Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Which Party is Most Responsible for the Violent Protests? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter TripItUp
- Start date
It is obvious. But the bigger culprit is the leftist media and politicians who spin, exaggerate and even lie about nearly story surrounding race. It is virtual lock that every story involving racial issues will be reported with a false narrative. The spin is a downright embarrassment when the true facts come out, but that initial false narrative is what always sticks in the narrow minds of those who only care about their agenda.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Gator
Footballguy
I'll confess - I don't know the answer here - but are police unions generally Democrats?
I know unions in general lean democrat - but police unions seem like a different animal altogether. I suppose in some places, where a Dem machine is in place, the union leadership would be pro-Dem. But, didn't we just see a NY police union endorse Trump?
The Gator
Footballguy
Follow-up:
Endorsing Trump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements
There are no Police-affiliated Unions endorsing Biden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements
Endorsing Trump: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements
- Florida Police Benevolent Association, representing 30,000[264]
- International Union of Police Associations, representing 19,200[265]
- Milwaukee Police Association, representing 1,868[266]
- National Association of Police Organizations, representing 362,000[267]
- National Border Patrol Council, representing 18,000[268]
- New York City Police Benevolent Association, representing 24,000[269]
- New York State Police Investigators Association, representing 1,200[270]
There are no Police-affiliated Unions endorsing Biden. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Joe_Biden_2020_presidential_campaign_endorsements
White priviledge in Baltimore
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEh9LWZJL4H/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again
If races were reversed, this would be a widely reported story and proof of systematic racism in America and the video would would go viral and spark violent protests.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEh9LWZJL4H/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_video_watch_again
If races were reversed, this would be a widely reported story and proof of systematic racism in America and the video would would go viral and spark violent protests.
Last edited by a moderator:
Historically police unions have supported Democrats more, but this whole defund police movement has made it suicide to do it this time around.
moleculo
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
It feels like you are grasping at straws here - these are very minuscule numbers.
For example: Total contributions to current members of the House from 55 police union and law enforcement PACs since 1994. Data from OpenSecrets.org.
The top recipient is at $43,000 over 26 years. About $1600 per year.
For senators, it looks like it is Leahy at $21,000 over 16 years.
And then, just for good measure - the article bizarrely uses a different metric to measure donations in 2020 in an attempt to make a nonsensical point about defunding police.
Really poor anecdotal evidence, and even poorer logic in the article.
Given that the GOP, in my life time, has almost always run as the party of "law and order" - I think its fair to say, more police officers support the GOP agenda, than support the Dem agenda.
I provided some historical evidence which you confessed to know nothing about. It may be weak, but it is a data point. I was not 'grasping at straws', i was attempting to fill in some details and figure out if there is a dramatic shift occuring. My impression is that police tend to be more supportive of Repuplicans but the police unions tend to support Democrats much more than their members.
The Gator
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
Gator: I'll confess I don't know if its raining outside.Gator: I'll confess - I don't know the answer here - but are police unions generally Democrats?
Me: Here is some data
Gator: you are grasping at straws here
Me:
You: It was sunny at my house yesterday.
Gator: ok...
Bad data <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< no data.
The data is accurate. Your definition of bad is peculiar. I have no idea what your issue is. You seem to be fighting for the sake of fighting.
rockaction
Footballguy
I wouldn't get too sidetracked on the issue of police unions. It was another entity in a longer line of entities that seems to have been responsible for the groundswell of unchecked street looting, rioting, arson, and rot run rampant on the news.
On a different note, I assume, as always, the news is making this worse than it is, aside from the conflagrations.
On a different note, I assume, as always, the news is making this worse than it is, aside from the conflagrations.
The Gator
Footballguy
The data provided does not answer the question - are Police Unions "Democrats"
"Democrats" - in this sense means they support and promote the agenda of the democratic party, not that they are members of the Democratic party.
The "data" you provided does not address that, though you passed it off as tending to show that police unions used to support democrats, until the defund the police issue came up, and now they support Trump. And, even with that - the data provided in the article does not even support that conclusion.
The data itself pulls contributions only to existing house and senate members, and thus does not include contributions to either former members, or opponents who were defeated. So, right off the top - its incomplete, and thus misleading (and "bad") data.
Second, the article attempts to mix apples and oranges - by noting contributions by "Police Union and Law Enforcement PAC Contribution Recipients" and then comparing the shift by looking at "Itemized Contributions from Law Enforcement Officers (>$200), 2020 Cycle" - so, the article itself is fatally flawed in its conclusions - which is something you relied upon in making the post.
This was his community, he worked there. How about the nuances of busloads of Antifa terrorists coming in from the Pacific NW and filling up gas cans before their mostly peaceful protests for whatever his name is this week?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
There are some good examples here. Violent imagery and rhetoric should be rejected. I think some of these non-celebrity snips are people calling for protests, not violence though, but the Dems and some media pundits have not been good at distinguishing.
At least one of these like the comment that Ted Cruz should have punched Trump in the nose for his comments about his wife and father are pretty loose though.
It would also help if the poster himself didn't adopt "riot" into his own handle. Same guy seems to be praising Rittenhouse and he says he was near him when the murders happened. He seems to be evoking a demand to respond in kind to leftist violence, not criticizing the language.
Last edited by a moderator:
It is no doubt that the source was not the best and some of the clips are not all that appropriate to the topic and/or chopped up too much. But there several very damaging clips which show Democrats calling for violent protests which are undeniable regardless of the source.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Has Donald Trump condemned the violence on both sides and called for it to end yet?
No, because Donald Trump wants this violence. It's disgusting and it needs to end.
No, because Donald Trump wants this violence. It's disgusting and it needs to end.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
The better political question is "who gains/loses as the so-called protests turn into so-called riots?" Hands down it's Trump.
Biden had this thing won in a landslide a month ago. Now Trump has a lifeline.
Most Americans want peaceful, positive change...but after this sneak preview millions questioning whether the product inside matches the advertising on the label.
Biden had this thing won in a landslide a month ago. Now Trump has a lifeline.
Most Americans want peaceful, positive change...but after this sneak preview millions questioning whether the product inside matches the advertising on the label.
The Gator
Footballguy
Aaron Rupar@atrupar · 18m
REPORTER: Does the president condemn the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of shooting protesters?
McENANY: The president is not going to weigh in on that
Politically, this is probably the right move for the President. Unfortunately, this does not help ease tensions.
REPORTER: Does the president condemn the actions of Kyle Rittenhouse, who is accused of shooting protesters?
McENANY: The president is not going to weigh in on that
Politically, this is probably the right move for the President. Unfortunately, this does not help ease tensions.
Stoneworker
Footballguy
IMO it's not a positive for Trump but a negative for Democrats. Attempting to parse the protests from the riots coming across at best as mixed messing, at worst as weak and unequivocal. Except, of course, for the partisans on either side.
The Gator
Footballguy
Widbil83
Footballguy
President Trump has been offering help to Democrat Mayors every day for the last 4 months to end the violence.Grace Under Pressure said:
The only reason this is an issue now for Democrats is because they are getting crushed in the polls by it now (go watch the CNN Fredo/Don Lemon video).
moleculo
Footballguy
The correct answer is he appeared to be defending himself but there needs to be an investigation. The only people in the video who should be condemned are the dude who hit him in the back of the head with his skateboard and the dude who tried to shoot him.
The Gator
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
I assume this is supposed to be some kind of "burn" about Obama.
But, I also suppose, given what we know about Trump's proclivities when it comes to extra-martial affairs, that he could have been Trump's son.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
The Gator
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
you can make the argument a dude tried to shoot him before he ever fired a shot. There is video showing the muzzle flashes.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
In the eyes of BLM protesters/rioters, absolutely it is.
Drag a guy out of his crashed truck to try and kill him is ok because you lie and say he was trying to run over protesters.
When somebody shoots people that are trying to kill him, like for actual realsies, not ok.
Depends on if you think Obama tried to reduce or inflame racial tensions.
The right answer is "let's let the process play out" or some variation, anything else is a misguided attempt to placate the mob which has shown to be effective roughly 0.0 times. Ask Wheeler.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
OK. I don't think I saw that. I just saw one video of the second shootings. I know people in the crowd knew he had just shot someone and were yelling that. In general, if someone shoots someone, flees, and then people try to stop him, does the original shooter get to claim self-defense when shooting additional people?
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I dont think there is much of an in general for this type of thing but wouldnt the circumstances of the first shooting be a huge factor in deciding to charge people or not?
I mean if a man A shot somebody that was trying to kill him and then man B chases man A down and kills him, that cant be legal. I would think man A would not probably be charged if he shot man B in self defense.
If a man shoots up a school and then runs away and a gym teacher ran after him and kills him that probably isn't 100% legal, but cant imagine it would ever be prosecuted. If the school shooter shot the gym teacher as well, I dont see how he would be able to claim self defense.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
The whole thing is strange. After shooting someone in self-defense (if that's accurate), you'd think he would call 911. But I guess he'll say he was afraid for his safety and left. But then after shooting two more people, he walks right past police cars and goes back home to Illinois. I guess the claim will be that he's just a stupid, scared kid.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
He does immediately pull out his his cell phone, but I have no idea who he called. iirc the guy who took his shirt off to apply pressure was still filming so whatever rittenhouse said should be recorded. I just havent dug for that clip.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
That was after the first shooting, right? I read that he called a friend afterwards and told him he shot someone.
Not legally. He needs to be a current threat to them or someone else. He is fleeing, which makes a self-defense claim fail. You are allowing the mob to be judge and jury. Kind of like the mob which lied about the guy in the truck trying to run over people.
The Gator
Footballguy
There are not two dead people? I thought we established two dead people - who were killed by the suspect.
Was there a different shooter? Or are they not dead?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
