Are the blm protesters right that the Democratic party is not the answer

[Shodan]

@Richard_Parker

Like Grumman, you choose to believe weakly substantiated facts that support your position, and ignore those well-substantiated facts that challenge your position. In terms of objectivity, you are no better than the protestors who choose to believe a minority of the witnesses and cherry-pick the physical evidence.

This is another of your factual inaccuracies.

None of the facts on which my conclusions are based are weakly substantiated. They were confirmed in the grand jury hearing, which included the physical evidence. And there are no well-substantiated facts that affect the relevant conclusions at all.

An example is your nitpick about Wilson’s orbital fracture, which was reported early but turned out not to be the case. This does not affect the salient facts of the case at all - Brown punched Wilson in the face, thus establishing that he attacked a police officer. I assume you don’t assert that Wilson came by his injuries in some other way.

And your response to Grunman had the same shortcomings as your other posts on the subject. You simply rejected facts out of hand that conflicted with your position. Here -

I accept neither your factual characterizations nor your conclusion.

There was some other stuff about videos, which is only relevant insofar as the video tape of Brown robbing the store and assaulting the clerk demonstrated facts leading to the conclusion that Brown was, as mentioned, a nasty and violent thug.

You then reiterated one of your more egregious assertions -

But plenty of white people do much more (objectively) threatening things and don’t get shot, while it is common for black people to get shot for much less. The best explanation for this phenomenon–in part because it is backed by science–is that people tend to overestimate the threat posed by black men (and black children).

Again, please demonstrate that white men who rob stores and assault people, and then assault the police who try to question them, try to grab their guns, and charge them, are perceived as less threatening than blacks who do the same.

If you can’t get that far, show how police will disregard reports of recent crimes when they spot suspects matching the description, walking down the middle of the road with the stolen goods in their hands, if the suspect is white.

Or you can simply repeat that you don’t accept facts when you don’t want to, and show why so much of the rhetoric and accusations and genera hysteria from the BLM types can be dismissed out of hand.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

@Shodan

None of the facts on which my conclusions are based are weakly substantiated. They were confirmed in the grand jury hearing, which included the physical evidence.

After all these threads you still don’t know how a grand jury works? Or think other people don’t know? You cannot bluff me on this Shodan. I actually know how a grand jury works. They didn’t do anything of the sort.

@Shodan

An example is your nitpick about Wilson’s orbital fracture, which was reported early but turned out not to be the case.

LOL. It’s a nitpick you found very important. And you found it important for good reason, because it shows an intent to do serious bodily harm, justifying the use of deadly force. If, instead, we just have conflicting evidence over some kind of scuffle involving minor injuries (which is the reality, not your Drudge Report version), that paints a very different picture. Naturally, you believe Wilson that Brown grabbed for his gun. Just like you believed the story about the orbital fracture. Obviously, you’ll buy the police line even when the police are shown to have been wrong in the very same case.

More than this, you so easily absolve yourself for accepting one version of the facts that turned out to be false, but then heap scorn on protestors who did the same. It shows your bias very clearly.

The rest of your post is premised on the same bullshit. You believe every word that comes out of a cop’s mouth, even when you’ve had your nose rubbed in it. It’s an easy exercise to justify every police action if you always credit the police version of events.

[Richard_Parker]

I should reiterate, just so we’re clear:

I believe that Michael Brown likely committed a robbery (and I say likely only because he never had a chance to tell his side of the story). I believe he had a physical altercation with Wilson in Wilson’s car at which time Wilson shot him. Wilson suffered only minor injuries. I don’t think we have any evidence that he grabbed for Wilson’s gun other than Wilson’s testimony. Since he is the defendant, I would call that “weakly substantiated.” I also believe that Wilson shot Brown when Brown was charging toward him and he had not surrendered.

Saying that if he was white he would probably be alive is an overstatement on my part. He is more likely to be alive if that were so. I believe that for many reasons. One is Wilson’s description of Brown in his testimony, which painted a picture of some kind of inhumanly strong “demon,” pretty clearly underscoring his overestimate of the threat.

What is less speculative is that the incident showed the importance of trying to get more objective evidence in cases like this–including especially body and dash cams. It is also less speculative that the criminal investigation and grand jury process was the special cop version and not the ordinary version. That remains true regardless of which facts of the incident you find credible.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

An example is your nitpick about Wilson’s orbital fracture, which was reported early but turned out not to be the case.

But not until after you hyperventilated about it.

This does not affect the salient facts of the case at all - Brown punched Wilson in the face, thus establishing that he attacked a police officer. I assume you don’t assert that Wilson came by his injuries in some other way.

The only evidence of that is a photo of his right cheek with a reddened area the size of a man’s palm. Hmm …

[iiandyiiii]

@Richard_Parker

I should reiterate, just so we’re clear:

I believe that Michael Brown likely committed a robbery (and I say likely only because he never had a chance to tell his side of the story). I believe he had a physical altercation with Wilson in Wilson’s car at which time Wilson shot him. Wilson suffered only minor injuries. I don’t think we have any evidence that he grabbed for Wilson’s gun other than Wilson’s testimony. Since he is the defendant, I would call that “weakly substantiated.” I also believe that Wilson shot Brown when Brown was charging toward him and he had not surrendered.

Saying that if he was white he would probably be alive is an overstatement on my part. He is more likely to be alive if that were so. I believe that for many reasons. One is Wilson’s description of Brown in his testimony, which painted a picture of some kind of inhumanly strong “demon,” pretty clearly underscoring his overestimate of the threat.

What is less speculative is that the incident showed the importance of trying to get more objective evidence in cases like this–including especially body and dash cams. It is also less speculative that the criminal investigation and grand jury process was the special cop version and not the ordinary version. That remains true regardless of which facts of the incident you find credible.

I’ve made similar points, before, I think. I doubt there’s a conspiracy among police officers or departments to hurt black people. I just think that many, too many, police officers, are just a little more likely to draw their weapon around black people (especially young black men), a little more likely to point their weapon, and a little more likely to pull the trigger, then they would be for young white men doing the same things. I think that many, too many, cops are just a bit more willing to find a non-deadly and/or non-violent solution when dealing with a white person than with a black person (especially young black men). I expect this is a mix of a subtle undercurrent of racism that many people might be unaware they have and polices and practices among some police departments (formal and informal) that result in disparate treatment regardless of the intentions of the officer.

These make it a much harder problem to solve than overt racist policies or overt racism among police officers. It also makes it a harder problem to identify. But, as I think it’s been wise for all of American history, the best source for truth and accuracy regarding the treatment of black people is and has been black people themselves. If most black people tell me that some sort of disparate treatment of black people exists in some area, then they’re probably right, as they were probably always right through American history. I believe that black people today in America are just as wise and accurate and truthful about their treatment as their ancestors were during slavery, during Jim Crow, and during the Civil Rights era.

[davidm]

@adaher

…
Secondly, putting their votes up for grabs would make Republicans a lot more solicitous. It would also put an end to the voting wars and return things to the way they used to be, when voter ID was both uncontroversial and no one was really trying to hard to tighten such laws.

But their vote is up for grabs.

It’s a free country, we can vote how we want, and our vote is anonymous. So every single vote out there is up for grabs. The problem is that you have to actually try to grab it, and that’s up to the candidate and by extension the party.

You’re asking voters to make some sort of effort to put themselves “up for grabs” more than they already are. How are they supposed to do that? Change their needs, beliefs, and values? Or maybe vote based on a coin flip?

No. It’s up to the person or party that is asking for the vote to appeal to the voters. And you start by not catering to a racist, nativist base. You start by finding out what those voters want and then formulate a plan to achieve those things and clearly explain that plan.

And if you don’t believe in what they want, well then you won’t get that vote. But don’t expect them to change their wants and needs simply to put themselves “up for grabs”.

[adaher]

So you vote for Democrats, even if they put your issues in the low priority column. Surrender your leverage.

Latinos are much more of a swing group, and thus get listened to a lot more.

[ElvisL1ves]

@adaher

So you vote for Democrats, even if they put your issues in the low priority column.

You vote for people who respect you, or at least don’t hate you and want to send you back behind a wall.

Latinos are much more of a swing group, and thus get listened to a lot more.

Not by your chosen party, they don’t.

[davidm]

@adaher

So you vote for Democrats, even if they put your issues in the low priority column. Surrender your leverage.

Latinos are much more of a swing group, and thus get listened to a lot more.

Democrats may not always prioritize things as they should, but they’re usually not actively against those things. They may be the lesser evil, but most people will choose the lesser over the greater evil when those are the only viable choices.

If Republicans want more of the black vote, then they need to address those priorities better than the Democrats do. They need to at least become the lesser evil. Even better, they need to become the greater good.

Of course I don’t think that’s going to happen in our lifetime because of the base they’ve become dependent on and the ideology a large percentage of them subscribe to.

[adaher]

If Republicans want to actively win black votes, you’re absolutely right. But that isn’t the issue at hand. What we’re talking about is what AFrican-Americans can do to get their issues prioritized. Voting Democratic reliably doesn’t accomplish that. Being willing to bolt does.

In the primaries, the black vote is extremely important, which is why the candidates are stumbling over themselves to make sure they get right with BLM. The calculus changes in the general election. The Democratic nominee is going to want to spend as little time as possible talking about African-American issues outside of black radio and television once the campaign gets started. Once they start actually governing, they’ll have even less time to devote to these issues. No matter which Democrat is elected, issues like climate change, tax policy, Social Security, and foreign policy will take precedence. Unless black voters use some leverage. Vote Democrat automatically, no leverage.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

If Republicans want to actively win black votes, you’re absolutely right. But that isn’t the issue at hand. What we’re talking about is what AFrican-Americans can do to get their issues prioritized. Voting Democratic reliably doesn’t accomplish that. Being willing to bolt does.

In the primaries, the black vote is extremely important, which is why the candidates are stumbling over themselves to make sure they get right with BLM. The calculus changes in the general election. The Democratic nominee is going to want to spend as little time as possible talking about African-American issues outside of black radio and television once the campaign gets started. Once they start actually governing, they’ll have even less time to devote to these issues. No matter which Democrat is elected, issues like climate change, tax policy, Social Security, and foreign policy will take precedence. Unless black voters use some leverage. Vote Democrat automatically, no leverage.

The leverage is turnout. Now we know that if black voters are enthusiastic about a candidate, they will turn out in extremely high numbers. And Hillary will need big (or at least pretty big) turnout to win.

[Shodan]

@Richard_Parker

After all these threads you still don’t know how a grand jury works? Or think other people don’t know? You cannot bluff me on this Shodan. I actually know how a grand jury works. They didn’t do anything of the sort.

I know perfectly well how a grand jury works, I am not bluffing, and they did, in fact, establish what I said they did.

LOL. It’s a nitpick you found very important.

No, it’s a nitpick. Your nitpick.

And you found it important for good reason, because it shows an intent to do serious bodily harm, justifying the use of deadly force.

No, an orbital fracture is not necessary to show justification for deadly force in the Ferguson case. If it were, the grand jury would have indicted. They didn’t.

Naturally, you believe Wilson that Brown grabbed for his gun. Just like you believed the story about the orbital fracture. Obviously, you’ll buy the police line even when the police are shown to have been wrong in the very same case.

Wilson was not shown to be wrong in saying that Brown grabbed for his gun, and Wilson’s testimony was backed up by the physical evidence.

Ferguson Police Officer Darren WIlson’s account of the confrontation in which Michael Brown was fatally shot has reportedly been leaked, with an independent medical examiner’s report backing up his version of events.

Brown had marijuana in his system and was shot at close range in the hand, backing up claims by a police officer that that there was a violent struggle between the Ferguson, Mo. teen and the cop, an independent medical examiner told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The report supports Wilson’s account, given after he shot and killed the 18-year-old on Aug. 9. Witnesses claimed the teen was surrendering when the cop fired. Police maintained Wilson only used his gun after Brown tried to take it – a life-and-death fight inside a police SUV.

Cite.

More than this, you so easily absolve yourself for accepting one version of the facts that turned out to be false, but then heap scorn on protestors who did the same. It shows your bias very clearly.

My version of the events is not false; it is backed up by the evidence.

It turns out that Wilson’s eye socket was not fractured, based on the evidence, so I don’t believe that. IOW I am capable of accepting evidence even if it doesn’t back up my beliefs, and changing my beliefs accordingly. Unlike you.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

Why did you believe it in the first place? Perhaps you aren’t familiar with left leaning cites like Red State?

…suffered an “orbital blowout fracture” which, if true, would prove at least that Mike Brown physically assaulted officer Darren Wilson during the course of their encounter. A google search for “orbital blowout fracture Ferguson” shows that this story has made the rounds on many conservative websites.

There are at least two good reasons to as yet doubt the veracity of this report. The first and more important is that as yet literally the only independent source of this allegation is Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, who has never been known to shy away from sensationalism in the past. In fact, there is clear and convincing evidence of sensationalism even within Hoft’s post – here is the portion of his post where he shows an MRI of an orbital bone fracture…

http://www.redstate.com/2014/08/19/ferguson-pushback-begins-look-sketchy/

Note the date: August 19. The debunktion from Red State occurred on the same day as the odious bit o’ shit was released. And you didn’t know?

Referencing this bit of scum…

UPDATE: Officer Darren Wilson Suffered Severe Facial Contusions After Severe...

(“Ooopsdated” as of November 24…“We previously reported that Officer Wilson suffered and orbital eye-socket fracture. It now appears he suffered severe bruising but no fracture.”) A picture of the massive, brutal, severe bruising is supplied.

Did you check any of this? Why did you ever believe it? This Gateway Pundit source? A favored source for you, a font of truth and candor?

[elucidator]

*(Upon review: I neglected to advise the Gentle Reader of the graphic nature of the photo. Reminiscent of the sort of ghastly injury that often occurs from an enthusiastic but undisciplined ippon kumite, which I understand is fairly common amongst “martial arts” who do not follow the true path of Shotokan Karate…)

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Shodan

It turns out that Wilson’s eye socket was not fractured, based on the evidence, so I don’t believe that. IOW I am capable of accepting evidence even if it doesn’t back up my beliefs, and changing my beliefs accordingly. Unlike you.

Regards,
Shodan

Let’s not make it personal, please. Any more suchlike from anyone will earn a warning.

[D_Anconia]

@BobLibDem

I think you overestimate the influence of public employee unions by several orders of magnitude. Their political contributions are dwarfed by those of the corporate elite.

That’s not true. In the 2014 elections, the 3rd largest contributor was AFSCME, and the teachers unions at were #4 and #6.

The “corporate elite” don’t appear until #7, the Las Vegas Sands Corp.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

ETA: or Tom Steyer, billionaire Democrat at #5.

[Punoqllads]

@D_Anconia

That’s not true. In the 2014 elections, the 3rd largest contributor was AFSCME, and the teachers unions at were #4 and #6.

The “corporate elite” don’t appear until #7, the Las Vegas Sands Corp.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

ETA: or Tom Steyer, billionaire Democrat at #5.

In 2012 the Koch brothers spent $400M. They do these sorts of things by having a complex network that obfuscates the impact of their funding.

[D_Anconia]

@Punoqllads

In 2012 the Koch brothers spent $400M. They do these sorts of things by having a complex network that obfuscates the impact of their funding.

And? The top 3 donors in 2014 spent $477M. Two of them were unions, and one was a “network” called Act Blue.

Were they obfuscating, too?

[Punoqllads]

@D_Anconia

And? The top 3 donors in 2014 spent $477M. Two of them were unions, and one was a “network” called Act Blue.

Were they obfuscating, too?

Your cite does not agree with you. In 2014 the top 3 spent $75M, $68M and $30M, for a total of $173M. Perhaps you forgot to toggle the election cycle option on that page from “All Cycles” to “2014”.

Are you implying that unions practiced funding obfuscation by funneling cash to 501(c)s that are not required to disclose donors (a data hole noted by a link on your very cite) to a degree even approaching the Koch network as documented by the Post? If so, please provide a cite or two.

[D_Anconia]

@Punoqllads

Perhaps you forgot to toggle the election cycle option on that page from “All Cycles” to “2014”.

Yes, I forgot to toggle.

Are you implying that unions practiced funding obfuscation by funneling cash to 501(c)s that are not required to disclose donors (a data hole noted by a link on your very cite) to a degree even approaching the Koch network as documented by the Post? If so, please provide a cite or two.

Not necessarily the unions, but how is the Act Blue network any different than the Koch network?