Black Lives Matter leader declares war on police - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Blog articles about news and current events.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

Forum rules: Blogosphere Rules.
#15103876
ckaihatsu wrote:BLM Leader: We'll 'Burn' the System Down If U.S. Won't Give Us What We Want

https://www.newsweek.com/blm-leader-wel ... nt-1513422

They have no means to enact this threat. The moment they get too violent the military would be brought in and things would end very quickly. They're being given a very long rope and are now over-confident. For instance, CHAZ/CHOP could be re-taken in 2 minutes.

It's pretty interesting how things have come full circle. The south started a civil war to keep slavery. Now black sovereigntists are threatening their own civil war.
#15103993
Hindsite wrote:
That is more proof that BLM is a radical terrorist group in a similar league with the Antifa terrorists.



What about *U.S.* terrorism? I don't think BLM or Antifa even have a *body count*, yet look at the *militaristic* legacy of *millions* of lives taken or impacted. No wonder BLM wants its own nation-state -- that's where the *power* is at....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism


Unthinking Majority wrote:
They have no means to enact this threat. The moment they get too violent the military would be brought in and things would end very quickly. They're being given a very long rope and are now over-confident. For instance, CHAZ/CHOP could be re-taken in 2 minutes.

It's pretty interesting how things have come full circle. The south started a civil war to keep slavery. Now black sovereigntists are threatening their own civil war.



I, for one, wish that the country would at least *address* the issues of killer cops, racism, and so on that the protestors have raised. The nation's response has been *piecemeal*, at best.
#15104221
ckaihatsu wrote:I, for one, wish that the country would at least *address* the issues of killer cops, racism, and so on that the protestors have raised. The nation's response has been *piecemeal*, at best.

The Republicans had a bill ready to be debated, but the Democrats voted it down after refusing to even offer any amendments.
#15104260
Hindsite wrote:
The Republicans had a bill ready to be debated, but the Democrats voted it down after refusing to even offer any amendments.



Do you *support* the Republican bill, and, if so, why?

My own position is that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be resuscitated and bolstered, for civil-rights-type protections against policing procedures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965
#15104350

Democrats and civil rights groups including the NAACP say they opposed the Republican bill because it relies on incentives to effect reforms and seeks data collection on issues such as no-knock warrants, rather than mandating changes as the Democratic bill does.

It also failed to scale back “qualified immunity,” which shields police from excessive force lawsuits.



https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minn ... SKBN2413H4
#15104457
ckaihatsu wrote:Do you *support* the Republican bill, and, if so, why?

Not sure since the Democrats blocked debate on it.

Sen. Tim Scott makes plea for police reform bill after Democrats block debate in Senate | ABC News


ABC edited out the part Sen Scott said cities like Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc has been Democrat ran for decades and could have abolished the choke hold at anytime.

Tim Scott calls Dems 'despicable' after blocking police reform bill


Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) remarks following JUSTICE Act vote


After the Senate blocked the Republican police reform bill, Just and Unifying Solutions To Invigorate Communities Everywhere Act of 2020, or the JUSTICE Act, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) spoke on the floor about his personal experiences and how they helped him write the JUSTICE Act. Full video here: https://cs.pn/3ewhgIm

After South Carolina U.S. Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act failed to pass due to objections from Congressional Democrats, he delivered an impassioned speech in which he said a momentous opportunity had been lost. “My friends on the other side just said no,” he said. “Not no to the legislation … they just said no.”

Scott, the lone Black Republican in the Senate, had already gone before the Senate in hopes that his bill would pass, urging Democratic senators to rise above politics and support a piece of legislation that he said would have provided “resources for body cameras, for anti-lynching, for de-escalation training.”

However, many Democrats said the bill did not go far enough and refused to support it; one Democrat, Representative Dick Durbin, said the bill represented a “token, half-hearted” attempt at reform, which he later apologized for, Politico reported.

However, Scott did receive some support across the aisle. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Doug Jones as well as Independent Angus King crossed party lines to support the bill, but that was not enough and the final vote was 55-45, CNN reported. On the other side, President Donald Trump’s spokesperson, Kayleigh McEnany, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell both said they were fully behind Scott’s bill.

Still, the JUSTICE Act failed and was just four votes shy of the 60 votes it needed (McConnell changed his final vote to a “no” to allow the issue to be reconsidered at a later date) even though some Democrats joined in support of the bill, USA Today reported. One hang-up is that Democrats want to strip out the issue of qualified immunity, which makes police officers nearly impervious to lawsuits filed against them for misconduct. However, Scott called that issue a “poison pill.”

- "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it…. As a black man, I get the ‘who’ being the problem. It’s one of the reasons why I went to Senator McConnell and said I want to lead this conversation…. What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation…. They cannot allow this party to be seen as a party that reaches out to all communities in this nation."

Trump signed an order on June 16 in response to the calls for police reform following the death of George Floyd, USA Today reported. That order called for a national database to be created to allow police departments to track officers with histories of abuse and also called for mental health professionals to be sent out with police officers on calls where homelessness, drug addiction or mental illness may be a factor.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/tim-scot ... or-speech/
#15104505
ckaihatsu wrote:
Do you *support* the Republican bill, and, if so, why?



Hindsite wrote:
Not sure since the Democrats blocked debate on it.



You're *not even sure* why you support the Republican bill -- ??

You'd rather detour to a play-by-play of *party politics*.


Hindsite wrote:
Sen. Tim Scott makes plea for police reform bill after Democrats block debate in Senate | ABC News
rMlmHZv2bRI

ABC edited out the part Sen Scott said cities like Atlanta, Minneapolis, etc has been Democrat ran for decades and could have abolished the choke hold at anytime.

Tim Scott calls Dems 'despicable' after blocking police reform bill
Vc60XWNRqtY

Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) remarks following JUSTICE Act vote
JZdXwWpYFA8

After the Senate blocked the Republican police reform bill, Just and Unifying Solutions To Invigorate Communities Everywhere Act of 2020, or the JUSTICE Act, Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) spoke on the floor about his personal experiences and how they helped him write the JUSTICE Act. Full video here: https://cs.pn/3ewhgIm

After South Carolina U.S. Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act failed to pass due to objections from Congressional Democrats, he delivered an impassioned speech in which he said a momentous opportunity had been lost. “My friends on the other side just said no,” he said. “Not no to the legislation … they just said no.”

Scott, the lone Black Republican in the Senate, had already gone before the Senate in hopes that his bill would pass, urging Democratic senators to rise above politics and support a piece of legislation that he said would have provided “resources for body cameras, for anti-lynching, for de-escalation training.”

However, many Democrats said the bill did not go far enough and refused to support it; one Democrat, Representative Dick Durbin, said the bill represented a “token, half-hearted” attempt at reform, which he later apologized for, Politico reported.

However, Scott did receive some support across the aisle. Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Doug Jones as well as Independent Angus King crossed party lines to support the bill, but that was not enough and the final vote was 55-45, CNN reported. On the other side, President Donald Trump’s spokesperson, Kayleigh McEnany, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell both said they were fully behind Scott’s bill.

Still, the JUSTICE Act failed and was just four votes shy of the 60 votes it needed (McConnell changed his final vote to a “no” to allow the issue to be reconsidered at a later date) even though some Democrats joined in support of the bill, USA Today reported. One hang-up is that Democrats want to strip out the issue of qualified immunity, which makes police officers nearly impervious to lawsuits filed against them for misconduct. However, Scott called that issue a “poison pill.”

- "The actual problem is not what is being offered. It is who is offering it…. As a black man, I get the ‘who’ being the problem. It’s one of the reasons why I went to Senator McConnell and said I want to lead this conversation…. What I missed in this issue is that the stereotyping of Republicans is just as toxic to the outcomes of the most vulnerable communities in this nation…. They cannot allow this party to be seen as a party that reaches out to all communities in this nation."

Trump signed an order on June 16 in response to the calls for police reform following the death of George Floyd, USA Today reported. That order called for a national database to be created to allow police departments to track officers with histories of abuse and also called for mental health professionals to be sent out with police officers on calls where homelessness, drug addiction or mental illness may be a factor.

https://heavy.com/news/2020/06/tim-scot ... or-speech/



It looks like the issue in front of everyone who's racism-conscious is that of *qualified immunity*, since that's at the crux of it. If killer cops can continue to get away with murder then there's nothing to *stop* them from murdering again.

I myself would prefer to pick through policing protocols with a fine-toothed comb, to see exactly what kind of training they're given that allows them to do summary executions for any act of simple noncompliance. Sure, given an overturn of qualified-immunity murdering cops could be *sued*, but that isn't nearly close to immediate state prosecution of cops for criminal acts against persons, like what any regular person is subject to.

Cops are put in the professional position of being *far more likely* to commit violence against people, so, if anything, they should be *far more regulated* than the average person -- I don't see any legislation forthcoming that takes *this* perspective, though.
#15104771
ckaihatsu wrote:You're *not even sure* why you support the Republican bill -- ??

I did not say I supported either the Republican or the Democrat bill. When you asked, I was simply stating that I was not sure if I supported the Republican bill in the Senate, because the Democrats stopped debate on it and would not offer any amendments.

ckaihatsu wrote:It looks like the issue in front of everyone who's racism-conscious is that of *qualified immunity*, since that's at the crux of it. If killer cops can continue to get away with murder then there's nothing to *stop* them from murdering again.

I myself would prefer to pick through policing protocols with a fine-toothed comb, to see exactly what kind of training they're given that allows them to do summary executions for any act of simple noncompliance. Sure, given an overturn of qualified-immunity murdering cops could be *sued*, but that isn't nearly close to immediate state prosecution of cops for criminal acts against persons, like what any regular person is subject to.

Cops are put in the professional position of being *far more likely* to commit violence against people, so, if anything, they should be *far more regulated* than the average person -- I don't see any legislation forthcoming that takes *this* perspective, though.

Well, that needs to be debated because I am sure there must have been a good reason for police being given *qualified immunity* to prevent them from being sued for doing the job we pay them to do.
#15104810
Hindsite wrote:
I did not say I supported either the Republican or the Democrat bill. When you asked, I was simply stating that I was not sure if I supported the Republican bill in the Senate, because the Democrats stopped debate on it and would not offer any amendments.


Well, that needs to be debated because I am sure there must have been a good reason for police being given *qualified immunity* to prevent them from being sued for doing the job we pay them to do.



'There must have been a good reason' -- ?

So if something was done in the past then it must be okay for today because it was done in the past that way.

And qualified-immunity 'needs to be debated', and here we are on a political discussion board, but there's no debate forthcoming from you.

Astounding. Do you realize how *superficial* you're being?
#15104972
ckaihatsu wrote:'There must have been a good reason' -- ?

So if something was done in the past then it must be okay for today because it was done in the past that way.

And qualified-immunity 'needs to be debated', and here we are on a political discussion board, but there's no debate forthcoming from you.

Astounding. Do you realize how *superficial* you're being?

I don't mean that we on PoFo should debate it. I mean the politicians that we elect should debate it until they come to a consensus as to the right thing to do.
#15104978
ckaihatsu wrote:When Black lives matter to Democrats, and when they don't

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 264946001/


It is true that a serious problem of the Democratic Party (or the two-party system in general) is that they are (or even have to be) inconsistent on some important matters.

I start to think some matters are better left to more powerful third parties, allowing the two main parties to be more firm on their true grounds.
#15104992
Patrickov wrote:It is true that a serious problem of the Democratic Party (or the two-party system in general) is that they are (or even have to be) inconsistent on some important matters.

I start to think some matters are better left to more powerful third parties, allowing the two main parties to be more firm on their true grounds.

Which more powerful third parties? Are you referring to President Trump or the Supreme Court?
#15104995
Hindsite wrote:Which more powerful third parties? Are you referring to President Trump or the Supreme Court?


Trump has changed the Republican so he has already made some difference in his way, and in Republican supporters' favour.

I focus more on how to address the (apparent or surface) inconsistency some people perceive the Democrats, and how the voters of these parties can be represented better.
#15105038
Hindsite wrote:
I don't mean that we on PoFo should debate it. I mean the politicians that we elect should debate it until they come to a consensus as to the right thing to do.



That's *beside the point*, though, HS, because the politicians are only supposed to be *representatives*, but if we ourselves don't know *our own* positions on the issues, then what good are *representatives*?

What if a politician *gets it wrong*? If we're unfamiliar with the political *material* then we'll be *clueless* as to what the politicians are doing, and they won't be representing us whatsoever, as on the issues of *police brutality*.


Patrickov wrote:
It is true that a serious problem of the Democratic Party (or the two-party system in general) is that they are (or even have to be) inconsistent on some important matters.

I start to think some matters are better left to more powerful third parties, allowing the two main parties to be more firm on their true grounds.



You sound like HS. What I just said to him goes for you as well.
#15105057
ckaihatsu wrote:That's *beside the point*, though, HS, because the politicians are only supposed to be *representatives*, but if we ourselves don't know *our own* positions on the issues, then what good are *representatives*?

What if a politician *gets it wrong*? If we're unfamiliar with the political *material* then we'll be *clueless* as to what the politicians are doing, and they won't be representing us whatsoever, as on the issues of *police brutality*.


Quoted for truth.


ckaihatsu wrote:You sound like HS. What I just said to him goes for you as well.


Regardless of how I sound (I do perceive the member higher than he possibly deserves), I agree with the analysis above.

The tail has been wagging the dog.. Israel is a[…]

Candace Owens

She has, and to add gravitas to what she has said[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspirac[…]

Both of them have actually my interest at heart. […]