All_Pro_Bills

The debates are going to be a train wreck. The triggered fragile lefties should be prepared for another 4 years of Trump.

When caught hypocritical and inconsistent politicians will turn to playing the victim. And 100% certainty Nancy's allies in the MSM will make sure she comes out of this smelling like roses. The likely choice here - victim of gender bias. So the defense is if she was a man going to a barber shop she would be treated differently. Watch and wait for it...

Folding space is also the basis of warp drive theory.

During the cold war era the KGB employed a lot of hot women as spies and operatives to "extract" sensitive information from male officials via sex and blackmail. So your previous girlfriend might have been part of some undercover operation! ?

I'm sorry Bull but that sounds like a bunch of social-babble. I just want to know how you can measure "racism" and arrive at a 30% racist metric. What is the criteria for determining that someone is a racist? My contention is everyone's using some "eye of the beholder" subjective observation. My personal definition of racism is somebody that acts to violate the rights of another person based solely on their race. In my view its not words or thought but actions that matter. I don't care about regulating or programming people to think and speak in a specific way to all "play nice" or forcing people to like each other. I just want everyone to respect everyone's rights and treat everyone fairly and in an unbiased way without consideration of race. I don't think there is any metric or measure that proves there are a majority of Americans, or a systemic number of Americans, that are going about their lives acting in a racial biased way against others. Sure there are acts of bias and racism. There is no question about that and it is wrong. But if its .1% of the population and even 1% that is not be any measure a "systemic" percentage of the population. None of the parties pushing the Systemic narrative can produce any hard data or evidence because it is simply their personal belief rather than some statistically valid and data driven fact.

Even if that is true and supportable by data and fact vs. opinion is 30% systemic?

I find it hard to believe anyone would be against ending racism. Its a despicable practice that has no place in our society. And its no surprise that professional sports leagues like the NFL have risen awareness. Where I struggle is while its a good slogan it lacks any actionable tasks or objectives. We hear terms like "systemic racism" but what does that mean? How do you know that America is systemically racist? Absolutely no hard science data and statistics have been presented to demonstrate systemic racism exists. To date all that's been presented is subjective observations and anecdotal stories. If you can't measure it you can't fix it or know if anything you're doing is having any impact. For example, if I wanted to end illiteracy among 10 year old children in the city of Buffalo I would perform an analysis of the population of 10 year old's in the city and assess their reading comprehension skills. I would arrive at a starting point and be in a position to put initiatives in place to improve their skills and measure progress. At some point when their progress achieves the objectives set at the beginning I would conclude the program. If you want to end racism you need to do the same. What's the baseline level of racism at the start? What's the "test" to determine somebody is a racist? What is the plan to eliminate racism from their behavior? How will you measure progress and success? When are you complete? So what's the plan besides more talk and slogans?

I also suspect communists in this country are people that work in the public sector or are dependent on government to provide for their survival. That doesn't imply all civil servants are communists. Likely 99% aren't. I don't expect there are too many communists that work in the private sector pulling down $100K+ a year. Why would they want communism? This system is working just fine for them. Many also tend to be intellectual dreamers and idealists like college professors or professional students or other educators that use their position to brainwash children into believing all kinds of social justice theory. Teaching subjects like math and science are secondary. After all, math and science are racist and artifacts of white supremacy. Somebody told me they would rather not drive over a bridge built by someone that didn't believe 2 +2 = 4. That kind of say it all for me. These intellectuals conclude that system will be more beneficial for them and that capitalism inefficiently allocates the benefits of society to those that don't deserve it. After all, they are so much smarter than everyone else. Why shouldn't they be on top of the food chain? They spend their lives brainwashing college age students about the virtues of that system and the evils of capitalism while charging them and their parents upwards of $50K a year to learn a lot of impractical nonsense. Then the students graduate with no real skills or education in anything that somebody might pay you to do and the professors tell them "look how unfair the system is". Through this they "manufacture" more proponents of the communist system rather than graduating educated and marketable young graduates. Sounds a bit hypocritical charging so much for so little. If they were true communists they'd work for free. The sad fact is there will never be any system of complete and total equality. How could that be possible? This is one of the key principals of life we collectively don't want to acknowledge. The truth that "life isn't fair". And never will be. But all the nuts are running around demanding equality but never defining what it means or what the specific attributes of equality would be under their vision. My observation is the definition of equality to groups like BLM and Antifa means they would be running the show and calling the shots. Like Alice Cooper said in the song Elected "We're all gonna rock to the rules that I make!" The street thugs throwing firebombs and attacking people aren't "real" communists. They're mostly petty criminal, drug addicts, and misfits that can't function in what is considered every day life. They want to eliminate the police because they're tired of being busted all the time for jacking people in the streets. They think communism will allow them to retire from the life of crime and pay them a lot of money to goof off and do absolutely nothing to produce anything of any value. Anything they could trade with others for the purchase of goods and services they need. And if the "Party" ever needs any muscle to put down any trouble they are always at the ready to help out. One final thought. One of my very good friends grew up in Romania during the Soviet era. And lived under communism. He was drafted into the Army to serve the state like all youths must do (I wonder if the communists here want a compulsory draft?). The Soviet Union fell apart and without the ability to enforce their rule his countryman booted out the communists. He says communism sucks and thinks anybody that wants to live under it or adopt it is an idiot. So the communists here have another common trait. They want to live under a system that the people that have lived under rejected but one which they themselves have never experienced.

I have several friends I suspect of being Communists. I find that when we all get together for a night out for some food and drinks they never pick up the check.

My guesses... Seattle, Vegas, Houston.

My suspicion all along is the same people funding the groups on the left are funding the groups on the right. Much like neutral countries selling weapons to both sides of a war. Their objective is to produce chaos and disorder which will result in them easily acquiring more power and control. Look at concepts like crucial race theory. Its some crackpot theory contrived with all sorts of subjective and anecdotal inputs. Absent some underlying psychological or behavioral disorder, or heavy drug use, it seems impossible that any rational, intelligent, and critical thinking person could believe any of it. But that's the basis of all the "equality" and "systemic racism" narratives. So everybody leading these movements know its all horse crap but still go along with it because they're afraid to speak the truth or there is some unstated, hidden, or underlying motivation behind buying into the B.S. The elites aren't interested in producing equality. Their motivation is self-interest of gaining more power and wealth and control over everything. All sides in these conflicts are getting played.

My fear is this will quickly escalate into open warfare in the streets. As many of the so labeled "right wing" groups are composed of ex-military, pro-patriot combat veterans skilled in urban warfare situations from Middle East tours of duty I suspect any open engagement would result in the Antifa and their followers being slaughtered in the streets. You can play as many video games and take as many self-defense sessions as you like but nothing prepares you for the real thing. These conflicts can't be allowed to happen but without police in the streets empowered to act who is going to step in? Frankly, if I'm a rank and file cop on the street I'm not jumping in between any shooting match between the sides. Why get killed protecting people that hate you? If this plays out to a tragic climax the only certainty here is we already know who the media will blame and who the media will portray as the victim,

That's in alignment with the stats I've seen. I'm not going to claim that racial bias doesn't exist. But I don't see it as the motivating factor in the Blake shooting and I see no objective data or statistics in any form that support to theory that America is a "systemically racist" country. All I see and hear are subjective and anecdotal stores and pseudo-science conclusions, many using historical references of wrong and immoral actions and proclaiming they somehow still exist without providing any data points. Attributing the primary cause of problems faced by inner city communities of color to "racial bias" is dangerous because it not only identifies the wrong cause but it also results in actions that seek to solve the wrong problem. I'd argue we could resolve whatever perceived or real "bias" there is and still not improve the lives of the people in these communities. The root issues are what impacts the social-economic conditions for citizens of these communities. Statistics point to two main factors, low income and poor education. Fix these problems and the rest will take care of itself. A real life example of this search for racial bias is in my job working with analytics. A team in my organization was studying the problem of inner city communities and the level and extent of health care services they received. This study was generated as a result of the COVID outbreak. I suspect somebody wanted confirmation of their conclusions on race bias backed by some "scientific" study. The team concluded "racial bias" was a primary factor in low utilization rates and availability of health care services. Surprise. I asked them what data and statistics they had to "prove" their theory. None really, correlation is not causality. I suggested income level was the primary driver for low utilization and provision of health care services. I asked them to test their race theory with data on affluent minorities and confirm that race resulted in them receiving poor health care services. They could not. I also asked them if race explains why poor, rural whites received inadequate health care services. And they were dumbfounded by the question. The insight here is even with ACA and other legislation rich people get better health care services which is no big secret. Of course me doing so and questioning the "gospel" could put me at great risk of being exposed as a "non-believer".

Hey Tiberius - While I don't always agree with your views I respect your thoughts and as you seem to have a handle on the pulse of the African-American community I'd like to share my honest thoughts and get your feedback. The Jacob Blake shooting troubles me. Both because I see it as a case where excessive force seems to have been used and the social reactions that followed. I've listened and read comments and statements from various sources from sports personalities to people on the street. Most seem to be saying they believe motivating factor behind the police shooting the suspect was his race. And if all other things were equal and the encounter with the police was exactly the same and the suspect was white they would not have shot him. Is that really the majority view of the African-American community? My conclusion is they would have shot the suspect under those circumstances if he was White or Asian or Hispanic, or Native American. It wouldn't have mattered. And I base this conclusion on statistics that report the number of police shootings where the most common race of the suspect shot is white. Along with this I've seen interviews where black's are asked to provide a number of how many black and white suspects police shoot. The answers do not correlate to the actual data, they are way, way off. Why is the perception of the community so far away from the actual statistics? And if police presence in the community is a problem why do recent surveys report that African-Americans responses reported that 81% of those surveyed want the same amount of police patrols or more?

It continues to amaze me how much dis-information and propaganda is being distributed from across the political spectrum. That is not what the agency stated. The agency stated that briefings will occur but they insist committee members cease and refrain from the prior practice of leaking sensitive intelligence information. And want assurances from members they will comply and follow protocols when receiving sensitive information.

I like to understand what other people believe but more importantly why they are thinking what they're thinking and what information or facts drive their conclusions. That's hard here with these social causes because I find most arguments are based on subjective and anecdotal observations that upon being dissected and examined by applying facts and data prove to be wrong and invalid. It requires checking your emotions and feelings at the door. There's a litany of examples but to pick a couple. Inner-city African-American communities are demanding less police. So the action is for mayors and city councils to "de-fund police" and cut back on patrols and police presence. But surveys show the majority of black inner-city residents want either the same or more police patrols, 81% in the most recent survey I read. This contradicts the assumption there should be less police. It also calls into question the judgment of city officials. Are they out of touch with the people? Maybe the BLM organization wants less police but data suggests they are not representative of the views of the community. Why are white liberal politicians and black activists dictating the level of policing in neighborhoods that are in disagreement with the needs of the community? Why not put the idea on the ballot in November? Ask the voters, do you want less police or the same/more? At a minimum the decisions made by some of these mayors need to be questioned. Another is that police are engaged in a systematic execution of young unarmed black men. But facts show they shoot more unarmed white men on an annual basis as a percentage of police encounters by race. How can this be possible? But if you ask people in the streets they "think" 100's of unarmed black men are gunned down by the police and maybe 3 or 4 white guys. So maybe attributing the recent shooting in Kenosha to race rather than some other factor is an unsupported or rushed conclusion? So in the Kenosha example those pushing the race theory "believe" all other circumstances equal if the suspect was white he wouldn't have been shot. And that no other attribute or circumstance of the encounter had anything to do with the shooting other than race. That seems to be a wildly biased conclusion along with concluding he was unarmed. To me the issue is one of plain and simple use of excessive force rather than the race of the suspect. So yes, liberals can be reasoned with, along with conservatives, if they agree to make sound and logical judgments and conclusions based on facts rather than subjective and anecdotal observations and emotions.

Some giggles on CNN "reporting"..

What will they do if Trump wins another term?

Name calling and labeling is not a very effective counter argument. And I guess he should have done the honorable and moral thing and let those armed street thugs, or if you prefer armed peaceful protesters, beat the crap out of him or kill him? Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. Expect to be disappointed when he's acquitted for self-defense. Video accounts of the altercation seem to support that conclusion.

Another victim speaks. "Two protesters"? Armed and chasing the suspect is a minor detail to the story that appears to be avoided. And that sets the context for the entire confrontation and outcome. They are well coached and use some standard and effective debating techniques that help them squirm out of an uncomfortable argument. 1. Introduce false comparisons. In this case mention another situation in an attempt to portray the opponents argument as inconsistent. 2. Introduce suggestions of motive. Gratuitous mention of White Supremacists is standard. Has anyone ever met a white supremacist? I haven't and I don't know anyone else that has either. What are there? Like maybe 50 of them in the country hiding out somewhere? 3. Change the subject. Now the argument is the other side supports white supremacists that kill innocent people rather than debating an act of self-defense against an angry and armed mob.. My view is this. Its real simple. If you don't want anybody to screw with you then don't screw with them. First, if you going to start a confrontation with somebody you'd better be prepared to suffer and accept any consequences. Don't get into anybody's face, make a lot of threats, and start pushing people around and then piss and moan when it doesn't turn out the way you expect. If I start a fight with somebody and end up getting the crap kicked out of me its my own damn fault. I'm not going to claim I'm the victim. After all, I started it. That's the case with these two dead guys. They confronted an armed guys with significant force and he killed them before they killed him. End of story. Can we introduce these people to the concepts of responsibility and consequences for actions? Can they please just stop playing the victim all the time?

Paid and professional agitators too, likely out of uniform Antifa. I compare them to the Brown Shirts of Germany before the Nazis came to power. If you're familiar with the history of the era they were the street muscle of the party before they assumed complete control of Germany. After that the Brown Shirts were brutally eliminated. As their behavior is consistent, I like to compare Antifa to them. Since the Nazi's were "national socialists" and not "fascists" in the pure sense of the term I believe it is completely appropriate. There's really 3 options available in dealing with these street thugs: 1. appease them, give them what they want (whatever that is) and surrender. 2. just learn to live with it. 3. eliminate the problem by whatever means necessary. I expect at this point most would vote for option 3.

I expect all the white people would be out in the streets burning cars and businesses, looting stores and beating up any people of color they could find! ?

The media and the left and the BLM propaganda narrative is to always describe the suspects as 100% peaceful "victims" of some unwarranted attack or action by a suppressor. Be it law enforcement or the imaginary "white supremacists". Victim of racism, victim of inequality, victim of bias, victim of this and victim of that. They want everyone to believe white people secretly belong to clandestine organizations that meet on a regular basis to discuss and execute an organized plan to oppress and discriminate against people of color. Nothing the victim does or says or any actions they take have any connection to the outcome. There is no personal responsibility for consequences. They know its a total load of crap but that's their angle. Play the victim while inciting other to action, like the shootings in Kenosha, and then point the finger at them as the instigator and hater. Use hate, deny its hate, and then accuse others of hate. They want people to ignore facts and just rely on emotions. They try to silence others that oppose them because the act of others speaking out exposes their lies and facilitates discussions. Their problem at this point is they've over-played their hand and a huge majority of Americans of all demographics are sick and tired of seeing this nonsense play out every night. They see idiot "reporters" from CNN broadcasting with fires and rioter in the background describing the scene as "peaceful". A total disconnect from reality. Now jerks like Don Lemon on CNN suggest they rein in these riots. Not because they are immoral, illegal, or destructive but rather because they are helping Trump close the gap or take the lead in Presidential polls.

In most states getting a license to cut hair requires more hours of training than it does to become a police officer. So better training and situational awareness is part of the problem. That said, I grow weary of the narrative that the suspect in each and every one of these situations is 100% the "victim". Such as in this case the usual apologists assigning 100% of the blame for the outcome to the cops. That avoids any consideration that the actions and behavior of the suspect contributed to the outcome. Bad actions lead to bad consequences. Why didn't he just comply with their requests during the stop? Plain and simple. Its been reported he guy was driving drunk with 3 kids in the vehicle. An action that is completely irresponsible. So as you say "he runs they will get him". What if he gets in the car, takes off, the cops pursue him, and he crashes and kills his 3 kids in the vehicle? Perhaps blame the cops for chasing the suspect? The suspect struggles and fights with the cops on the right side of the vehicle and moves around to the driver side door. What do you think is going to happen next? The conflict most likely will escalate. The knife is an issue. Why does anyone carry weapons in their vehicle? Either to initiate a confrontation or to be prepared to respond to one. And what other weapons might he have then? If you're the cops you've got to be thinking that too. I know I would be. But you wouldn't? He's got a rap sheet so you know he's no first-timer with encountering law enforcement so you need to be prepared. Maybe he's got a gun and goes to the car, you passively allow him to do so, he retrieves the weapon and kills both of you. Shoot him in the leg? Unless its a high caliber round that generally is not going to instantaneously "take down" a suspect that is ignoring the instructions of the police and reaching into a vehicle for some unknown item. Should they have fired so many shots? Probably not, but its not like you're standing around with all the time in the world to react looking at a clip board with the checklist of things you should do and go through.

It makes no sense to attempt any rational debate with snowflakes, wokesters, or social justice warriors. And its the nature of the leftist and BLM movements to portray themselves as victims no matter the circumstances. The mommies and daddies of these well off middle class white kids participating in these street battles never taught them the concepts of responsibilities and consequences. And the schools have become social engineering & propaganda centers. Their minds are totally screwed up. The hardcore BLM members, not the real people out peacefully protesting for social justice, are simply Marxists and black racists that hate white people consistent with the Black Panthers with a shinny new marketing plan. Their game is to push for institution of more redistribution rackets and extract revenge. So did any rational person think the lefties would say "well we attacked the guy so he shot a couple of us so that's okay". No, the reflex actoin is to cry about injustice . That's also what we'll here from the political activists posing as journalists and reporters too. That's their game. The problem they have at this point is theyvre overplayed their hand. Most Americans of all demographics are sick and tired of this nonsense. Live by the sword, die by the sword has some application here. As far as the specific circumstances here I'll leave it to the legal system to decide. Of course they'll cry the blues once more if the courts rule self-defense. We know that already. And if they rule the other way so be it. The saying "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" applies well here.