USA elections 2020 - 2021

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yup, that was strange (although it was a single person at a single rally, no plural to be had). Reminds me of this guy. So easy to tar a whole organization for the single action of one person, right?

Not much legwork required when quoting people from BLM protests directly; incidents this summer and as far back as 2015 when the movement first gained prominence. It’s not all that strange that an extremist group like BLM would feature instances of violent rhetoric caught on tape at anti-police protests.

"...influenced by the BLM movement and their belief that law enforcement was targeting blacks"
While that is indeed a narrative I am not sure it's a false one, can't recall an incident as of late where a white person was killed by law enforcement while getting arrested. And when did being influenced become equivalent to being incited?

A bit further down (read the whole 'Chill Wind' paragraph for better context):
"Without law enforcement and elected officials providing an alternate narrative, assailants developed a distrust of law enforcement and felt emboldened and justified in using violence against police"
Seems it doesn't really matter if there is a narrative against law enforcement or not - the lack of a pro police narrative appears to be the problem.

By that logic, any extremist rhetoric can be excused for lack of a successful counter narrative. I don’t see the utility of employing that approach here. I don’t fault you for being unaware of people from other ethnic backgrounds being killed by police. National media tend to focus on a particular group.

It is worth mentioning that national conservatives are usually falsely categorized as belonging to the "far-right" by liberal and left-wing activists.

Sure; Trump supporters alluded to as an extremist insurgency of sorts by the press are a regular feature of today’s coverage.

[Gigantus]

Given that more white-Americans are killed by police officers than any other racial group, it stands to reason that some will have been wrongly killed by officers recently. Perhaps the fact you haven't heard of such a case illustrates the problem.

This is a recent incident of police officers appearing to unnecessarily shoot dead a white man.

Appreciate the response and info.
I don't know if it is a given as I haven't got any info about overall fatality numbers caused by police action, and certainly not about any demographic details concerning it but it stands to reason, as indicated by your link, that 'questionable' death isn't restricted to the black community.
In your linked case the narrative (based on evidence, body cam with recording of announcement) of the police contradicts the comments of relatives (wouldn't have held gun if he knew it was the police) - that narrative, or rather it's absence, being what I pointed at in my prior post ('Chill Wind'). The reasonably credible narrative possibly is the reason why cases like this one don't seem to make the front page, eg are being used to support accusations of 'targeting'. Opening the door with a gun in your hand and then hiding it behind your back makes it somewhat difficult to put excessive blame on the officer in this case.

[Cope]

Appreciate the response and info.

I don't know if it is a given as I haven't got any info about overall fatality numbers caused by police action, and certainly not about any demographic details concerning it but it stands to reason, as indicated by your link, that 'wrongful' death isn't restricted to the black community.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Number of people shot to death by police in the US, 2017-2020, Statista

In your linked case however the narrative (and evidence, body cam with recording of announcement) of the police contradicts the comments of relatives (wouldn't have held gun if he knew it was the police) - that itself being what I pointed at in my prior post. And possibly the reason why cases like this don't make the front page, eg being used to support accusations of 'targeting'.

Almost all cases are ambiguous. It is typical for the press to publicize incidents in a way which generates controversy (often via racialization). Though a neutral observer wouldn't know it, there is no evidence of racial malice in any of the four most prominent cases this year (Taylor, Floyd, Brooks and Blake). Nor is it clear if any of the officers involved in these cases actually committed a criminal offence.

[Gigantus]

I really need to bookmark that site, thanks.

My first impression was that total fatalities have decreased over the years but it seem the 'unknown' column makes a mess of the positive trend in the other columns. But as statistics (and absolute numbers) go there is always another angle which in this case brings us back to square one of the 'targeting' claim: Fatal police shootings by ethnicity (per million of the population).

Totally agreed on the sensationalist use of select information, I'll even extend it to the 'intent' of the officer. But there are still the numbers that lend themselves easily to simplified statements. For the purpose of both sides as the two statistics suggest.

[Cope]

I really need to bookmark that site, thanks.

My first impression was that total fatalities have decreased over the years but it seem the 'unknown' column makes a mess of the positive trend in the other columns. But as statistics (and absolute numbers) go there is always another angle which in this case brings us back to square one of the 'targeting' claim: Fatal police shootings by ethnicity (per million of the population).

Totally agreed on the sensationalist use of select information, I'll even extend it to the 'intent' of the officer. But there are still the numbers that lend themselves easily to simplified statements. For the purpose of both sides as the two statistics suggest.

Disparities in outcomes between different racial groups has been discussed extensively here. With regard to policing specifically, the detail shows more nuance than the systemic racism explanation suggests. For instance, there is evidence to suggest that white officers do not kill black suspects more frequently than black officers; it is rare for unarmed suspects to be killed by police (one analysis found that only 14 unarmed black persons were killed by officers in 2019); and black Americans commit a disproportionately large number of felony offences.

[B. W.]

I am rather dumb when it comes to the finer stuff in the US voting regulations (and not a fan of vlogs by supporters in general) so could you explain why you need a request to send your vote in?
A link to the relevant regulation would be nice as well.

Edit: A search got me this, that the issue? It's certainly not 200K but otherwise the shoe seems to fit.
Not sure how that can hold up for the ballots that were cast in person (no figure given here for the other 'violating' ballots so I won't speculate on it's effect or whether they actually exist). Or do you need a written request when casting in person as well? I was under the impression that's not the case, rather a cross check is done if you are eligible to vote\get a ballot to cast your vote? Reminiscent of a 'walk in' versus coming with a 'reservation' I would think - still need to confirm that a table is available.

I'll refrain to put an adjective to the attempt to disenfranchise the entire prison population of the state.

Edit2: that was Friday's news and Wisconsin votes got certified on Monday I believe, same date as the linked youtube video - what am I missing here?

First I'll post this before I delete the link by mistake:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...31R?li=BBnb7Kz

^You know you're hitting close to home when you get this type of reaction.

So now about your comments. First the Governor's certification was illegal. He can't do until 5 days after the recount, which gives the plaintiff time to rebut it. The governor didn't do that.

Now the Dems are screaming that the recount was only done in the two Democratic counties of the state (before they were laughing about this). Those counties were chosen because that's were all the fraud took place.

In the article I posted from left-wing media, it states that these absentee ballots were in-person votes. I wonder where they got that information? The reason I say that is that after watching hours of affidavit testimony it is clear there are two different stories here; the news report story and the sworn affidavits told under penalty of felony.

Dozens of poll watchers told about poll workers taking unfolded ballots and filling in request information from voter lists. Interestingly, at the same time this was all taking place Trump people were going down the lists made available by the recount and calling these people to see if they had actually voted as claimed by the Dems.

So it could get interesting. It's clear the Dems are screaming because they know it's a game changer. They never believed it would go this far because it the past they've always gotten away with this BS. As I said many posts ago, an Al Franken style election on a national scale is a really bad idea. All this will not go away even if Biden gets sworn in Jan. 20. The Dems have bought themselves a whole lot of trouble.

[Gigantus]

Not much legwork required when quoting people from BLM protests directly; incidents this summer and as far back as 2015 when the movement first gained prominence. It’s not all that strange that an extremist group like BLM would feature instances of violent rhetoric caught on tape at anti-police protests.


By that logic, any extremist rhetoric can be excused for lack of a successful counter narrative. I don’t see the utility of employing that approach here. I don’t fault you for being unaware of people from other ethnic backgrounds being killed by police. National media tend to focus on a particular group.

Sorry for not responding earlier, it appears you posted while I composed so your reply disappeared at the top of my screen when I posted myself.

There do seem to be more incidents of the type you linked to earlier then I had thought, I stand corrected in the assumption that it might be isolated.

As to the narrative matter - From the FBI file I did not get the impression that it was about displays like the ones you linked but rather the 'blacks are targeted' stance, itself only being a contributing factor (influenced) and not the sole reason (incitement).
There is no excuse being made for extremist rhetoric, neither by me or the file, only the conclusion that lack of a official narrative appears to have further encouraged the perpetrators. Using a more fitting 'highly contributing factor' instead of 'problem' should have made that clearer, my bad.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Sorry for not responding earlier, it appears you posted while I composed so your reply disappeared at the top of my screen when I posted myself.

There do seem to be more incidents of the type you linked to earlier then I had thought, I stand corrected in the assumption that it might be isolated.

As to the narrative matter - From the FBI file I did not get the impression that it was about displays like the ones you linked but rather the 'blacks are targeted' stance, itself only being a contributing factor (influenced) and not the sole reason (incitement).
There is no excuse being made for extremist rhetoric, neither by me or the file, only the conclusion that lack of a official narrative appears to have further encouraged the perpetrators. Using a more fitting 'highly contributing factor' instead of 'problem' should have made that clearer, my bad.

No need to apologize. My overall point is that there should be no place for groups like BLM in the political mainstream, yet it is foisted on the public in large part due to powerful backing from the Democrat Party and the corporate establishment. The phenomenon is part and parcel of the perpetuation of fallacious racial narratives at all levels of society and propagation of related controversy among the body politic that has plagued US politics. The extremist views of BLM leadership and organizers, as well as the rhetoric and violence that feature among related protests like a bad stench are the most visible reasons why the organization should have been roundly condemned from the beginning.

[Ludicus]

The modern far right...they’re regarded as pariahs by polite society

Define modern far-right,Legio.
The wiki says,

Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism,[1][2] are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of extremist nationalism,[3][4] nativist ideologies, and authoritarian tendencies.[5][6]

Turns out that's a no-no.
------
But we have been talking about the Democratic Party.I said it before-in reaction to increasingly pervading sclerosis,new blood is sorely needed,
Progressives

While much has been said about the demise of progressives in the wake of the Biden victory, the reality is that the future of the country will be more Democratic and more progressive than the past. Over the next decade, as millennials reach middle age and begin turning out to vote at a higher rate, they will create a unique opportunity for progressive policymaking.

Just a couple of hours ago, Obama tells Democrats to "make room for new voices ...
(Watch the video)

Obama says Democrats should make sure Ocasio-Cortez has a plataform

But,you know, the fact that an AOC only got, what? Three minutes or five minutes? When she speaks to a broad section of young people who are interested in what she has to say, even if they don’t agree with everything she says,” Obama continued. “You give her a platform, just like there may be some other young Democrats who come from more conservative areas who have a different point of view.But new blood is always good.”

Ocasio-Cortez hits back after Manchin criticism | TheHill
AOC on Twitter,

“Ifind it amusing when politicians try to diminish the seriousness o four policy work, movement organizing & grassroots fundraising to 'she just tweets,' as though 'serious' politics is only done by begging corporate CEOs for money through wax-sealed envelopes delivered by raven

To conclude: the democratic fight between moderates and progressives is a good fight. It means that the Democratic Party is well and alive.
----
----

...the organization should have been roundly condemned from the beginning.

Condemned for extremist views against the state? as someone has written, "Before long, Black Lies Matter will join forces with ISIS to being down our legal constituted republic" ?
No, Black Lives Matter is not a terrorist organization - PolitiFact
---
Reality check- exit polls estimate that 91% of African American women voted for Biden. More: some 130 Black women ran for Congress- with almost 100 on the the Democratic side.
More,
Support for BLM has decreased but remains strong among black Americans.

[Gigantus]

No need to apologize. My overall point is that there should be no place for groups like BLM in the political mainstream, yet it is foisted on the public in large part due to powerful backing from the Democrat Party and the corporate establishment. The phenomenon is part and parcel of the perpetuation of fallacious racial narratives at all levels of society and propagation of related controversy among the body politic that has plagued US politics. The extremist views of BLM leadership and organizers, as well as the rhetoric and violence that feature among related protests like a bad stench are the most visible reasons why the organization should have been roundly condemned from the beginning.

Do I detect a hint of 'Minority Report' or is it just wishful thinking? "should have been condemned from the beginning" Just as well that practice isn't exactly supported by the current law - unless they come up with another creative addendum to the patriot act.

I respect and to a certain extent share your point of view but it's kinda irrelevant to your claim that I was originally responding to: "The false narratives peddled by BLM incited killers to act according to the FBI." It does however seem to be based pretty much on the same approach (fallacious [claim to authority] narrative and propagation) you mention in your above comment, so there is a connection after all.
I am not sure if the discussion about this specific claim (and the claim itself) actually has a place in this thread as it would require a 'three degrees of Francis Bacon' approach to link the FBI file comment to the US election. But then the thread is nearing 3000 posts and I suppose even four degrees will eventually be fine.

[antaeus]

My overall point is that there should be no place for groups like BLM in the political mainstream, yet it is foisted on the public in large part due to powerful backing from the Democrat Party and the corporate establishment. The phenomenon is part and parcel of the perpetuation of fallacious racial narratives at all levels of society and propagation of related controversy among the body politic that has plagued US politics. The extremist views of BLM leadership and organizers, as well as the rhetoric and violence that feature among related protests like a bad stench are the most visible reasons why the organization should have been roundly condemned from the beginning.

Again. As per.

BLM is a reactionary movement. The key premise it responds to, is the perception that to police, black lives don't matter as much as others. There are enough people who agree with the movement's key premise that it has mainstream political legitimacy whether you like it or not. Also, this means there is distinct political advantage to be made from responding to the movement's key premise. Because the movement's key premise is so widely agreed upon, even if the actions of a tiny minority of protesters are not, it is no longer extremist, but as the polls show, mainstream. You saying it is extremist reflects how far you are, or have moved from the mainstream reality of politics. There has been a great polarising separation, and you have found yourself staring from a great distance towards something that has gained more traction than you'd like... judging the concerns of the many by the actions of the few. Attempting to delegitimise something which is actually a relatively moderate demand.

[Vanoi]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/i...182503985.html

Iran passed a bill ending inspections of their nuclear facilities. This makes it much harder for Biden to reenact the now defunct nuclear deal.

[Gigantus]

And here I thought we had reached the bottom of the pit: Trump's former national security advisor shared a message asking the president to suspend the Constitution, impose martial law, and hold a new election

Is it really asking too much to check the constitution that you want to suspend? It's at a level that I am actually wondering 'that's not for real, right?'

[alhoon]

And here I thought we had reached the bottom of the pit: Trump's former national security advisor shared a message asking the president to suspend the Constitution, impose martial law, and hold a new election

Is it really asking too much to check the constitution that you want to suspend? It's at a level that I am actually wondering 'that's not for real, right?'

Yeah, I am at this level too. I sincerely doubt Flynn went that far. I honestly believe it was taken out of context or misreported.

[Gigantus]

Well, checking Flynn's twitter account if he did indeed share Zawistowski's ad shouldn't be too difficult, but that would mean going down yet another rabbit hole.

Edit: I found some Valium and went down the hole, I wish I could unsee that unending line of conspiracy forwards until I got to the tweet in question. He certainly gives the boss his pardon's worth.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

This makes it much harder for Biden to reenact the now defunct nuclear deal.

Silver lining.

[Cope]

Well, checking Flynn's twitter account if he did indeed share Zawistowski's ad shouldn't be too difficult, but that would mean going down yet another rabbit hole.

Edit: I found some Valium and went down the hole, I wish I could unsee that unending line of conspiracy forwards until I got to the tweet in question. He certainly gives the boss his pardon's worth.

The statement is qualified by the clause "if legislators, courts and Congress do not follow the Constitution". I might add that in a milieu where senior politicians seem to routinely, but falsely, accuse one another of treason or of being Russian assets or threaten to draw up "lists" for future reprisals, this is nothing out of the ordinary.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Do I detect a hint of 'Minority Report' or is it just wishful thinking? "should have been condemned from the beginning" Just as well that practice isn't exactly supported by the current law - unless they come up with another creative addendum to the patriot act.

No one is suggesting BLM is a terrorist group. Again, Cullors herself has been candid about her extremism, including how she was mentored and trained for years by a convicted domestic terrorist leader, Eric Mann. Her organization should be condemned, not given power and influence by the political and corporate establishments.

Public support for BLM didn’t enter net positive territory until 2018 amid sustained support from Democrat mega donors and proliferation of false narratives promoted by the group.

I respect and to a certain extent share your point of view but it's kinda irrelevant to your claim that I was originally responding to: "The false narratives peddled by BLM incited killers to act according to the FBI." It does however seem to be based pretty much on the same approach (fallacious [claim to authority] narrative and propagation) you mention in your above comment, so there is a connection after all.
I am not sure if the discussion about this specific claim (and the claim itself) actually has a place in this thread as it would require a 'three degrees of Francis Bacon' approach to link the FBI file comment to the US election. But then the thread is nearing 3000 posts and I suppose even four degrees will eventually be fine.

It wasn’t a claim, but rather an accurate description of the FBI’s findings, one which, again, was referenced by the killers themselves as to their mindset and motivations (BLM and the false narratives about a vast police conspiracy against blacks, a central tenet of the group’s mantra. See Long’s confession that BLM, in his view, did not go far enough to combat this conspiracy, so he took matters into his own hands; Johnson that he was upset by BLM and the narrative of police targeting blacks, wanted to kill white people).

Again, the Democrat Party has backed the group since 2015-16, and as BLM’s power and influence grew, it’s not surprising that Biden endorsed them and Cullors is demanding private meetings with him and the VP. No degrees of Kevin Bacon needed.

Again. As per.

BLM is a reactionary movement. The key premise it responds to, is the perception that to police, black lives don't matter as much as others. There are enough people who agree with the movement's key premise that it has mainstream political legitimacy whether you like it or not. Also, this means there is distinct political advantage to be made from responding to the movement's key premise. Because the movement's key premise is so widely agreed upon, even if the actions of a tiny minority of protesters are not, it is no longer extremist, but as the polls show, mainstream. You saying it is extremist reflects how far you are, or have moved from the mainstream reality of politics. There has been a great polarising separation, and you have found yourself staring from a great distance towards something that has gained more traction than you'd like... judging the concerns of the many by the actions of the few. Attempting to delegitimise something which is actually a relatively moderate demand.

Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention. Support for BLM sat at 27% in 2016, and was net negative until 2018. Perhaps the public has a short memory. Perhaps the Democrat Party and sympathetic publicity has succeeded in whitewashing the group’s image. Perhaps both. Just because extremism has been gradually laundered into mainstream public discourse over the last 4-5 years, that doesn’t make it less extreme.

According to the group’s website:

Our intention from the very beginning was to connect Black people from all over the world who have a shared desire for justice to act together in their communities. The impetus for that commitment was, and still is, the rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200917...at-we-believe/

This narrative of “rampant and deliberate violence inflicted on us by the state” is not only false, it also motivated violence and murder, as per the FBI.

Ferguson helped to catalyze a movement to which we’ve all helped give life. Organizers who call this network home have ousted anti-Black politicians, won critical legislation to benefit Black lives, and changed the terms of the debate on Blackness around the world. Through movement and relationship building, we have also helped catalyze other movements and shifted culture with an eye toward the dangerous impacts of anti-Blackness.

The “Hands up, don’t shoot” narrative was debunked. An organization inspired and catalyzed by divisive false narratives is problematic as it is. Far from being “moderate,” the group’s demands, according to sponsored legislation, include:

“Dramatically” reduce military spending/DoD budget
Use federal grants to push state and local governments to close prisons and defund police
End life (prison) sentences
Decriminalize illegal border crossings
Close all federal prisons
Fund race based reparations

These demands are extreme by their own description and sit well outside the political mainstream:








The Biden campaign publicly rejected most or all of these measures and they are unpopular with the public. Nevertheless, Democrat Party mega donors have been bankrolling BLM as a useful political tool for several years now.

[Gigantus]

../..this is nothing out of the ordinary.

Frankly that normalization is scaring the out of me. It appears simply repeating a proven false statement ad nauseam makes it, if not true then at least acceptable (see the first paragraph as well).

And the 'IF' is more a given and from what I can gather shared by a pretty large portion of the millions that voted for Trump:
"Zawistowski said, "We wanted to express our concerns to the President, to the legislators, courts and Congress that We the People will NOT cede our exclusive Constitutional right to elect our Representatives to judges, lawyers, courts, Governors, Secretary’s of State, Congress, corrupt election officials and local politicians, the corrupt media - or Leftist threats of violence! It is OUR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to elect our President and that sacred right has been infringed by the massive, planned, illegal election fraud conducted by corrupt Democrat/Socialist Party operatives across our nation to steal our vote. We will NOT stand for it."

No IF here at all:
"Without full confidence that our courts or Congress will indeed follow the 12th Amendment of the Constitution and defend our electoral process, the ad calls upon President Trump, like Lincoln, to exercise the Extraordinary Powers of his office and declare limited Martial Law to temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections in order to have the military implement a national re-vote that reflects the true will of the people."

Quick question: according to this the 12th amendment is solely about the procedures of the electoral college, is that correct? What possible influence could have courts have on that? I mean you could have rogue electors voting against the certified ballot's result and no one could do anything about it afaik. And from what I read Congress' only function in today's two party state is to confirm the tally of the electoral votes and confirm the president. Given the present situation Congress could only go against the constitution by confirming Trump as president, somehow I doubt that's what the WTPC in mind, so what am I missing?

It wasn’t a claim, but rather an accurate description of the FBI’s findings, one which, again, was referenced by the killers themselves as to their mindset and motivations (BLM and the false narratives about a vast police conspiracy against blacks, a central tenet of the group’s mantra. See Long’s confession that BLM, in his view, did not go far enough to combat this conspiracy, so he took matters into his own hands; Johnson that he was upset by BLM and the narrative of police targeting blacks, wanted to kill white people).

Exaggerating and distorting two simple lines in the FBI's document (I listed them and argued why they do not match your 'accurate' description) is what I would call a claim. Nor were Long or Johnson's confessions mentioned in that document that you so explicitly reference. Which makes your 'description' "The false narratives peddled by BLM incited killers to act according to the FBI." at best a fallacious claim at authority for a narrative of your own.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Attorney David Boies, who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the 2000 election recount fight, told CNBC on Thursday that President Donald Trump's efforts to challenge the election results are futile.

When Jan. 20 rolls around, President-elect Joe Biden will be sworn in, Boies said in an interview on "Squawk Box." Trump has refused to concede the race to Biden, despite numerous media organizations including NBC News calling the election almost two weeks ago.

"There is no way that Trump can overturn these election results," said Boies, chairman of the New York City-based law firm Boies Schiller Flexner. He has donated to Biden's campaign.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/19/no-p...vid-boies.html

Trump refuses to accept that Joe Biden won the presidential election. Is there a constitutional path for him to stage a coup and stay in office for another term?

Not really. The electoral college meets on 14 December to cast its vote for president and nearly every state uses the statewide popular vote to allocate its electors. Biden is projected to win far more than the 270 electoral votes he needs to become president.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-a-second-term

The idea is “preposterous,” said Bill Banks, a Syracuse University professor with expertise in constitutional and national security law.
“Apart from the fact that state and now federal investigators have found no evidence of election fraud that would change the election outcome, martial law has no place in the United States absent a complete breakdown of civil governing mechanisms,” he told Military Times.
Martial law, he added, “simply has the military in charge, subject only to military orders, not civilian law.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...aws-criticism/