Thinking out loud.... I wonder how many folks heads would explode if somebody started saying *Oh gee 93 percent of all cops are good cops, only 7 percent beat and kill people for no reason.
The 93% need to do something about the 7% who give the entire police departments a bad name.
Also, good management should be able to identify their bad cops and retrain them or fire them...before they do something that tarnishes the entire department.
There ain't no way it's 7%, say-- 99 and a half percent to half a percent, --- or my head will eplode.
Actually if you've been reading the thread, I and many others you seem to be referencing agree that it's a small percentage of police that are the biggest issue here. I do not think you should just be dismissing that. Peaceful protests are guaranteed under the constitution. So no, you will not see those who believe in the constitution calling for an end to something that the constitution plainly says is a right of all Americans.
And while if you only look at people being killed by the police, maybe you're missing the bigger picture here. There is also the disparity in sentencing. Blacks being pulled over for no reason. Blacks being three times more likely to be killed by the police. The bigger picture is equal justice for every American.
As for "defunding the police". There are those on the fringe that actually believe this in is its literal sense. But as has been covered over and over and over again, that is more poor messaging than anything else.
Let me explain what the vast majority actually mean....
A city is not the federal government. As such they simply can not just print money to spend. They have budget constraints with which they must work within. As such, those resources must be spread about to confront their issues.
As of now, the police are burdened with doing things they were never intended to, nor are well equipped to deal with. Things such as the homeless problem, addiction and the mentally ill. In many cases they have no choice because the resources simply are not there for those issues.
What that creates is a large part of the police budget going to things they are neither equipped to deal with nor do they wish to be burdened dealing with. Locally in the Nashville area where i live, the county sheriff said that about 30% of his jail was filled with mentally ill prisoners. Prisoners he wish had other places to go. He also mentioned the addiction issue and the homeless issue he is spending money on.
So "defunding the police" actually means to take the budget police are spending on such issues and diverting those funds to places that can and should be dealing with them. In Nashville about 2.4 million dollars of the police budget was diverted to a new mental health facility where the police can take the mentally ill and get them the treatment they need. That did not pay the entire bill for the new facility, but it certainly helped.
The process time when the police drop patients off to this facility they said takes about 10 minutes. Can you imagine the money the police and the jail are saving by this?
So if we take the extremists out of the debate and look at a reasonable middle ground, it all makes sense. It's what the vast majority are actually looking for. We could take extremists from both sides and paint a very ugly portrait. Or, we could look at what the vast majority are saying and have a reasonable conversation.
You either didn't read my post or are purposefully misinterpreting it, so that you can make straw man arguments to feel better about yourself. *Deep Breath* I suppose it could have possibly been a misunderstanding.
My post wasn't about downplaying "bad cops." It was pointing out how hypocritical your argument that only 20% of 7% of protestors being violent was, like it was some kind of excuse.
The small percentage of bad actors is not a good excuse for either group.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Thinking out loud.... I wonder how many folks heads would explode if somebody started saying *Oh gee 93 percent of all cops are good cops, only 7 percent beat and kill people for no reason.
The 93% need to do something about the 7% who give the entire police departments a bad name.
Also, good management should be able to identify their bad cops and retrain them or fire them...before they do something that tarnishes the entire department.
There ain't no way it's 7%, say-- 99 and a half percent to half a percent, --- or my head will eplode.
Throw short...
Question?...did I say it was 7% of the cops who beat and kill people for no reason?...as you "quote".
Don't get lost in the argument of whether this was a justified shooting or not. The key element is trump's attitude of retribution rather than justice. This should scare everyone.
Trump described the killing of an antifa-linked suspect by US Marshals as 'retribution' Tom Porter 1 hour ago
President Donald Trump in a Fox News interview Saturday described the fatal shooting of an antifa-linked murder suspect by US Marshals last week as an act of "retribution."
The fatal shooting by the law enforcement officers has come under scrutiny, with one witness claiming that they did not try and arrest the suspect before opening fire.
Trump has seized on the August 29 killing of a far-right activist during protests in Portland to hammer home his attack on anti-racism protesters.
President Donald Trump described the killing of a left-wing activist and murder suspect shot dead by US Marshals as "retribution," in an interview with Fox News.
In the interview with host Jeanine Pirro, on Saturday, Trump discussed the September 3 death of Michael Reinoehl, who was shot dead by US Marshals in Portland, Oregon.
Reinoehl had expressed support for the left-wing antifa and Black Lives Matter and was a suspect in the fatal shooting of far-right activist Aaron Danielson in an August 29 protest in the city, where rival groups of demonstrators clashed.
In the interview, Trump remarked: "This guy was a violent criminal, and the US Marshals killed him. And I'll tell you something -- that's the way it has to be. There has to be retribution."
Critics have accused the president of cheering extrajudicial violence by law enforcement.
Reinoehl's death is coming under increasing scrutiny, with one witness to his killing outside an apartment complex in Lacey, Washington, telling media outlets including The Washington Post that police did not try and arrest him. They issued no commands to Reinoehl before opening fire.
Officers from the fugitive dispatch team sent to arrest Reinoehl said that he pulled a gun on them, a claim backed by two witnesses, according to the Post.
The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on criticism of Trump's remarks.
Trump has seized on the killing of Danielson in his bid to portray most anti-racism demonstrators as radicals and violent extremists, who he has pledged to subdue with tough "law and order" policies.
The president has positioned himself as the last bulwark against the forces of violent anarchism the center of his presidential re-election campaign.
Danielson's is one of a series of violent incidents in recent clashes between BLM protesters and pro-Trump counter-protesters.
In interviews, the president has controversially refused to condemn Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old right-wing militia member who police accused of shooting dead two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during unrest in the city in late August.
Don't get lost in the argument of whether this was a justified shooting or not. The key element is trump's attitude of retribution rather than justice. This should scare everyone.
jest...my post to Throw was in the form of a question...
"Question?...did I say it was 7% of the cops who beat and kill people for no reason?...as you "quote", "
No, once again it's about perspective. I don't see anyone downplaying the violence. I as well as many others people claim to be liberals have called it out, said those committing such crimes should be arrested and convicted of their crimes. Biden says the exact same thing. So can you tell me how that's playing it down?
The actuality of the numbers committing this violence is simply to show how the right uses a very small percentage, and I mean a very small percentage of those committing these crimes and placing the focus squarely on them to take the focus away from what and why the vast majority of the protestors are actually taking to the streets.
And for the rest of the peanut gallery throwing their little tantrum, that's what happens when they have no actual rebuttal to those facts. Noise.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Can either of you imagine a world in which we allow those people to call all of the shots? Can you ever imagine getting in lockstep with the rights new found fascism? Can you be cool with a POTUS that wants POC to go back to where they came from (countries of historic racial origin) while his minions chant 'send them back'? Can you get used to not trusting anything about the government?
There are so many reasons to not like Trump that I struggle to see why anyone would vote for him. Hate or fear are the only reasons I can find and I would like to see just one Trump supporter change my mind on that. Seriously, he's bad even on the economy! He never really did anything to boost the economy other than cheerlead. He then incompetently put himself in a situation blowing off the severity of the pandemic, that was forced to destroy all the gains made dating back to 2008!?!?!??? smh I just can't see any reason justifying votes for him that are not based in fear or racism.
But would those violent protesters "spawn" if they didn't have "peaceful" protests as cover?
I covered why peaceful protests are a right covered by the constitution.
Quote:
Many want to "defund/abolish the police" to get rid of bad police. Why is there no "defund"/"abolish" the protesters to get rid of bad protesters or how is that thinking really different?
I explained what the vast majority meant by defunding the police and once again, how peaceful protests are protected under the constitution and is a right of all Americans.
Quote:
Any idea of the percentage of police that have killed someone? I've been looking, but I've not been able to track something along those lines down. How do you think it would compare to 7%? I'm curious to see someone do the math and "see just what a small percentage that is."
I pointed out how both are just as wrong. And it's a fact that black men are three times more likely to be killed by the police. I pointed out how those on the left on this very board as well as Biden have denounced the violence.
Quote:
I think both can and should do better. I think using arguments that could be directed the other way fairly easily is hypocritical.
While I don't really disagree with that, as long as you aren't trying to lump law abiding peaceful protesting among those committing criminal activity. However one takes on the professional responsibility to protect and serve the people. The other is the criminal element in our society. I feel trying to compare those two things is a false equivalency.
Quote:
I'm really getting tired of the change the narrative complaint/defense. There is no single right/true/pure narrative. It's like you're writing a book with a first person limited narrator who thinks he's omniscient. In reality, more voices/perspectives leads to a more complete picture. Sometimes (or perhaps it's really always) those perspectives are flawed, but it's on both sides. Everyone has their blind spots.
As I stated, one side recognizes the criminal element, admits it's there and thinks those criminals should be arrested and prosecuted. The other side focuses only on the small percentage of criminals and uses that as an excuse to ignore the issue.
Quote:
I'm not trying to wipe away that wrongness of killing unarmed men by police (and those numbers were all civilian casualties...I think... does seem kinda low), but your 7% argument is pretty weak in comparison.
But you are actually not paying attention. It's not that 7% of the protestors are violent. It's that violence only occurs at 7% of the protests. Even at those protests where violence occurs the vast majority of the protestors do not riot nor do they engage in criminal activity.
One of those two groups makes a choice to engage in a profession to protect and serve the public. The other group are criminals. Surely you can't be trying to make an actual comparison between those two things are you?
As you can see, you certainly had all of the points I brought up contained within your post. I addressed them all. Your response? "It was just noise". Just because you decided you didn't wish to engage in an actual debate in those topics does not mean I didn't address what was contained within your post.
You're usually better than that. But not this time. I have no idea as to why.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Don't get lost in the argument of whether this was a justified shooting or not. The key element is trump's attitude of retribution rather than justice. This should scare everyone.
jest...my post to Throw was in the form of a question...
"Question?...did I say it was 7% of the cops who beat and kill people for no reason?...as you "quote", "
That statement I made was not directed at you but at the trumpians. Many of them will miss the point and try to change the narrative.
Am I perfect? No Am I trying to be a better person? Also no
It's not that 7% of the protestors are violent. It's that violence only occurs at 7% of the protests. Even at those protests where violence occurs the vast majority of the protesters do not riot nor do they engage in criminal activity.
Bull is normally happy to have a discussion - he may end up acknowledging this or debating it - idk - but for the majority that don't want to debate what's said, but instead invent their narrative ... no-one wants to acknowledge this point or that the majority of violence is simply opportunistic criminality.
Interesting spin in the one post asking if the Protesting was at fault because without the protests the opportunistic criminals wouldn't have had the opportunity... that's a teeny weenie bit like asking if the law abiding victim is to blame because if they hadn't been there then the incident wouldn't have happened.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Actually if you've been reading the thread, I and many others you seem to be referencing agree that it's a small percentage of police that are the biggest issue here. I do not think you should just be dismissing that. Peaceful protests are guaranteed under the constitution. So no, you will not see those who believe in the constitution calling for an end to something that the constitution plainly says is a right of all Americans.
And while if you only look at people being killed by the police, maybe you're missing the bigger picture here. There is also the disparity in sentencing. Blacks being pulled over for no reason. Blacks being three times more likely to be killed by the police. The bigger picture is equal justice for every American.
As for "defunding the police". There are those on the fringe that actually believe this in is its literal sense. But as has been covered over and over and over again, that is more poor messaging than anything else.
Let me explain what the vast majority actually mean....
A city is not the federal government. As such they simply can not just print money to spend. They have budget constraints with which they must work within. As such, those resources must be spread about to confront their issues.
As of now, the police are burdened with doing things they were never intended to, nor are well equipped to deal with. Things such as the homeless problem, addiction and the mentally ill. In many cases they have no choice because the resources simply are not there for those issues.
What that creates is a large part of the police budget going to things they are neither equipped to deal with nor do they wish to be burdened dealing with. Locally in the Nashville area where i live, the county sheriff said that about 30% of his jail was filled with mentally ill prisoners. Prisoners he wish had other places to go. He also mentioned the addiction issue and the homeless issue he is spending money on.
So "defunding the police" actually means to take the budget police are spending on such issues and diverting those funds to places that can and should be dealing with them. In Nashville about 2.4 million dollars of the police budget was diverted to a new mental health facility where the police can take the mentally ill and get them the treatment they need. That did not pay the entire bill for the new facility, but it certainly helped.
The process time when the police drop patients off to this facility they said takes about 10 minutes. Can you imagine the money the police and the jail are saving by this?
So if we take the extremists out of the debate and look at a reasonable middle ground, it all makes sense. It's what the vast majority are actually looking for. We could take extremists from both sides and paint a very ugly portrait. Or, we could look at what the vast majority are saying and have a reasonable conversation.
You either didn't read my post or are purposefully misinterpreting it, so that you can make straw man arguments to feel better about yourself. *Deep Breath* I suppose it could have possibly been a misunderstanding.
That's why I was surprised by this remark from him. Above I broke down the post he spoke to and gave the evidence of how I actually responded to it point by point.
Yes, in the past he has been far more genuine and willing to actually debate things. Especially points he himself brought up. In this case? I'm not sure what the hell's up.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
It's not that 7% of the protestors are violent. It's that violence only occurs at 7% of the protests. Even at those protests where violence occurs the vast majority of the protesters do not riot nor do they engage in criminal activity.
Bull is normally happy to have a discussion - he may end up acknowledging this or debating it - idk - but for the majority that don't want to debate what's said, but instead invent their narrative ... no-one wants to acknowledge this point or that the majority of violence is simply opportunistic criminality.
Interesting spin in the one post asking if the Protesting was at fault because without the protests the opportunistic criminals wouldn't have had the opportunity... that's a teeny weenie bit like asking if the law abiding victim is to blame because if they hadn't been there then the incident wouldn't have happened.
I wasn't making the argument so much as trying to show how ridiculous the argument was (throwing out the small percentage on both sides like it was an excuse). It's hard to interpret tone in text, I guess.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Don't get lost in the argument of whether this was a justified shooting or not. The key element is trump's attitude of retribution rather than justice. This should scare everyone.
jest...my post to Throw was in the form of a question...
"Question?...did I say it was 7% of the cops who beat and kill people for no reason?...as you "quote", "
That statement I made was not directed at you but at the trumpians. Many of them will miss the point and try to change the narrative.
jest...ok!
When some one clicks on another individual and posts, unless identified with a 'jc' for 'just clicking' or someone is identified by name...the name of the previous poster appears at the top.
I realize I'm not saying anything folks don't already know..but simply identifying the individual you are meaning to address does cut down on the confusion.
Not sure if this is true, but if it is, it won't be considered in the 93% fake news BS reports. Just like the mass looting of businesses were not considered.
Fake numbers that the left loves to parade around as facts.
Thinking out loud.... I wonder how many folks heads would explode if somebody started saying *Oh gee 93 percent of all cops are good cops, only 7 percent beat and kill people for no reason.
The 93% need to do something about the 7% who give the entire police departments a bad name.
Also, good management should be able to identify their bad cops and retrain them or fire them...before they do something that tarnishes the entire department.
There ain't no way it's 7%, say-- 99 and a half percent to half a percent, --- or my head will eplode.
Throw short...
Question?...[color:#CCCCCC][did I say it was 7% of the cops who beat and kill people for no reason?...as you "quote". [/color]
1st of all, sorry, you're right, 2nd. ^it's clear above the person who did say was another quote box of someone else, not you, but their name is left out of your quote of their quote, which I quoted. 3rd of all, It's them whose post contained the words "heads would explode" which was needed for the point I was trying to state.
4th of all. If you can allow that it was the number I was calling out, not the poster, not you, or GM as it turns out, yet the notion itself, the number and here is why, It is because I'm aware of a certain level of requirement that won't allow just any level of person (and by level of person I mean how they conduct themselves: gee everything has to be so pc these days) to reach the point to get in that 100% number being broken down. 5th of all, I'm saying that if 7% to 93% were the number of bad cops that more of them would be weeded out in the process to instill professionalism before they become cops to the point that that's an absurd number enough to say, "how many peoples heads would explode" yeah my head would explode, it's probably, (I have no idea how many bad cops, but, discussing it, I can say, less than 1%, it's less than 1% if you have to discuss it as a number)
6th of all, that's the part I was calling out, the number, not you or any individual or even the group of posters saying it, it's the number itself
7th of all it's at the top of page 7, and the next 5-7 posts continue it until Eve's post changed the subject, if it must be clear, Gm originally posted it, and nobody objected among mac, gm, Vers, Jester, and Mg888, so if 7 posts are going to continue a narrative that 7% of cops are ... and look ^^^ "beat and kill people for no reason" I still don't even think, when talking about bad cops that that's the subset we're talking about here, when I even say the discussion should say, (I'm saying if you have to say it, have to say any number say .5 % less than 1%, because I feel that's a number that needs to be called out. 8th of all, any of those posts could have challenged the narrative, but no big deal, but if it continues then the narrative starts to become accepted, ... and or, I like to point out, sneezing, puking, are "technically" head explosions. 9th of all, I could have, ... stopped, backed up, looked around for who originally said that statemet, and quoted Gm as it turns out now that I check back, but as it's clear to all regular dawgtalkers that I'm referring to a box quoted by someone else, which is inside the box of your post I was quoting, I didn't feel the need to, and as it turns out upon looking back to the top of page 7,it was an ongoing narrative for 5-7 posts. and Near last of all, sorry I didn't check the topic, probably because of the Game yesterday I didn't look, and Hope, all of you all I've mentioned in this post can forgive me, for I was only trying to call out the number and not any single or even group of y'all.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
Can either of you imagine a world in which we allow those people to call all of the shots? Can you ever imagine getting in lockstep with the rights new found fascism? Can you be cool with a POTUS that wants POC to go back to where they came from (countries of historic racial origin) while his minions chant 'send them back'? Can you get used to not trusting anything about the government?
There are so many reasons to not like Trump that I struggle to see why anyone would vote for him. Hate or fear are the only reasons I can find and I would like to see just one Trump supporter change my mind on that. Seriously, he's bad even on the economy! He never really did anything to boost the economy other than cheerlead. He then incompetently put himself in a situation blowing off the severity of the pandemic, that was forced to destroy all the gains made dating back to 2008!?!?!??? smh I just can't see any reason justifying votes for him that are not based in fear or racism.
I'm just one Trump supporter that's going to change your mind on that. It's going to take a little time. This hit me, because, reading your post, I feel like 90% of that, if you feel that coming from your side, the same way I feel coming from this side, just change right to left, Potus to democrat party.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
The following video is just one of many reports of how these so-called peaceful protests are not all that peaceful. That 93 percent stat is BS, because I guarantee events like this are not included in their numbers.
Furthermore, here is the bottom line..........if you come up on me and my family, be prepared to get your ass kicked in the worst way. You wanna dance, let's dance.
Mark Taylor: Trump better start arresting Democrats or ‘patriots will take matters into their own hands’
During an appearance on the McFiles program this Monday, career conspiracy theorist and Christian MAGA “prophet” Mark Taylor warned that if President Trump doesn’t start arresting some high-profile Democrats soon, “patriots” will step in and do the job for him.
“[Trump] can’t wait too long because we don’t want a civil war starting because the patriots are fed up with this,” Taylor said in a video clip flagged by Right Wing Watch. “[There] was a very well-known and reputable military-type of Twitter account that put out a statement from an ex-veteran that was basically putting the warning out that you guys better get your stuff together because if we take matters into our own hands to take back this country, it ain’t going to be good. And that’s what I’ve been warning about.”
Senate Homeland Security Committee authorizes subpoenas for testimony from Obama officials as part of Russia probe Includes John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey
The Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday voted to authorize subpoenas for former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, and other Obama administration officials as part of its broad review into the origins of the Russia investigation.
The committee on Wednesday held a business meeting to authorize committee Chairman Ron Johnson, R-Wis., to issue notices for taking depositions, subpoenas, for records, and subpoenas for testimony to individuals relating to the panel’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation, the Justice Department inspector general’s review of that investigation, and the “unmasking” of U.S. persons affiliated with the 2016 Trump campaign, transition team and the Trump administration.
The committee voted 8-6 to authorize the subpoenas.
The committee also authorized subpoenas for Sidney Blumenthal, former Obama chief of staff Denis McDonough, former FBI counsel Lisa Page, former FBI agent Joe Pientka, former ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, former FBI director of counterintelligence Bill Priestap, former White House national security adviser Susan Rice, former FBI agent Peter Strzok, former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith – who pleaded guilty to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham's review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign – among others.
The committee further authorized subpoenas for “the production of all records” related to the FBI’s original Russia investigation and the Department of Justice Inspector General’s probe, as well as the process of “unmasking” for James Baker, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, DOJ official Bruce Ohr, FBI case agent Steven Somma, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia John Teftt, former deputy assistant attorney general Tashina Gauhar; and Stefan Halper.
The committee, earlier this summer, authorized subpoenas for the majority of the individuals that were named. But on Wednesday, after a back-and-forth between Johnson and the top Democrat on the panel, the committee gave the final go ahead, leaving authority on timing and scheduling of depositions and issuance of subpoenas up to the chairman.
Republicans demand answers on Mueller team wiping phones, suggest 'anticipatory obstruction of justice' Congressional Republicans call the purported accidental 'wiping' an 'amazing coincidence'
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
