Election 2020 The Horse Race (Not Misspelled)

Remains accurate.

Is that what you are going with?

Fine, I made a mistake that the author was a Republican, not a democrat.

Still doesn't change the fact that it was published on a hyper-partisan liberal paper, which had to go through multiple editors who are strongly liberal/democrat, and was given space on their anti-Trump paper since they agreed with it.


No, it doesn't. You have failed, yet again, to show any false statements, or even rebut anything I said.

But so you don't accuse me of doing the same:

It had everything the wanted in police reform.

1) Hold police accountable with their actions? Check.
2) Require body cams for all police officers? Check.
3) Requires more training for de-esculation? Check (Debatable if they need more)
4) Requires all police-related shootings to be reported? Check.
5) Requires all reporting of no-knock warrants, including justification of reasoning? Check.
6) Finally make lynching a federal crime? Check.
7) Makes it better for community/police interactions through sharing? Check and Check

Democrats didn't want to support it because, like you said:


Of course they aren't going to support it. It A) solves a problem they campaigned on, B) gives a Republican credit for fixing something the liberals/democrats have campaigned on for decades, and C) gives Trump benefits for helping the African American community, which is something they do not want.

Hello, that's how politics work! Chalk up another subject you have no clue in.

Hello, that's what negotiations are. Chalk up yet another subject you have no clue in.

No it didn't. The partisan, ineffective bill didn't do ANYTHING about Qualified Immunity, ie the blue wall, ie the single biggest problem in police incidents. That remains the largest issue and Scott's bill completely ignored it. Claiming that it addressed "everything the Dems wanted" is 100% *** when the #1 requirement was Qualified Immunity reform. There goes your entire narrative. You should have listed your claims as #3-#10, because Scott tried to make the same claim, just pretend that it addressed everything the Dems wanted, except the biggest issues. It didn't work for him either.

Also, nobody was interested in Scott's databases, studies, or sensitivity training. Reporting the use of no knock warrants? This wasn't a Dem priority, Dems wanted to BAN no knock warrants, no one wanted to study them. "Report all shootings?" That's already done, we don't need a database. I mean really, what police shooting goes unreported?

Scott's bill didn't solve any problems, it was weak, would not have made anyone safer from the police, and would not have held any police more accountable for their crimes. It certainly did not even come close to making police easier to prosecute, which is the whole point of police reform.

You know Vic, only a hyper-partisan like you could come up with excuses like that.

As a resident of downtown Denver....getting really sick of these "riots" being used as a propaganda tool.

There are no major riots in Denver, CO. There haven't been during the entire timeframe since COVID-19 quarantines and stay-at-home orders were issued. When the city was put on a 10pm curfew for 3 days in May, it was after a PEACEFUL PROTEST at the Capitol that had zero injuries outside of some pushing and shoving, and I think one person got some spraypaint in their eyes. Approximately 4 businesses had windows broken, all while closed, and nothing was taken from them. THERE ARE NO DENVER RIOTS!

Both sides of the media have taken major cities, in my case a liberal city being used by conservative media, and overblown these stories of "RIOTS". And in some cases, have actually spurred on MORE ACTUAL RIOTS by whipping up a locked up populace who can't see for themselves what's going on into a fury.

Please, talk to multiple residents in these cities in question. I walk Colfax and Quebec after midnight with zero fears. I have yet to see any gunfire or RIOT squad police. Had about a week straight where people were howling from their balconies at 8pm, and some fireworks for a new nights....BUT NO RIOTS.

whats the definition of a riot?

If I don't see SWAT teams, garbage can fires, and teargas clouds, ain't no riot in my book. Gheeesh kids these days..."I was in a riot, grandpa!" "Shut up, Aquafina! I still believe your granola mother called you that- you know your grandma and I named her Margaret, but NOOOOO that wasn't good enough for her! 11 people with a banner ain't no riot!" ;)

If a large mass of people gather, ignore orders by police to disperse, start physical altercations, break even one window of a business, that sure as hell isn't a, "peaceful protest." You may not label it a riot, but to keep calling all of these mobs "peaceful" is very disingenuous. And, there are far more examples of liberal media outlets trying to hide the fact some of the protests are, in fact, riots, than there are examples of conservative media trying to label the actual peaceful gatherings as violent.

Our media keeps trying to cover their own butt by saying, "mostly peaceful." As if, that's somehow better than NOT peaceful.

I'm pretty sure the day OJ Simpson murdered his ex wife and that fella, he was "mostly peaceful" that day. Just not in the few minutes while doing the murdering.

if the police choose to infringe upon a calm demonstration that does not already have property destruction or harm to humans happening, they are violating our Constitutional Rights- AND ANY INFRINGEMENT UPON THAT RIGHT, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, DESERVES TO BE REVEALED FOR THE DESPICABLE PRACTICE THAT IT IS.

There are protesters, and there are rioters who use protests as cover for their desire for destruction. Those opposed to the protests will cite those rioters as "what's really going on", and those in solidarity with the protesters will scream that this is the work of a shadow government to steal their freedom of Assembly.

In reality, its just a small percentage either taking advantage of a situation (the hyper version of what the protest is usually about) or those seeking to discredit the protest. Either scenario- those actually behind the message are rarely the ones actually doing this.

In regards to the "mostly peaceful" moniker used- your comparison isn't valid. Its not like we're seeing people who start out "just protesting" and turn into rioters. Its a small percentage of people showing up with an ulterior motive from the start. That's how the "mostly" works in this situation.

To be fair, that wasn't a peaceful protest either.

But at least be glad you got off easy.

Time for the Political Rorschach Test.

love the pic- and the spoilers on it. Great example, and honest words.

I'll still say that even with a few minor bumps and scrapes it was a "peaceful protest"- have you ever attended an Ohio State/Michigan football game? More injuries at one of those in the parking lot pregame than were at this "riot".

Something that CNN doesn't show.

Seriously people smashing windows, setting entire car lots on fire and attacking anyone that gets near them. CNN calls it "peaceful protest".

Here are the Democrats "Peaceful Protests".

My definition of a peaceful protest emphasizes on the word "peaceful" more than the word "protest".

Shoving is gray area, but throwing rocks is an automatic no.

I almost completely agree. I just feel like its very easy for a small minority to completely destroy the message a protest is trying to bring forward through actions like this, because we have for over 100 years lived in a world of "if it bleeds, it leads" in media. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the violence gets a lot more clicks than the vast majority of people who just want to be heard.

Please, be angry by the violence trying to silence the voices of protest in the name of "action now", when in reality they just enjoy watching things burn, not actually seeking changes.

As I said before and I will stand by it, the "protests" you can look at them like, an ant colony.

Among the ants, there are workers, guards, scouts, etc. They all have different functions, but are working for the same goal. Now SUPPOSEDLY, according to the media, these "mostly peaceful" protests are to protest police brutality against minority communities. If we are to take their word on that, and we have to because they offer nothing else.

Now, to the observer, these "protesters" all look the same. They don't wear colored jerseys with numbers on them to blatantly differentiate between, "Oh, I'm a peaceful protester!" and "I'm a violent protester!" and "Oh, I'm just here for the free Nikes." So, when one all black wearing, masked up hooligan starts launching fire bombs of of the angrily shouting crowd, who are now using umbrellas to further mask the actual criminals, it's basically impossible to say, "Well, THIS fella here is a peaceful one and....this guy here, he's here just to cause conflict and...." It's impossible, it's confusing and if you join the mob with the mob mentality, you may get swept up in the wave. That's on you as an adult, choosing to join a mostly unorganized, mass protest. If someone who came there to just hold a sign and shout hateful rhetoric is just an innocent protester, then you can't blame other people who's "rhetoric" you don't like for the actions of other adults. All I'm saying.

Honestly, if the politicians and media had the decency to condemn the violence instead of pandering to the fringe elements then we wouldn't even be having many of these discussions. We'd pretty much just all be acknowledging the obvious (that there are legitimate problems here) and our disagreements would be focused on what should actually be done about it.

Except for the anarchists and the hyper-partisans though.

They will always be themselves.

Also, I don't mean to nitpick, but I cannot agree with this at all. Soccer riots don't start because people head out "intending" to get involved in a deadly riot where people get trampled. Humans react off of the moment, off of emotion. That perfectly intended protester is just as likely to get caught up in a the moment and become a window breaking, fire starting, old lady punching anarchist as the next guy, because they are human.

I'm fairly sure OJ didn't head over to his ex's house with the intent to kill her (at least from my recollection of the facts that were given during that trial). Pretty sure when he got there and found that very attractive, younger white male there with his ex who he'd already thought was cheating before they divorced (one of the reasons she filed for divorce a couple years earlier) is when he probably just snapped. So, it's a perfect comparison.

Off the bat, I'm not touch the OJ stuff with a 10 foot pole, even from the window of my driving away Bronco.

Your example assumes something- it assumes that everyone showing up to a protest is there for the same reason, and that's just something I can't accept. All sorts of ilk come to a protest, from those who are wholly there for the purpose/cause, and then some who just like chaos and see an opportunity.

The debate then comes about "you are judged by the company you keep"- however the primarily conservative right that brings up violence at protests might want to be careful with that slogan- we can find many examples of bad company they kept as well both recently and over the years.

The fact is that its impossible to judge a group by the actions of the fringe. And you're making the assumption that its all nice and organized without ulterior motives hiding in those fringes. I know by your posts that you can't believe its that binary. There are tons of extremes out there who can subvert the true message trying to get out.

And Ravael hit it on the head- the combination of media focusing on the examples of violence combined with the inability to call out those fringe groups clouds the intended message to the point where its lost, and all that remains are memories and video of the violence, not the George Floyds of the world.

Anyone remember the Ferguson "Protests" back in 2014 when Michael Brown was killed? This is what Obama said



Anyone remember the Balitmore "Protests" back in 2015 when Freddie Gray was severely injured in police custody then later died? This is what Obama said




what makes the recent protests any different that the ones happening over the past few months? I don't remember this amount of violence and destruction when Obama was the president. According to wiki ~ in both the Ferguson and Baltimore protests there were 0 deaths ~ with the Goerge Floyd / BLM mostly peaceful protests there have been 30+ deaths and far more injured & property damage. Its quite sad to see the hypocrisy

Walked into a whole thread of ODS.

I thought this was supposed to be about the election? What's with all the riot stuff, that topic is getting s*** shut down in these forums.

please explain what you're reading Oz cuz Obama is only mentioned 3 times so far on the page (3 of which are in my post) where I'm highlighting the stance that was taken against peaceful protests

He is coping with his own TDS.

It's a defense mechanism, he needs to blame conservatives for talking about Obama 24/7, like he is the president again. He misses the old days.

His logic is that even mentioning Obama in the context of an actual topic is ODS, but his frequent posting of random Trump memes is not TDS.

To be fair, I don't think he understands the word "derangement" even though he shows complete signs of it.

The deranged do not know that they are.

I'm still seeing ODS, just not the Obama one. ;)

And they keep proving it.

On an interesting side-note for the topic, the election betting odds have tightened considerably in the past week or two, and battleground state polls are slowly drifting in Trump’s favor. He’s still down by a few points in most of the major ones (Florida, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wisconsin), but his biggest bumps in 2016 were from last-minute polls. I think we would usually be seeing a post-convention bump for the Democrats around this time, but the early polls are not showing that happening. The next week of polling should help clarify things.

we should wait and get the facts before we start blaming and rioting