All_Pro_Bills

Let's stay on point here. I don't care who said it or where is was published. Truth is truth. The Democratic left for lack of a better word "hates" Asians because their work ethic and success with many with average incomes higher than whites in many areas puts a big dent in their white supremacy narrative they continue to peddle. It sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. How anyone can believe all that BS is a testimony to the ability of the 1% elite masters on the left to brainwash weak minded and mentally slow liberals. They think they are "woke" but they are asleep. Unless you have something intelligent to add I suggest you refrain from responding and digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Against Asians. I lifted this from a story I read but it seems applicable here. In education too many Asians are getting into better schools and crowding out other "minorities". To quote.. "There is anti-Asian discrimination in America, but one of its main sources is a principal bastion of the left: elite universities. Asians are discriminated against in seeking admission to Harvard, Yale, and other elite schools. For example, it is four times more difficult for an Asian to get admitted to Harvard than for a black with comparable high school grades and test scores. And the left is urging the same discrimination against Asians in admission to elite public high schools." Now that's racism in action! Totally busted on this one dude!

All I can say is I'd like to borrow your time machine and experience what life was like back in 1950's Mississippi some 70 years ago.

And I suspect the reason is Charles refuses to be cancelled. Agree with him or not he stands by his convictions. Got to respect that. He might be the most honest person in TV/Media. And if they try to cancel him they know he ain't going to back down, no way, no how. The cancel crowd might be vindictive and sadistic but they won't pick a fight they can't win. Like how criminals choose their victims better to move on to other easier and more compliant targets than to get in a rumble with a tough street fighter.

Link to FBI statistics for 2018 arrests by racial classification. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-43

There are two sides to this coin when it comes to police encounters. People, including whites, that engage in confrontations with the police during encounters or traffic stops suffer the same fate. Maybe people that cooperate with the police when they get stopped, don't engage in physical confrontations, and don't have outstanding arrest warrants don't end up getting injured or shot. Maybe we should consider the concept of assigning some responsibility to the suspect rather than the innocent victim model which has become the popular view? I've been stopped by the cops about a dozen times in my life and my first thought is to make sure I come out of it alive. If you want to suggest we can ever develop some kind of policing model where the margin of error in the population of all traffic stops is zero then that's not possible. No system or process has a zero error rate. Anywhere.

No more incarceration. So let the Capitol insurrections go she is saying? Let all the rapists and murders run free? No police she says? Its easy to shoot your mouth off like that when you're hiding behind thousands of armed National Guard soldiers in the Capitol surrounded by a fence with sharpshooters and personal security details. But when you have to directly deal with this crap its a different perspective. What people like this mentally ill hose bag don't say is Dwight Wright was the subject of a traffic stop by police, had an outstanding warrant, refused to comply with requests from police, and continued to ignore the instructions from the cops, went back to his car for some reason unknown to them, and tried to drive away. Shooting victim? Yes. Innocent shooting victim? No. He did everything wrong here and no more excuses for stupidity. Anybody with half a brain and no street attitude would have walked away alive from that. Reality.

Of course there needs to be election integrity but in Georgia the basic premise of voter identification is being cast as some sort of race issue where polls taken of American citizens reveal a majority of citizens of all races across the political spectrum support the concept. And objections based on the ability of voters to get ID can be easily resolved. Stating the legislation is racist is purely subjective opinion. There is no explicit mention of race such as those found in "separate but equal laws of the past" in any shape or form. Many are inferring race for many reasons. Mostly self-serving. Why do white liberal thinkers believe they need to play "Nanny" to minority voters? Are minority voters inherently incapable of having valid ID's or navigating through the process here and somehow white voters are better equipped to understand and act here? That's pretty insulting (and racist too!). Article 1 Section 4 of the Constitution grants the States the right for setting election rules, times, and places and while many believe as you do in some national standard any such legislation would likely makes its way through the courts through various legal challenges.

I have to call out some inconsistency. The liberals among us here are always preaching about democracy and the rule of the majority. Like eliminating the filibuster in the Senate because it gets in the way of "democracy". The will of the people should not be blocked by the minority is the argument. So in the case of Georgia voting law isn't this the will of the majority? Isn't that what you guys want? Democracy consistent with majority rule. And fact is a majority of Georgia voters elected the Governor and members of the State legislature. You likely have no protest about the HR 1 Federal voting legislation trouncing on the States Constitutional rights to set election law but you're going to argue its not proper for the State of Georgia to override county officials? I don't mind anyone arguing against the law under the pretext it is somehow unfair but I smell the odor of duplicity when it comes to the democratic process. The message when it works for you then you like it and when it doesn't work for you then you don't like it.

My issue with the Zimmerman case was the interpretation of the Florida stand your ground law. After calling 911 about a suspicious individual the police through the dispatcher gave Zimmerman clear instructions to stay in his vehicle and do not approach the suspect. But he chose to ignore this request, left his vehicle, and confronted Martin. A physical confrontation followed. My contention was that you cannot initiate a confrontation, specifically disregarding police instructions in this case, and claim self-defense when the other person engages in what they logically believe is defending themselves against an attacker. In this case Zimmerman being the attacker of Martin who for all purposes had no idea what Zimmerman was up to here. Given these circumstances I thought Zimmerman was guilty of at a minimum negligent homicide. The left has a hard-on for the police because local law enforcement is one of the few, or maybe the only, large public institution they do not control.

This is a good thing. It will remove all the gratuitous, constant, and dramatic invocation of racism as the cause of everything and facilitate legal examination of legislation. Debated and decided in the courts through rational and fact based evidence and testimony rather than through public and private virtue signalling supported by constant one-side subjective MSM propaganda.

As the new Summer collections and fashions are in the stores its a great time for looting. Why not look you're best this Summer? Sarcasm aside, the loud and clear message in the aftermath of these incidents is the government refuses to perform the most basic function of the social contract between its citizens and the government. And that is to maintain civilized order. I'll bet gun purchase and background check stats go through the roof during the second half of April when they're reported next month along with membership increases for militia groups. Simple cause and effect. People see these responses as a potential threat to their safety and respond to it. And on another issue these rioting mobs provide gratuitous examples for the need of automatic weapons. As local, state, and federal officials everywhere have demonstrated they have no desire or will to maintain some semblance of social order the message is clear to businesses and residents of these communities along with the rest of the country. You're on your own and they are not fit to govern.

The good doctor's NIH was funding secret "gain of function" virus research at the suspected Wuhan lab. Genetic research that is banned from being conducted on US soil. Because it is deemed too dangerous. Research on viruses such as Coronavirus. Connect the dots here between his consistently wrong advice and his connection to the lab. My conclusion.. he's working hard to cover his ass and mislead while also covering for China's complicity in the virus escaping containment as a result of poorly defined and run safety protocols.

Further the administration responded: "To produce a figure would require performing some mathematical calculations and as math is racist this cannot be provided as we will no longer be using quantifiable figures or facts for any purpose going forward".

I wish I had the answer to those questions. But I do wonder if critical and logical thinking are becoming a lost art. The link below is timely to this topic. https://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2021/04/stimulus-and-covid-19-attitudes-reflect.html

The fatal aspects of the virus are concentrated among the elderly with immune systems degraded by the aging process and among people having a pre-existing condition that also degrades the immune system. Such as diabetes and obesity. Two very common and systemic conditions among Americans. Almost all patients that died had some other pre-existing condition. My county has kept good statistics on the outbreak since the beginning. There have been 21,147 cases confirmed by testing with 703 deaths. 97% of all deaths occurred among the 50+ population against 40% of the cases. 30-49 reported the other 3%. No deaths were reported among the 0-29 age group. The breakout is: 80+ 6% of cases, 54% of deaths 65-79 10% of cases, 30% of deaths 50-64 24% of cases, 12% of deaths 30-49 29% of cases, 3 % of deaths 18-29 20% of cases, 0% of deaths 5-17 9% of cases, 0% of deaths 0-4 2% of cases, 0% of deaths State and national statistics show the same patterns within a small range of deviation. These numbers show which age groups are most at-risk of a fatal event. Part of the problem of isolating the oldest and most at risk is the fact that family units might comprise individuals from several of these age groups and not just one. But we could have done a better job of protecting the most vulnerable and given our understanding of the virus and the at-risk factors provide a custom individual assessment for a person given their specific condition. And let life go on as close as possible to "normal" for those at close to zero risk of death. Fortunately there are some promising treatments coming out of the clinical trial pipeline that should gain FDA EUA approval that give doctor's better treatment options to significantly cut the fatality rate going forward.

While I agree with some of your posts and disagree with others I disagree as many suggest that the motivation behind any real or alleged bias in the GA bill is some implicit or explicit attempt at racism. Any and all motivations real or imagined are political. And the fact that the majority of African-Americans in the districts you suggest are disenfranchised by the bill vote for Democratic candidates is the only motivating factor. The fact the majority of the voters in these districts are black is coincidental and irrelevant to the motive. If the voters in these specific districts cast their ballots 90-10 for Republican candidates do you think some racist behavior meant to hurt minority citizens would be a motive for the specifics of the bill?

If you've examined the specific details of the audits I'll take you word for it. But to my knowledge all they did was count the votes and verify the counts with a re-count. Not confirm or validate all the ballots cast were valid. Not cross reference the votes cast to voting records. If you think that's sufficient then okay but I don't. All it proves is they are proficient at counting.

You're arguing back and forth about an unknown. You personally can vouch that there was absolutely no vote fraud in the 2020 general election? Because you personally inspected ballots and observed the voting processes and protocols, for mail in and on site voting? Really? You can no more state that as a known fact than I or anyone else can say there were irregularities or that all went as required. Truth is none of us here know for sure and its just a case of believing what you want to believe absent that. It boils down to opinion and drawing a conclusion based on limited and filtered information. So why do you believe all was on the up and up? Either you're satisfied with the results and don't see any need to question it or you trust the people doing the counting. Me, I just don't trust politicians and their foot soldiers of any party and I trust the one's claiming to be out to "help" other people even less. My hypothesis is they stuffed the mail in boxes with a bunch of fake votes and stopped the vote counts election night in several key districts per the '60's Cook County politician machine playbook. To let all the other votes come in from all the other precincts in the State so they knew how many votes they needed to manufacture in order to win the State. This happened election night in State like GA, PA, and MI. All states that swung one particular way late and suddenly. Coincidence? I think not. Can I prove any of it? No. But you can't prove anything either. And the people that do know for sure are in absolutely no hurry to share the truth about anything with any of us. So rather than bickering back and forth with each other we should all be on their asses to shed some light on their game.

From the perspective of politicians and their parties the applicable motto here is... "if you can't beat 'em then cheat 'em".

They have been known to chop up a lot of birds too!

That's an interesting question. Personally, I have no way of validating whether or not fraud exists as I have no access to voter registration records and other data needed to perform a proper analysis. And truthfully I don't trust the people who can perform this analysis. Because I believe they don't care about integrity of elections. Their primary focus is about "winning". So a fundamental problem I see is the people that do have the ability to perform checks have no motivation or desire to look. So the core issue of contention to me isn't that you and I or others might disagree about the extent or existence of fraud. The issue is you seem trust officials and I do not. That's really the disagreement and debate we are all having here. My conclusions is public officials are less than honest, care about themselves and their power first and foremost, and don't care about much else beyond that. Its the result of winning that only matters and all else is not important.

Your argument brings up a good insight. Somebody in charge of figuring this all out with problem solving skills would look at the voting process in the two places and identify the traits and characteristics that are similar and those that are different. And determine through some basic analysis which specifics could be the cause of the disparity. And then put a plan in place to "fix" those issues and then test their changes to see if the results improve the process in the non-performing location vs. the well run voting jurisdiction. Taking it further you might want to do some analysis of the effectiveness of all towns and counties across the state and identify "good" practices" and "bad practices" and apply the good examples to all under-performing locations. Your conclusion the people in charge of the poorly run township are incompetent or not trained or properly equipped to do the job in an effective manner could be correct. Or it could be something else. People automatically assuming "racism" may turn out to be correct too but unless some inspection and problem identification is performed all they really have is some wild ass guess.

Powered by wind turbines!

Chef, Its simple . But you know that too. Invoking racism is a tactic effectively used to shut down debate without having to present any facts or evidence to support an argument. Its all about using the word to control the narrative. The term is way over-used (like using the "f" word in a lot of action movies) and when there is some genuine abuse or bias it gets lost in all the noise. Like chicken little always proclaiming the sky is falling. At the moment its behind every tree and under every rock. Its "systemic", although what makes it systemic is never explained nor is some measurable, defined level, or order of magnitude metric produced. So how does anyone know its systemic? That's all BS too. I'll wager its been used more in the past 2 years than it was from 1980 to 2019. Like it disappeared for 40 years and then came back into fashion. The funny thing is the word is invoked by more white liberals than it is by the people that actually might be impacted by the practice. While they claim to care I suspect they have other more selfish motives. There's no sense arguing about it because the people pushing the narrative don't have any idea what they're talking about as their conclusions are based on fantasies like white supremacy conjured up by unskilled and unemployable gender and race study academics and intellectuals.