Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Why Didn't the Republican Party Save Itself?


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Kal El said:
4 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

Dramatic fear mongering, as usual

In the interest of fairness, the threats of socialism, taking guns away, and higher taxes for everyone also fall in this category.

Tomato/tomato.  Fear mongering is the standard go-to for politics.  The only thing that’s different is the name of the rhetoric.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Republican party didn't try to save itself because it didn't need to. They embraced the crazy and were rewarded with 3 Supreme Court justices. I think it's unlikely that the party will crumbl

This thread seems premature and odd when you look at the democratic party trying to rally around two people their own party rejected in the primaries. 

never mind...

6 hours ago, Shula-holic said:

At the root of all of this is the basic problem we have today.  People on the left have no interest in living like the vision for red America, and those on the right have no interest in living in the vision for blue America.  It breeds contempt and we have less in common than we have ever had before.

As usual the answer is in the middle with compromise.  Unfortunately that light at the end of the tunnel is growing dimmer not getting brighter at the moment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

As usual the answer is in the middle with compromise.  Unfortunately that light at the end of the tunnel is growing dimmer not getting brighter at the moment. 

I'd agree it's the best way.  I'm not sure there is a middle ground anymore that enough people would find acceptable.  When the other side is so abhorrently evil it's hard to accept any of their beliefs as a tenable solution.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shula-holic said:

I'd agree it's the best way.  I'm not sure there is a middle ground anymore that enough people would find acceptable.  When the other side is so abhorrently evil it's hard to accept any of their beliefs as a tenable solution.

I want to disagree but I can’t unfortunately.  And it scares the hell out of me for my 5 yr old.  I have faith we’ll find our way through this division, as we have in the past, but it getting harder and harder to remain optimistic.  

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

I want to disagree but I can’t unfortunately.  And it scares the hell out of me for my 5 yr old.  I have faith we’ll find our way through this division, as we have in the past, but it getting harder and harder to remain optimistic.  

I hear you, I have 3 kids under 10, and I am not at all happy with the prospect of the nation they might inherit. Unless something big happens, I'm not sure if the country lasts more than another generation.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kal El said:

I hear you, I have 3 kids under 10, and I am not at all happy with the prospect of the nation they might inherit. Unless something big happens, I'm not sure if the country lasts more than another generation.

Don’t worry guys, my 3 year old will be a world changer. We’ll be ok:)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

Don’t worry guys, my 3 year old will be a world changer. We’ll be ok:)

Maybe with our powers combined, we can at least improve our corners of this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 11/1/2020 at 8:48 AM, wikkidpissah said:

.... to run its own candidate 3rd-party to save some conservative dignity if all was indeed lost. It can't have been too hard to at least envision the cost to the Republican Party of this crazy season, no matter the result.

i'm still wondering why it didn't. It would have ensured their aim to defeat President Trump more efficiently than their ad buys and would have established the difference, laid the groundwork for post-Trump reconstruction and provided safe haven for congressional refugees from a burning ship. ....

 

You need money and public exposure to win elections, esp the further down you go down the ticket.

Whatever criticisms there are of Trump and Biden, Trump generates movement and gets conservative voters mobilized. Those 12 HOR seats that flipped didn't come from nowhere. It's looking like the GOP will hold the Senate, Trump's barnstorming was a factor here. Biden, like Hillary Clinton, can still raise a lot of money via fundraising for the Party.

If you want better POTUS candidates  ( voter apathy was extremely high in 2016 and despite the large turnout, it's not like either candidate in 2020 was free of political weariness from many), then there have to be major structural changes to campaign finance and media access/air time.

It's political porn and political entertainment where success is determined by ratings and social media trends, this generates essentially unpaid advertising/marketing value for the candidate. Trump's caustic and attacking/trolling style got him over 2 billion in unpaid media time in 2016.  Without that, he doesn't win. It's an actual political strategy.

And it's the ONLY strategy that a 3rd party could use to get into the daily media cycle for the public at large.  Trump takes advantage of the current system in place ( i.e. the news media turning into news entertainment and becoming top heavy in nature) but is not the cause for the current system in place. The shift in how the mass media/MSM oeprates and how it seeks profits and ratings were going down this path LONG before Trump ran for office.

Trump has provided a blueprint, whether anyone likes it or not, on how an outsider as a third party can gain national relevance in the daily media cycle.  You want people to pull away from Trump and formulate a third party contender but that third party contender has no chance against the RNC/DNC financial warchests unless they use outrage culture/shock marketing much in line with what Trump uses in the first place.

What you suggest is people operate AGAINST their own perceived self interests  ( violating basic biological imperative) and repeat the problem you say should be fixed.  That doesn't make the problem go away, IT ONLY SHIFTS THE PROBLEM IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

Is the end goal just neutralizing Trump politically forever?  ( More political tribalism)

Or is the end goal systematic change so that NOT only candidates who can generate lots of campaign money or it's equivalent MSM value would actually have a chance at POTUS?

Until you separate the two concepts, your methodology only makes the problem worse.

Nuf Ced

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, in 2016 I had a theory that whoever won would probably have a fairly large impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court, but the trade off would be that whoever won would be so incredibly self-serving and selfish that they would do irreparable damage to their party.

Frankly that’s exactly what happened IMO. Though where we are now, I don’t think Hillary would have done as much damage to her party as Trump has done to his.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2020 at 6:26 PM, SHIZNITTTT said:

Trump could  come back in 2024 and run on the RNC ticket or be the first real legitimate candidate on a 3rd party ticket.

Perot in 1992 would like a word with you. He was shooting for twenty percent, and came close with 18.9%. That's legitimate, for certain.

Trump won't run third party. He'll lose like Perot did. People are stunned by the phenomenon of the Trump voter in the Midwest. It's always been there, just for other candidates or it breaks union when the Republicans run a free-market candidate. Lots of rural people and those without college degrees went hard Reform Party, too. 

Trump was a member of the Reform Party. Surprised not many in the media talk about this more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer is that the people that now make up the party had no interest in saving it - they like and embrace this.  It’s telling when you look at the people that have left the GOP vs. the ones that have joined/embraced it - Qanon, racist groups, nationalists and other wild conspiracy theories groups.

Yes, there’s still lots of good people who feel they must turn a blind eye to what the GOP has become but don’t count me in that group.  The GOP made their bed with Trump - let them sleep in it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

This is great.  Liberals commenting on how the GOP can or can't save itself.  :doh:

Lemme guess - they can save themselves by becoming Democrats? 

Your first mistake is claiming all of these people are liberals.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, HellToupee said:

Trumpism is just starting and will grow stronger under a President Biden/Harris

Why would it?  I mean that honestly?

Would it not just go away...as it did, for example, with enthusiasm for Mitt Romney?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Romney didn’t have near the fanatical base that Trump does. 

Sure...but the poster in question here was quite fanatical about Romney and tossed him to the curb for Trump.  Why would the “next guy” not do the same?

My guess is the next guy will be “the best ever” to the same people who consider Trump that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rockaction said:

Perot in 1992 would like a word with you. He was shooting for twenty percent, and came close with 18.9%. That's legitimate, for certain.

Trump won't run third party. He'll lose like Perot did. People are stunned by the phenomenon of the Trump voter in the Midwest. It's always been there, just for other candidates or it breaks union when the Republicans run a free-market candidate. Lots of rural people and those without college degrees went hard Reform Party, too. 

Trump was a member of the Reform Party. Surprised not many in the media talk about this more.

Trump can be a blonde birdnest floating atop a puddle of bilious rage in four years and the Republican Party will still be his. Twas not only Hillary made him possible. 2012-16 GOP presidential candidates: Newt, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain (RIP), Jeb, Ted Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Huckabee, Fiorina and the Paul Family Singing Libertariards. There may be new blood, but not a single one who made the front page offering alternatives to populist grandstanding in the last four years. That was kinda the point of this thread til America made it moot a few wks ago w 70+ million endorsements of willful oblivion.

Edited by wikkidpissah
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Sure...but the poster in question here was quite fanatical about Romney and tossed him to the curb for Trump.  Why would the “next guy” not do the same?

My guess is the next guy will be “the best ever” to the same people who consider Trump that.

Trump is special.  I mean, I don’t pretend to understand why.  But he’s not going to disappear until he’s dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Trump is special.  I mean, I don’t pretend to understand why.  But he’s not going to disappear until he’s dead.

Oh I agree he wont go away...but I don’t think it helps the party.  I think he will hi scorched earth n any who disagreed with him (and plenty are already and I suspect more will).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

Trump can be a blonde birdnest floating atop a puddle of bilious rage in four years and the Republican Party will still be his. Twas not only Hillary made him possible. 2012-16 GOP presidential candidates: Newt, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman, Herman Cain (RIP), Jeb, Ted Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Christie, Huckabee, Fiorina and the Paul Family Singing Libertariards. There may be new blood, but not a single one who made the front page offering alternatives to populist grandstanding in the last four years. That was kinda the point of this thread til America made it moot a few wks ago w 70+ million endorsements of willful oblivion.

I'm not sure we disagree at all. My point was simply that Trump won't run third party, that there was a legitimate third party candidate that concentrated on certain folks that Trump adopted as his own, and that the synthetic impossibility of a conservative/non-free market alliance that seemed unthinkable in 2016 had been smelted and hammered home by Trump. That was my point. Not the willful oblivion and bilious rage part  -- or the voter credulity -- but the marveling at the still fresh wounds suffered at that hammer by the free market guys in the GOP. Why didn't the GOP save itself? The loose coalition had broken as early as '92, it's just nobody knew it. They kept losing those areas they needed. Trump smashed it back together again. Much like Gronk smash football, Trump smash electoral map.

More practically, if we want to play prognosticator, barring a foul-up in the distribution of the COVID vaccine, there's no way he wins a general election in 2024. The people, including the voice of the disenfranchised and willfully ignorant, determined to see an incumbent out, voted that way. Deep down, he knows what a trouncing he took. Therefore, he doesn't run.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sho nuff said:

Why would it?  I mean that honestly?

See my above comment if you really want to know. Trumpism is the fusion of non-free market principles with the nativism and social conservatism it demands. It's strong in Ohio, PA, WI, MI. It just had a messenger that beat it to death with an iron club and a dictatorial personality. He was worse than your embarrassing uncle at the party in that he wielded real power, power people began to be really, really unsure of. That's why he's not president. But Trumpism lives on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:
31 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

This is a good point. Liberals are giving way too much free advice to Republicans, and I don't like it one bit.

Free BAD and self-serving advice for sure.

I agree that the liberals' suggestion to wear a mask was self-serving. But, it would have had the added benefit of sweeping President Trump into a 2nd term in landslide fashion. He would have been hailed as a conquering hero who saved the country.

Instead, he's a national embarrassment and a sore loser, and his party has become a shambolic disgrace.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I'm not sure we disagree at all. My point was simply that Trump won't run third party, that there was a legitimate third party candidate that concentrated on certain folks that Trump adopted as his own, and that the synthetic impossibility of a conservative/non-free market alliance that seemed unthinkable in 2016 had been smelted and hammered home by Trump. That was my point. Not the willful oblivion and bilious rage part  -- or the voter credulity -- but the marveling at the still fresh wounds suffered at that hammer by the free market guys in the GOP. Why didn't the GOP save itself? The loose coalition had broken as early as '92, it's just nobody knew it. They kept losing those areas they needed. Trump smashed it back together again. Much like Gronk smash football, Trump smash electoral map.

More practically, if we want to play prognosticator, barring a foul-up in the distribution of the COVID vaccine, there's no way he wins a general election in 2024. The people, including the voice of the disenfranchised and willfully ignorant, determined to see an incumbent out, voted that way. Deep down, he knows what a trouncing he took. Therefore, he doesn't run.

 

well, he will actually be running for President the rest of his life, because TrumpTV is how he keeps all his ego ideals intact and monetizes his Presidency

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

I agree that the liberals' suggestion to wear a mask was self-serving. But, it would have had the added benefit of sweeping President Trump into a 2nd term in landslide fashion. He would have been hailed as a conquering hero who saved the country.

Instead, he's a national embarrassment and a sore loser, and his party has become a shambolic disgrace.

I respect your opinion, but the disgrace is a party who for four years tried to remove a duly elected president with fake dossiers, allegations and basically anything they could dream up.

That is all they focused on for FOUR LONG YEARS.  Nothing else.  that's it.  While Trump isn't helping, let's not pretend the left isn't just as culpable in this "shambolic disgrace". 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I respect your opinion, but the disgrace is a party who for four years tried to remove a duly elected president with fake dossiers, allegations and basically anything they could dream up.

That is all they focused on for FOUR LONG YEARS.  Nothing else.  that's it.  While Trump isn't helping, let's not pretend the left isn't just as culpable in this "shambolic disgrace". 

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/29/20977735/how-many-bills-passed-house-democrats-trump

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rockaction said:

See my above comment if you really want to know. Trumpism is the fusion of non-free market principles with the nativism and social conservatism it demands. It's strong in Ohio, PA, WI, MI. It just had a messenger that beat it to death with an iron club and a dictatorial personality. He was worse than your embarrassing uncle at the party in that he wielded real power, power people began to be really, really unsure of. That's why he's not president. But Trumpism lives on.

One thing I've noticed about today's social conservatives — at least in terms of Trump supporters — is that they've gradually adopted or accepted numerous progressive stances. They're much more likely to be pro-legalization, pro-adultery, pro-churchlessness, etc. Even their "anti LGBT" stances are more like "pro-LGBT but not in my face." Of course they're still "pro life" but it's no longer a top-5 election issue to them.

I'm not sure how that shakes out for the future of the party, though. I assume that there are still some Christian Republicans who oppose immorality within their party, right? Where do they go? Do they just sit back and accept it as some kind of Faustian bargain?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

One thing I've noticed about today's social conservatives — at least in terms of Trump supporters — is that they've gradually adopted or accepted numerous progressive stances. They're much more likely to be pro-legalization, pro-adultery, pro-churchlessness, etc. Even their "anti LGBT" stances are more like "pro-LGBT but not in my face." Of course they're still "pro life" but it's no longer a top-5 election issue to them.

I'm not sure how that shakes out for the future of the party, though. I assume that there are still some Christian Republicans who oppose immorality within their party, right? Where do they go? Do they just sit back and accept it as some kind of Faustian bargain?

 

members of the Christian Right understand one thing all too well, that which those two orgs give them - power they can't personally develop

Edited by wikkidpissah
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

One thing I've noticed about today's social conservatives — at least in terms of Trump supporters — is that they've gradually adopted or accepted numerous progressive stances. They're much more likely to be pro-legalization, pro-adultery, pro-churchlessness, etc. Even their "anti LGBT" stances are more like "pro-LGBT but not in my face." Of course they're still "pro life" but it's no longer a top-5 election issue to them.

I'm not sure how that shakes out for the future of the party, though. I assume that there are still some Christian Republicans who oppose immorality within their party, right? Where do they go? Do they just sit back and accept it as some kind of Faustian bargain?

 

Maybe in some places, not really seeing the progressive stances where I am. I can't really put my finger on the attraction of this party. I completely understand why components of republicanism attract someone like me. I know selfishly that my 401K will continue to thrive with reduced regulations and corporate tax cuts. I'd tolerate some things for that in a vacuum. However, I've soured as a fiscal conservative, because republicans balloon the deficit and I think more about the bigger economic picture now than my own short term gains. In rural areas of my state, where republicans have a firm grip, that is not a 401K population. That population is highly reliant on social security/medicare/farm bail outs, and it is somehow being held strongly with an anti-socialism message (based on TV ads in this past election). It makes almost as much sense to me as armed militias throwing their support behind authoritarianism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

 

More practically, if we want to play prognosticator, barring a foul-up in the distribution of the COVID vaccine, there's no way he wins a general election in 2024. The people, including the voice of the disenfranchised and willfully ignorant, determined to see an incumbent out, voted that way. Deep down, he knows what a trouncing he took. Therefore, he doesn't run.

 

He can win in 2024,  but several things need to happen

1) Nikki Haley has to be willing to run on the ticket with him. ( I don't see her doing that, her path to future POTUS is to ride shotgun with Dan Crenshaw)

2) Rioting would need to go out of control in the next four years. ( Officer involved shootings are a statistical reality and Biden/Harris won't want to jeopardize the black vote by antagonizing BLM by actually stopping the rioting. )

3) The emergence of at least one major conservative news outlet that rises above the rest and managed to avoid being " cancelled "

You are looking at emotion and not logistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Joe Summer said:

One thing I've noticed about today's social conservatives — at least in terms of Trump supporters — is that they've gradually adopted or accepted numerous progressive stances. They're much more likely to be pro-legalization, pro-adultery, pro-churchlessness, etc. Even their "anti LGBT" stances are more like "pro-LGBT but not in my face." Of course they're still "pro life" but it's no longer a top-5 election issue to them.

I'm not sure how that shakes out for the future of the party, though. I assume that there are still some Christian Republicans who oppose immorality within their party, right? Where do they go? Do they just sit back and accept it as some kind of Faustian bargain?

 

I've been talking about this a good bit. I don' think it's really anything new. I think it's seeing that there are lots of people who don't fall completely in line with the "accepted" positions for "their" side. I think it's overall. I see people who voted Trump and Biden that don't fall in lockstep with "their side". I think that's a good thing. It makes it easier for us to put everyone neatly in a box. But that's not reality in my experience. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

He can win in 2024,  but several things need to happen

1) Nikki Haley has to be willing to run on the ticket with him. ( I don't see her doing that, her path to future POTUS is to ride shotgun with Dan Crenshaw)

2) Rioting would need to go out of control in the next four years. ( Officer involved shootings are a statistical reality and Biden/Harris won't want to jeopardize the black vote by antagonizing BLM by actually stopping the rioting. )

3) The emergence of at least one major conservative news outlet that rises above the rest and managed to avoid being " cancelled "

You are looking at emotion and not logistics.

I don’t know anything about Nikki Haley, but doubt the other two things will happen.

After some post-election angry MAGA, pseudo militia activity, I expect protests will cool down, including BLM. Why? Less incendiary rhetoric, more acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the movement from the Biden administration.

Conservative media will become more, not less fragmented. Especially if Trump dips his toe in the water.

But I won’t be surprised if a Trump runs in 2024 regardless.

Edited by Terminalxylem
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there will be a ton of talk about Trump running again, mostly by him, mostly over the next year. I think he will have rallies and raise money. 
Then it will die down. By 2024 he won’t run. And whoever does run on the Republican side will face this accusation from Democrats: “you supported Trump.” And that will be damning. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I think there will be a ton of talk about Trump running again, mostly by him, mostly over the next year. I think he will have rallies and raise money. 
Then it will die down. By 2024 he won’t run. And whoever does run on the Republican side will face this accusation from Democrats: “you supported Trump.” And that will be damning. 

I mean I seriously doubt that that will be damning.  Frankly it'll be seen as a badge of courage by the right.  There's going be some percentage (maybe quite large) of Republicans that will be 2020 election-truthers and I won't be surprised if someone who pays at least lip service to that group is the nominee.

The other piece of this is that there's a very high likelihood between redistricting and the typical midterm election that the Republicans take back the House and maintain (if they win the one of the GA seats in Jan) control in the Senate.  If anything this Presidential election may be a blip on the continued stratification of voters to representation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans still think that emulating Donald Trump is the way to go.  

Just for the record, a couple of Trump Wannabes have filed a lawsuit in PA attempting to declare that mail-in voting violates the PA Constitution. I'm ashamed to say that one of them, Mike Kelly, is my Congressman (of course, I've been ashamed to say that from the day he was elected). The other was Trump's hand-picked (and unsuccessful) candidate to try and unseat Connor Lamb. Link and Link

I haven't read the Complaint, but they appear to be arguing that allowing mail-in voting violates the provision of the PA Constitution that says   

Quote

The general election shall be held biennially on the Tuesday next following the first Monday of November in each even- numbered year, but the General Assembly may by law fix a different day, two-thirds of all the members of each House consenting thereto: Provided, That such election shall always be held in an even-numbered year.

 

Claiming that allowing votes to be delivered early and then opened and counted on election day violates this seems like a major stretch to me (they seem to be arguing that each time a ballot was filled out early transforms that day into an "election day"). 

They claim that the Act which allowed this year's voting violates the absentee provisions of the Constitution (arguing a pandemic is not an illness):

Quote

The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside.

 

My off the cuff legal analysis is that this provision GUARANTEES absentee voting to a class of voters. It IS NOT a prohibition to allowing other voters to do so. They also seem to be overlooking the section of the PA Constitution that provides 

 

Quote

All elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law: Provided, That secrecy in voting be preserved.

 

If voting by mail is a method prescribed by law (and it was), then it's Constitutional. Case closed. Don't know why Kelly's legal training didn't cover this--oh, wait, maybe it's because he didn't get that training in order to become a car salesman.  The PA courts need to slap these guys with sanctions for a frivolous suit.

Edited by apalmer
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terminalxylem said:

 

After some post-election angry MAGA, pseudo militia activity, I expect protests will cool down, including BLM. Why? Less incendiary rhetoric, more acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the movement from the Biden administration.

 

 

 

https://www.rlslawyers.com/experts-spar-over-data-suggesting-blacks-commit-more-crimes/

 

"Experts Spar Over Data Suggesting Blacks Commit More Crimes

From: The Christian Post
By Leonardo Blair 1/13/17

NEW YORK — Four law and order experts sparred in New York City Wednesday night over evidence-based data suggesting policing isn’t racially biased in America and blacks do in fact commit more crimes than other racial groups.

Opposing the motion that “policing is racially biased,” Harry Stern, managing principal for the law firm Rains Lucia Stern, stated “an uncomfortable but inescapable truth.” “And here it is: black people commit more crime per capita than other groups.”

“It’s not something that I say cheerfully, but it’s true. And the real problem with that statement is not only that it makes me personally uncomfortable and it’s hard to say, but that people hear it as, ‘He’s saying, black people are bad, or that black people are criminals.’ And the natural response to that is a reflexive reaction which puts it back on the police,” he explained....

.....“In 2015, cops killed 991 people — the vast majority, armed and dangerous. Fifty percent of the victims of police shootings were white, though you would never know it from the press coverage......

.....“According to the Justice Department, blacks die of homicide at six times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined. That’s because blacks commit homicide at eight times the rate of whites and Hispanics combined … In the 75 largest counties of the United States, which is where most of the population resides, blacks commit over 50 percent of all violent crime, though they’re 15 percent of the population in those counties,” she said. “These crime disparities are repeated in every big American city. Here in New York, blacks commit 75 percent of all shootings, though they’re 23 percent of the population. How do we know that? That’s what the victims of and witnesses to those shootings, who are overwhelmingly minority themselves, tell the police.”

 

*********

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-data-say-about-police-shootings/

 

"Recognizing that ‘lethal force’ does not always involve a gun and doesn’t always result in death, two other media organizations expanded on this approach. In 2015 and 2016, UK newspaper The Guardian combined its original reporting with crowdsourced information to record all fatal encounters with the police in the United States, and found around 1,100 civilian deaths per year. Online news site VICE News obtained data on both fatal and non-fatal shootings from the country’s 50 largest local police departments, finding that for every person shot and killed between 2010 and 2016, officers shot at two more people who survived. Extrapolating from that, the actual number of civilians shot by the police each year is likely to be upwards of 3,000.

The results paint a picture of definite disparity when it comes to race and police shootings. Although more white people are shot in total, people from minority ethnic groups are shot at higher rates by population. One paper published in August found that a black man is 2.5 times more likely than a white man to be killed by the police during his lifetime."

 

**********

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/16/us/us-police-officers-resigning/index.html

https://nypost.com/2020/06/19/amid-black-lives-matter-protests-cops-explain-what-drove-them-to-leave-the-force/

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/atlanta-police-resigning-leaving-for-other-departments-low-morale-and-lack-of-support-cited/85-2e642568-981c-4f32-94d2-a442ef9d29f3

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/08/18/colorado-police-resign-retire-reform-law/

https://www.newsweek.com/police-officers-across-america-quit-homicide-rates-rise-americas-biggest-cities-1524648

https://www.police1.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/considering-leaving-law-enforcement-go-elsewhere-young-officer-go-elsewhere-IvuzvS245FDnH7Kv/

https://thecrimereport.org/2020/08/13/why-are-americas-women-police-chiefs-resigning/

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/police-chiefs-officers-across-america-quitting-as-defund-the-police-conversation-continues/287-7ad9a505-efef-46b8-aaae-2f4f35c40058

 

In Seattle on Monday, Police Chief Carmen Best resigned the same day the council voted to reduce her department by as many 100, while reducing her salary and the salary of her command staff.

Early retirements and resignations are happening in law enforcement across America. 

“We see officers walking out the door, we’ve had more police officers retire this year at this point than we have in the last 30 years,” Fort Worth Police Officer Association President Manny Ramirez said. “Just last year, we saw a 60% decrease in the number of applications around the nation to become police officers and we know it’s going to be far worse this year."

 

*********

 

You are not looking at the math of all this in real time.

Police officer related shootings are about 3000 plus annually and about 1,100 of those will be fatal shootings.

Blacks in major cities, usually represented by Democratic leadership, commit a disproportionate amount of crime in general/violent crime relative to their actual numbers in the total population.

These large cities are having police officers resign, lateral to other agencies or outright quit in record numbers.  Applications to join departments, despite the failing economy which would make you think would explode upwards for the perceived job stability alone, have dropped in record rates all across America.  This will leave many large cities without proper staffing and further "Defund The Police" movements, like in Seattle plus all the cost of the rioting in terms of overtime will sap law enforcement budgets in those cities to hire and train replacements for those lost officers. Police officers who lateral to other agencies, usually smaller ones in neighboring areas, will be the officers with good resumes, as the best and brightest will always have the most desirable options in any industry/niche.  These large cities are the hotbed of all these riots and subsequent looting.

The responses of the Democratic leadership in these major cities have been roundly criticized, esp by small  business owners who have been looted and burned out. The rioting has created many food deserts as well and robbed many, esp the elderly, of essential needs within practical proximity of where they live.

Gun sales across America have skyrocketed in the last year among civilians, many who are on record stating they fear the rioting and the pandemic and just want to keep their kids safe.

 

What does all this mean?

 

You will have police officer related shootings be an absolute statistical reality and the odds of a call for service/confrontation with a black male  who has committed a crime or is under suspicion of committing a crime that will be most prevalent in large cities where nearly all of the rioting/looting happens and likely under the leadership of Democratic mayors who have faced the most criticism for their lack of response.  The stretched too thin responding officers will come from agencies under financial attrition from THREE directions ( defunding, cost of new hires, overtime for rioting) and be short staffed by having their most marketable/desirable candidates leave with a difficult time in recruiting young quality new officers.  And while facing a society that has decided to increasingly arm itself with firearms at record rates to create more potential shootings/violent encounters and not less of them.

 

And your position is all of this will stop and change because Joe Biden will walk into a microphone and remember he's not running for Senate, and restrains himself from calling someone a "dog faced pony soldier" and avoids talking about a thug at a pool named "Cornpop" and enjoying little kids sitting on his lap, long enough to "acknowledge the movement"?

“We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women created by — you know, you know, the thing.”

What would you define as "protests will cool down"?  Do you mean small business owners, across all demographic lines, who have been burned out and looted, already suffering from the financial losses of the pandemic and essentially abandoned by the likes of Ted Wheeler, Jenny Durkan, Lori Lightfoot, Bill de Blasio and others, will suddenly hear this magical Biden "acknowledge the movement" moment and they will feel so much better about being inches of away from being homeless and being unable to feed their own children while still be expected to pay all their individual and business taxes anyway?

Do you what some people will find incendiary? That Seattle's first BLACK woman chief of police quits because her city is being burned to the ground and the best response from her City Council and Mayor is to slash her pay, reduce her departments operational budget, increase her department costs dramatically in three different directions and drive out over a 150 officers and make it impossible to recruit quality Police Officer candidates for the future.

Is this tone deaf "avoid the actual logistics" narrative , clearly steeped in political tribalism since you want to lay this mess on this nefarious "angry MAGA militia", your right to free speech moment here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

By 2024 he won’t run. And whoever does run on the Republican side will face this accusation from Democrats: “you supported Trump.” And that will be damning. 

 

This will apply to Mike Pence and possibly Ted Cruz but likely won't reach much further than that.

The path for Pence for POTUS was for Trump to win this election and then run on his own. Now he'll be linked to the Trump administration and the conflict it brings in 2024. But this is true for business as well, the second in command rarely ascends, they are seen as to aligned to the old vision, thus new blood is more desirable.

Nikki Haley can't win POTUS on her own in 2024, however as a VP candidate, she's pretty much critical to anyone the RNC pushes forward for POTUS.  If a Republican takes POTUS in 2024, Nikki Haley has to be on the ticket. Trump and Pence can't win because Haley won't join either of them and be linked to the conflict of their administration.

People have short memories. When Michael Vick was killing dogs, I said, amid controversy even back then, that eventually it would cycle out of the daily public media narrative, and it did. He carried the weight of bad blood/ill will moving forward, but things changed. Animosity towards Trump will reduce by 2024, even if he runs his own TV show/network/online platform.  The masses always pick something new to be angry about.

What the RNC needs to do is find someone who will retain Trump's core base, still appeal to the older white Christian gunowner legacy crowd, be able to survive the open cancel culture and be seen as a moderate compared to Trump's trolling/attacking style. (Trump's age and his potential legal troubles in the near future become bigger factors here. )There's only one guy who can fit all these requirements now.

That's Dan Crenshaw.

No current DNC contender can beat Crenshaw, besides Oprah Winfrey and she won't run. Buttigieg being a gay man versus a gay woman will sink him nationally. No one wants to say it out loud but it's there. Cuomo is accused of essentially sentencing people to death in those nursing homes and wrote a tone deaf victory lap book that will haunt the DNC optics badly. AOC has a massive platform but won't survive the debate cycle and her policies will terrify even those within her own Party. Biden/Harris won for being "Not Trump" and that legacy doesn't have longevity.  Newsom has the most financial backing, from Aunt Pelosi, and thus is the actual frontrunner for the DNC in 2024. He's run California into the ground and the optics are horrible. Then that would be three cycles in a row of lackluster apathy inducing candidates ( Clinton, Biden, Newsom)

The damning issue is the DNC won this election, but at the staggering cost of possibly the 16 year stretch starting in 2024.  Their savior was Tulsi Gabbard and they canceled her like a piece of used toilet paper. The lefty MSM won't even acknowledge she exists anymore. All Crenshaw/Haley have to do is promise Gabbard whatever she wants to run as an independent and she will fracture the Democratic voter base that will already naturally split between AOC/The Squad/Bernie Sanders and Pelosi/Newsom/Old Guard Dinosaurs.

Tulsi Gabbard was the candidate the DNC didn't deserve. And they'll have to pay for it for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

I don’t know anything about Nikki Haley, but doubt the other two things will happen.

After some post-election angry MAGA, pseudo militia activity, I expect protests will cool down, including BLM. Why? Less incendiary rhetoric, more acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the movement from the Biden administration.

Conservative media will become more, not less fragmented. Especially if Trump dips his toe in the water.

But I won’t be surprised if a Trump runs in 2024 regardless.

 

2 hours ago, timschochet said:

I think there will be a ton of talk about Trump running again, mostly by him, mostly over the next year. I think he will have rallies and raise money. 
Then it will die down. By 2024 he won’t run. And whoever does run on the Republican side will face this accusation from Democrats: “you supported Trump.” And that will be damning. 

i continually marvel at people who can look at this world and fully expect it to become more reasonable. God bless you both.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

This will apply to Mike Pence and possibly Ted Cruz but likely won't reach much further than that.

The path for Pence for POTUS was for Trump to win this election and then run on his own. Now he'll be linked to the Trump administration and the conflict it brings in 2024. But this is true for business as well, the second in command rarely ascends, they are seen as to aligned to the old vision, thus new blood is more desirable.

Nikki Haley can't win POTUS on her own in 2024, however as a VP candidate, she's pretty much critical to anyone the RNC pushes forward for POTUS.  If a Republican takes POTUS in 2024, Nikki Haley has to be on the ticket. Trump and Pence can't win because Haley won't join either of them and be linked to the conflict of their administration.

People have short memories. When Michael Vick was killing dogs, I said, amid controversy even back then, that eventually it would cycle out of the daily public media narrative, and it did. He carried the weight of bad blood/ill will moving forward, but things changed. Animosity towards Trump will reduce by 2024, even if he runs his own TV show/network/online platform.  The masses always pick something new to be angry about.

What the RNC needs to do is find someone who will retain Trump's core base, still appeal to the older white Christian gunowner legacy crowd, be able to survive the open cancel culture and be seen as a moderate compared to Trump's trolling/attacking style. (Trump's age and his potential legal troubles in the near future become bigger factors here. )There's only one guy who can fit all these requirements now.

That's Dan Crenshaw.

No current DNC contender can beat Crenshaw, besides Oprah Winfrey and she won't run. Buttigieg being a gay man versus a gay woman will sink him nationally. No one wants to say it out loud but it's there. Cuomo is accused of essentially sentencing people to death in those nursing homes and wrote a tone deaf victory lap book that will haunt the DNC optics badly. AOC has a massive platform but won't survive the debate cycle and her policies will terrify even those within her own Party. Biden/Harris won for being "Not Trump" and that legacy doesn't have longevity.  Newsom has the most financial backing, from Aunt Pelosi, and thus is the actual frontrunner for the DNC in 2024. He's run California into the ground and the optics are horrible. Then that would be three cycles in a row of lackluster apathy inducing candidates ( Clinton, Biden, Newsom)

The damning issue is the DNC won this election, but at the staggering cost of possibly the 16 year stretch starting in 2024.  Their savior was Tulsi Gabbard and they canceled her like a piece of used toilet paper. The lefty MSM won't even acknowledge she exists anymore. All Crenshaw/Haley have to do is promise Gabbard whatever she wants to run as an independent and she will fracture the Democratic voter base that will already naturally split between AOC/The Squad/Bernie Sanders and Pelosi/Newsom/Old Guard Dinosaurs.

Tulsi Gabbard was the candidate the DNC didn't deserve. And they'll have to pay for it for a long time.

he's baaaack..........hard to believe but, when i first came on the FFA scene, many accused @wikkidpissah of being a GG burner account.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

i continually marvel at people who can look at this world and fully expect it to become more reasonable. God bless you both.

You think a world with another Trump running in 2024 is more reasonable?

All joking aside, I’d rather be disappointed repeatedly than suffer the existence of a cynic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...