 3, 2020 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Consider that there is still a living survivor of the Tulsa race massacre, still suing the city for their active complicity in murdering scores of people and destroying an entire black neighbourhood (a fact which sane person disputes), who has never yet seen a cent in damages.

For a country built on the threat of violence keeping the peace, built on violence being a solution to problems, it sure gets upset when violence is used.

The 2nd Amendment specifically calls for violence and the threat of violence to keep government in line. The data is clear, the government incarcerates, targets and kills black people more than white people. Government officials are on record indicating that laws have been designed specifically to target black people. What better application for the use of the 2nd amendment is there? If violence isn't support to effect this change, then when? And if violence and the threat of violence against the government isn't supported, then why keep supporting the 2nd amendment?

[turtlespeed 221]

17 hours ago, billvon said:

Exactly!  So do you want four more years of criminals, murderers, looters and rioters, or do you want to change that?

Guarantee me that murder, looting, and riots will end under Biden, with a measurable compensation if you are wrong, and you have a Biden supporter.  That is ridiculous, though. 

What will change is view of what crime is acceptable, and what needs to be raged about.

That has already happened.  If these riots were coming from the right, this forum would be over run with vilification of the people rioting.

[turtlespeed 221]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

Yeah, with their completely unreasonable demands that police stop killing minorities... </sarcasm>

Except those weren't the demands.

The most significant demands to note were the demands for segregation.

[billvon 2,995]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

People here including you say that you condemn the violence, rioting, looting, arson. . .BUT you know, reasons. . . because trump, because racism, because nobody's listening, because this is just a way to express a reasonable "demand that police stop killing minorities, or that it's just like the tea party, etc, etc, blah blah blah. . .

There are reasons for the riots, yes.  ONE of them is Trump's support of white nationalism, his calls to LIBERATE! states from the tyranny of government, and his requests to cops to be more violent.  Not the only reason, not the biggest reason, but one of the reasons.  Do you dispute that?
 

There is still discrimination in the US against blacks.  It's a lot better than it was, but it's still there.  Do you dispute that?

Quote

But there is no excuse for this shit.  It doesn't help and only undermines legitimate efforts of those that ARE listening, especially those working on a local level to implement implicit bias training along with violence prevention and other social programs to address some of the underlying issues.

Right.  No one is saying there are excuses.  Just reasons.  By understanding them we can start to bring an end to it.  By ignoring them, and saying "well they are just violent evil thugs who should be stopped, arrested and/or killed" then we just make it worse.

Quote

And another thing, it's really not just about black people out there rioting, because from my perspective, what I'm seeing is a bunch of pissed off underprivileged white kids on the left and bunch of pissed off boogaloo shitheads on the right exploiting the situation 

Absolutely.  Every cause like that has hangers-ons.  MOST of the people involved are protesting mistreatment of blacks.  Some are amoral people who just like to riot and break things.  Some are criminals who use the disruptions to steal.  Some are Boogaloos which foment violence so they can blame protesters for it and hasten the arrival of the Boogaloo.  Some are murderers.

It's important to not take mainstream media too seriously.  They would have you believe that a burned-out building equals BLM.

[olofscience 480]

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Except those weren't the demands.

The most significant demands to note were the demands for segregation.

Absolute lie.

Quote

“We are heartbroken and enraged, but we are steadfast in our demand for justice,” Tanya Mclean, a Blake family friend who helped organize the event, said in a statement.

Quote

“We’re here to demand an end to police violence and systemic racism in Kenosha,” Mclean said. “No more piecemeal reforms and useless committees. No more Band-Aid solutions over the bullet wounds. The time for transformational change is now.”

Where were the demands for segregation? Not the protests in Kenosha.

[jakee 1,497]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Except those weren't the demands.

The most significant demands to note were the demands for segregation.

What demands for segregation? Are you still talking about that one single guy with his miniature vegetable plots in Seattle?

[jakee 1,497]

15 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Guarantee me that murder, looting, and riots will end under Biden, with a measurable compensation if you are wrong, and you have a Biden supporter.  That is ridiculous, though. 

So why did you say it? Seriously, when you have to call your own argument ridiculous it's time to give up. 

I've never seen anyone dig a hole this deep outside of a Murakami novel.

Edited September 3, 2020 by jakee

[olofscience 480]

14 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Guarantee me that murder, looting, and riots will end under Biden, with a measurable compensation if you are wrong, and you have a Biden supporter.  That is ridiculous, though. 

So the doomsday scenario is the riots already happening under Trump will happen with Biden?

It can't be guaranteed that they'll stop under Biden, but Trump is feeding the flames and Biden isn't. It's not hard to figure out who will be worse.

Edited September 3, 2020 by olofscience

[billvon 2,995]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Guarantee me that murder, looting, and riots will end under Biden, with a measurable compensation if you are wrong, and you have a Biden supporter.  That is ridiculous, though. 

There are no guarantees on anything.

But we have a clear choice.  On the one side, we have a president whose support of white nationalists, his admonition to police to be more violent, and his use of shock troops to gas and beat protesters for photo ops has vastly exacerbated the problem.  And his solution to the problem?  More of that.

On the other side we have a candidate who will take a different direction.

Let's say you're a CEO and you hire a director of HR. He starts making lots of jokes about women and minorities.  He explains to you that he is not sexist or racist - "NOT AT ALL!  HOW DARE YOU! but women can be real bitches sometimes amirite?" and he has plans to increase productivity and make your company the best in its field.

Four years later, there are a dozen lawsuits against the company for sexual harassment and discrimination against veterans, the disabled and minorities.  He explains that the right path forward is to hire dozens of lawyers to defend the company and crush those complainers under the heels of justice, while changing nothing else about the company, because he has a perfect HR department.

Meanwhile another guy has applied.  He explains that your director of HR, by promulgating anti-women and anti-minority sentiments in the company, has led to the lawsuits.  He has a different plan, one that focuses on harassment training and culture change.  He was successful doing this as assistant to the HR lead at his last company.

What path do you choose?

[turtlespeed 221]

6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Absolute lie.

Where were the demands for segregation? Not the protests in Kenosha.

Your post is inaccurate, and thus, you lie as well.

Here is an example: (Maybe you missed this)

 

Quote

 

Related to economic demands, we also have demands pertaining to what we would formally call “Health and Human Services.”

1. We demand the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients.

 

 

 

As far as Kenosha, No - I haven't seen any demands coming from Kenosha.

 

[turtlespeed 221]

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

There are no guarantees on anything.

But we have a clear choice.  On the one side, we have a president whose support of white nationalists, his admonition to police to be more violent, and his use of shock troops to gas and beat protesters for photo ops has vastly exacerbated the problem.  And his solution to the problem?  More of that.

On the other side we have a candidate who will take a different direction.

Let's say you're a CEO and you hire a director of HR. He starts making lots of jokes about women and minorities.  He explains to you that he is not sexist or racist - "NOT AT ALL!  HOW DARE YOU! but women can be real bitches sometimes amirite?" and he has plans to increase productivity and make your company the best in its field.

Four years later, there are a dozen lawsuits against the company for sexual harassment and discrimination against veterans, the disabled and minorities.  He explains that the right path forward is to hire dozens of lawyers to defend the company and crush those complainers under the heels of justice, while changing nothing else about the company, because he has a perfect HR department.

Meanwhile another guy has applied.  He explains that your director of HR, by promulgating anti-women and anti-minority sentiments in the company, has led to the lawsuits.  He has a different plan, one that focuses on harassment training and culture change.  He was successful doing this as assistant to the HR lead at his last company.

What path do you choose?

Lets say you own that business and all your employees are now out of work, and their families are destitute, because some people broke through the glass and destroyed everything they didn't take.

OR - 

You saw this coming and decided to protect your business.

Which path do you choose?

[billvon 2,995]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

Lets say you own that business . . . .

I am not surprised at all that you refuse to answer the question.  It would reveal some pretty basic dissonances in your logic.

[turtlespeed 221]

20 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So the doomsday scenario is the riots already happening under Trump will happen with Biden?

It can't be guaranteed that they'll stop under Biden, but Trump is feeding the flames and Biden isn't. It's not hard to figure out who will be worse.

By election time, it is likely that the rioting and looting will have mostly stopped.

How many people's lives and livelihoods will have been destroyed because of these people?

Why is it wrong to protect against that?

 

[turtlespeed 221]

3 minutes ago, billvon said:

I am not surprised at all that you refuse to answer the question.  It would reveal some pretty basic dissonances in your logic.

Are you a fan of leading questions?

Because . . . I noticed you didn't answer mine either.

Edited September 3, 2020 by turtlespeed

[olofscience 480]

5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Your post is inaccurate, and thus, you lie as well.

Here is an example: (Maybe you missed this)

 

 

 

As far as Kenosha, No - I haven't seen any demands coming from Kenosha.

 

I just quoted the demands from the protest organisers in Kenosha.

And my post was accurate - there were no demands for segregation coming from Kenosha and you've admitted as such.

You're quoting demands from Seattle which don't represent the majority view of the BLM movement at all. Selectively focusing on a tiny minority and attributing to the entire movement? You're being dishonest.

[olofscience 480]

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

By election time, it is likely that the rioting and looting will have mostly stopped.

How much are you willing to bet on that?

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

How many people's lives and livelihoods will have been destroyed because of these people?

Why is it wrong to protect against that?

It's not wrong to protect against that - you're making a strawman argument again because nobody said that. But murdering people exercising their 1st Amendment right is not "protecting against that".

[turtlespeed 221]

2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I just quoted the demands from the protest organisers in Kenosha.

And my post was accurate - there were no demands for segregation coming from Kenosha and you've admitted as such.

You're quoting demands from Seattle which don't represent the majority view of the BLM movement at all. Selectively focusing on a tiny minority and attributing to the entire movement? You're being dishonest.

You are misguided.

I actually agree with a lot of the demands that came out of the list.

The segregative parts, not so much.