BLM, or WLM? [MOD WARNING: FIRST POST]

biko

Overheal wrote: »

Wait - isn’t San Francisco the one where Pelosi is constantly blamed for the homeless pooping on the streets? And it’s run by a Republican? Well, I never...

In my post it says "San Diego" which is Republican run.
Pelosi's poop city "San Francisco" is Dems run.

BloodBath

ELM327 wrote: »

You can't defund the military.
America has been the defacto world police for some time. In addition to policing its own interests.


Defunding the military is not an option. America needs a strong military.

World police my arse. They cause far more problems than they fix while siphoning off trillions of taxpayers money and lining the pockets of politicians who are also board members of large private defense contractors.

You have your head firmly in the sand. No other country is spending or needs to spend that much of their GDP on their military.

Foxtrol

biko wrote: »

Republican cities
San Diego, California - 8th largest in US
Jacksonville, Florida - 14th largest in US << this is the only city on on the "most dangerous cities" list
Fort Worth, Texas - 18th largest in US
El Paso, Texas - 20th largest in US

Are you saying that the more violent cities are more violent because of their size, rather than their politicians?
Or because people in cities have more money?

From that list the only republican ran city that is out performing itself is San Diego, which gets a lot of support from the Democrat run state, has a population that is heavily employed by the military (families making up ~8% of the population), and the republican mayor is supporting significant police reform. Hardly a case that proves any kind of point on republican leadership

Out of the biggest 30 cities republicans only run ~17% of them. I don't see how you can extrapolate anything from that, given how each city has its own challenges.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

In my post it says "San Diego" which is Republican run.
Pelosi's poop city "San Francisco" is Dems run.

Fair enough

biko

Did anyone notice that Detroit is 7th on the dangerous cities list?

The population of the city has fallen from a high of 1,850,000 in 1950 to 680,000 in 2015

In 2012, 97.5 percent of the city went for Barack Obama. The county sheriff is a Democrat, as are the three U.S. representatives whose districts surround the city.

Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history 2013.

The current mayor, the previous mayor, the six mayors before that guy: all Democrats, too.

So Detroit isn't big and it's been in Dems hands for ages. Why is it falling apart?

Foxtrol

biko wrote: »

Did anyone notice that Detroit is 7th on the dangerous cities list?

The population of the city has fallen from a high of 1,850,000 in 1950 to 680,000 in 2015

In 2012, 97.5 percent of the city went for Barack Obama. The county sheriff is a Democrat, as are the three U.S. representatives whose districts surround the city.

Detroit filed the largest municipal bankruptcy case in U.S. history 2013.

The current mayor, the previous mayor, the six mayors before that guy: all Democrats, too.

So Detroit isn't big and it's been in Dems hands for ages. Why is it falling apart?

Because the industry the whole city built itself around changed forever? :rolleyes:

It is like blaming all the small republican ran towns that have become ghost towns due to the local coal mine or manufacturing plant shutting down.

Overheal

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because the industry the whole city built itself around changed forever? :rolleyes:

It is like blaming all the small republican ran towns that have become ghost towns due to the local coal mine or manufacturing plant shutting down.

Yeah there’s a lot more subtext to cities and towns etc. than who is the D or R running it. I’m not saying it’s unfair to raise the points but a lot of times online people beat it like a dead horse to filibuster nuanced discussion.

biko

Foxtrol wrote: »

Because the industry the whole city built itself around changed forever? :rolleyes:

The narrative about why Detroit declined often just covers the landmark event – factory closings.
These events were certainly important, as they produced a catastrophic population loss of over 600,000 between 1950 and 1980.

But this narrative leaves out important questions. Why has Detroit continued to decline (and at a faster rate) in the nearly four decades since?

Was there some rule saying that, because of those previous events, Detroit had to keep declining? Or are new causes to blame?

These questions are worth asking, because other Midwestern cities with similar legacies to Detroit have outperformed the city during this period.

Foxtrol

biko wrote: »

The narrative about why Detroit declined often just covers the landmark event – factory closings.
These events were certainly important, as they produced a catastrophic population loss of over 600,000 between 1950 and 1980.

But this narrative leaves out important questions. Why has Detroit continued to decline (and at a faster rate) in the nearly four decades since?

Was there some rule saying that, because of those previous events, Detroit had to keep declining? Or are new causes to blame?

These questions are worth asking, because other Midwestern cities with similar legacies to Detroit have outperformed the city during this period.

Sure, questions can be asked but each city faces its own issues that others don't.

I don't see any comparative city out there for Detroit, at one point it was the 4th largest city in the US and massive job losses and people leaving a city of that scale is harder to stop than smaller ones. Few want to live in ghost towns after factory closures, even fewer want to live in a big empty rusting city, especially when the suburbs became an easier option and you had cities that were growing.

Again pointing to single cities, whether Detroit or San Diego, and to attempt to prove a point over who governs better is a complete waste of time.

biko

Ok let's stop there as I think it may be off topic for this thread to discuss declines in Dems runs cities.


How about this;
Bill de Blasio (Dems) have banned all gatherings because of Covid.
This will affect many gatherings, like West Indian Day Parade and Feast of San Gennaro.
Guess what gatherings are not banned?


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/10/bill-de-blasio-cancels-all-large-gatherings-except/

Foxtrol

biko wrote: »

Ok let's stop there as I think it may be off topic for this thread to discuss declines in Dems runs cities.

How about this;
Bill de Blasio (Dems) have banned all gatherings because of Covid.
This will affect many gatherings, like West Indian Day Parade and Feast of San Gennaro.
Guess what gatherings are not banned?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/10/bill-de-blasio-cancels-all-large-gatherings-except/

The anti-gun violence/black lives matter/blue lives matter/gay rights/trans rights/pro police/anti-statue removal protests that have all been allowed in the city over the last few weeks?

Overheal

Well, states who had banned church gatherings etc. also allowed protests at and inside state capitol buildings so I don't think it's terribly hypocritical.

Overheal

The only reason nobody had to ban anti-lockdown protests in NYC however had to do with poor attendance :pac:

https://nypost.com/2020/05/01/new-yorks-anti-lockdown-protests-fizzle-with-just-dozens-showing-up/

biko

Foxtrol wrote: »

The anti-gun violence/black lives matter/blue lives matter/gay rights/trans rights/pro police/anti-statue removal protests that have all been allowed in the city over the last few weeks?

Just BLM

Mr. de Blasio told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “We actually look at the science. We look at the data. The data is telling us it is not time for large gatherings.”

The exception: Black Lives Matter protests. Asked if he would prohibit those, Mr. de Blasio said, “Look, Wolf, this is always an area of real sensitivity.”

Mr eggshells.

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Just BLM

Mr eggshells.

Big difference between art and culture festivals, concerts, and political speech imho

Foxtrol

biko wrote: »

Just BLM

Mr eggshells.

That article is simply wrong and any quick google would provide you evidence of that. The writer made an faulty logical leap from the answering a specific question to then make the assumption that only a single type of protest is allowed.

Yes, BLM protests are being allowed but so are all protests. Again, there have been at least anti-gun violence, black lives matter, blue lives matter, gay rights, trans rights, pro police, and anti-statue removal protests in NYC over the last few weeks. None have been prohibited.

Doing some fact checking is generally helpful before completely trusting an article, especially from such a questionable source as that paper.

bertiebomber

when biden gets elected despite his dementia and obvious health issues BLM will disappear its orchestrated to attack trump thats how it suddenly blew up to undermine Trump. the leaders are paid to whip it up and will be paid even more to shut it down once the corpse is in the white house and all the armaments factories can get back to full production so they can get a war going! The democrats thrive on war and fill their pockets on the profits of it. How many wars has trump started? Obama was at war every day of his presidency look it up !

Overheal

bertiebomber wrote: »

when biden gets elected despite his dementia and obvious health issues BLM will disappear its orchestrated to attack trump thats how it suddenly blew up to undermine Trump. the leaders are paid to whip it up and will be paid even more to shut it down once the corpse is in the white house and all the armaments factories can get back to full production so they can get a war going! The democrats thrive on war and fill their pockets on the profits of it. How many wars has trump started? Obama was at war every day of his presidency look it up !

BLM has existed since at least 2015, under the Obama/Biden administration...

bertiebomber

Overheal wrote: »

BLM has existed since at least 2015, under the Obama/Biden administration...

Correct but they are only really blowing up now and being effective because they are now being funded to create chaos

Foxtrol

bertiebomber wrote: »

Correct but they are only really blowing up now and being effective because they are now being funded to create chaos

Who are you saying are being funded? The protesters?

Overheal

bertiebomber wrote: »

Correct but they are only really blowing up now and being effective because they are now being funded to create chaos

Meh. Money is speech, something Republicans have thoroughly enjoyed exploitation of.

Like Reagan's assault weapons ban it seems only unruly black people can get Republicans to suddenly become liberals when it comes to regulating behavior they condone in themselves.

Sand

bertiebomber wrote: »

when biden gets elected despite his dementia and obvious health issues BLM will disappear its orchestrated to attack trump thats how it suddenly blew up to undermine Trump. the leaders are paid to whip it up and will be paid even more to shut it down once the corpse is in the white house and all the armaments factories can get back to full production so they can get a war going! The democrats thrive on war and fill their pockets on the profits of it. How many wars has trump started? Obama was at war every day of his presidency look it up !

If you think the struggle in the US is between peace loving Republicans and war mongering Democrats, you just haven't been paying attention. There are several bipartisan issues in the US, and foreign wars in the middle east is definitely one of them.

BLM is definitely a fake protest though. It was turned on and off like a tap before, and it will be again.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

If you think the struggle in the US is between peace loving Republicans and war mongering Democrats, you just haven't been paying attention. There are several bipartisan issues in the US, and foreign wars in the middle east is definitely one of them.

BLM is definitely a fake protest though. It was turned on and off like a tap before, and it will be again.

I don't understand this sentiment. Can you give examples of other 'legitimate' protests that exemplify a lack of this 'on and off' capability? Anti-Lockdown protests came and went, for example, were they fake? I hardly think so, they raised there issue and restrictions were relaxed so they went home. That we've had conversations about black lives, police brutality, kneeling etc. for years upon years now also indicates to me this tap never turned off: what happened is 30 million Americans are out of work, and there's been a new spate of incidents which involve police brutality or racially motivated violence that created a perfect storm from broadscale protests, yes. I think protests in an election year are nothing new and not necessarily evidence in itself of astroturfing, folks are indeed more likely to protest in direct reaction to or anticipation of major political events, elections, court cases, legislative motions, declaration of wars, etc. - one clear example of astroturfing in recent years I think was the migrant caravan outrage, which literally evaporated on election day. The GOP never raised the issue of migrant caravans again past that time. Prior to that my own Representative was posting about Migrant "invasions" every other day on social media, sitting mum while his based was riled up, ginned up, making extraordinary comments about having military at the border don bayonets and slaughter people crossing the border - and then poof, the GOP lost the house and the attention immediately fecked off elsewhere.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

I don't understand this sentiment. Can you give examples of other 'legitimate' protests that exemplify a lack of this 'on and off' capability?

Lets just focus on the issue at hand without tangents. If you believe that mobs can take over, riot and burn down urban areas in the US (apparently a militaristic police state) with impunity and its not being tolerated and held up by power, then you're naive. That it's being championed and supported by power highlights how fake it all is.

When it's no longer useful to power, or if these protests actually threaten things power cares about, then that impunity will be removed. And then it will end.

biko

To go out and gather in large groups during the worst health crisis in a hundred years while most people can't even go to funerals, that's privilege.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Lets just focus on the issue at hand without tangents. If you believe that mobs can take over, riot and burn down urban areas in the US (apparently a militaristic police state) with impunity and its not being tolerated and held up by power, then you're naive. That it's being championed and supported by power highlights how fake it all is.

When it's no longer useful to power, or if these protests actually threaten things power cares about, then that impunity will be removed. And then it will end.

You lost me with your impunity argument. Show me the impunity because I can show you 60+ nights of teargas use in Portland for example. People are being shoved into rental vans. There’s no impunity. Between talking about BLM like a tap that turns on and off, that operates with impunity, the nicest thing I can say to comment on that, is you’re gravely misinformed.

biko

Seattle City Council move to abolish police department with new bill

Replaces it with a “community-led” safety prevention program and organizations focused on “housing, food security, and other basic needs” along with “culturally-relevant expertise rooted in community connections”

https://nypost.com/2020/07/31/seattle-city-council-move-to-abolish-police-department-with-new-bill/

Overheal

biko wrote: »

Seattle City Council move to abolish police department with new bill

Replaces it with a “community-led” safety prevention program and organizations focused on “housing, food security, and other basic needs” along with “culturally-relevant expertise rooted in community connections”

https://nypost.com/2020/07/31/seattle-city-council-move-to-abolish-police-department-with-new-bill/

So far that’s only a proposal introduced by a few members. Nothing has been decided yet about abolishing SPD, but the community led agency will take over non-emergency calls which are estimated to be about 56% of the departments calls.

Silentcorner

biko wrote: »

Seattle City Council move to abolish police department with new bill

Replaces it with a “community-led” safety prevention program and organizations focused on “housing, food security, and other basic needs” along with “culturally-relevant expertise rooted in community connections”

https://nypost.com/2020/07/31/seattle-city-council-move-to-abolish-police-department-with-new-bill/

I'm sure they are basing this on evidence based practical solutions that have been tried and tested in similar urban environments seeing that only recently a part of that very city allowed several blocks of their city centre descend into murderous and violent anarchy for several weeks...costing massive money in tax revenues to the city not to mention the fear the ordinary citizen would have experienced.

Those Democrats know how to run a city..I'll give them that!!!

biko

Brixton, London.
Count yourselves lucky, English whites