Biden condemns Portland violence, says Trump 'recklessly encouraging' it

[riclag]

Not one mention in his speech, of looters and riots to his dem base at the dnc convention and to the world after months of mayhem  !

 

Not one mention of the murders of innocent people protecting business owners, illegally pulling down statues ,which resulted in  riots,assaults,arrests on  elected officials and citizens ! Not one mention of protecting the institution that protects everyone !

For months Americans had to put up with violence in the streets and yet  after walking out from his basement at his convention  this was what someone said

"Democrats failed to condemn recent political violence and rioting across the nation, as they avoided the topic throughout the four days of the Democratic National Convention. Former Vice President Joe Biden never mentioned the riots during his speech accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for president on Thursday evening. Nor did any other speaker".

https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2045293045347/democrats-refuse-to-condemn-riots-crime-during-convention

 

But he did mention at his speech  and to his supporters in August at that convention 

"My father taught us that silence was complicity.  And I could never remain silent or complicit".

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/20/politics/biden-dnc-speech-transcript/index.html

 

Another poster mention that till this date there was no evidence presented so far that racism was behind the death of floyed!  But in his speech no mention of remaining calm while waiting for a investigation! 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by riclag

[candide]

4 hours ago, Isaan sailor said:

C’mon, man.  Only 88 days of violence, before Biden recognizes it.  And we all know why he waited.  Antifa and BLM, as well as CCP, have been key supporters all along.

Sure! ????

May 31, 2020 - 1:15 AM

 

"Protesting such brutality is right and necessary. It’s an utterly American response. But burning down communities and needless destruction is not. Violence that endangers lives is not. Violence that guts and shutters businesses that serve the community is not," 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/protesting-is-necessary-but-needless-destruction-is-not-biden-condemns-violence-around-country

[Mama Noodle]

32 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I see you are on your ANTIFA soap box again.

 

ANTIFA Anti Fascists, count me in.

 

I see you've picked your side. Well revisit this in November and see how all this played out. 

[candide]

19 minutes ago, Logosone said:

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. 

Ok. So it also depends on which year as numbers are small.

I'd like to see numbers on unfair/unnecessary killings. It's not sure "unarmed" is a good enough approximation.

Edited August 31, 2020 by candide

[RichardColeman]

34 minutes ago, candide said:

I guess you don't have any source to back this claim.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

 

 

[simple1]

36 minutes ago, Logosone said:

In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population.

 

The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

The WSJ article is playing with stats and misrepresents the actual situation. The facts shown African Americans are up to 3.5 times more likely to be shot by police in the US than whites. A few example reports...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jul/14/donald-trump-george-floyd-police-killings

 

https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2246987-us-police-kill-up-to-6-times-more-black-people-than-white-people/

 

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by simple1

[candide]

10 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-b

The claim was about "unarmed people" killed by police.

The issue is not so much how many people were shot. Many people probably deserved to be shot. The issue is that some people have been unfairly/unnecessarily killed, and that such cases concerning black people have rather frequently seen recently. "Unarmed" may be an indicator of unfair killing, but is likely not precise enough.

 

On top of it, as Simple1 stresses in his post above, black people are statistically more likely to be killed when they are arrested.

[Logosone]

38 minutes ago, candide said:

On top of it, as Simple1 stresses in his post above, black people are statistically more likely to be killed when they are arrested.

Sorry but that is a misrepresentation. In absolute terms more whites are killed by police, and the only way to portray blacks as more likely to be killed is by reference to their population figure of 13%. However this ignores that 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies are committed by blacks.

 

So actually the 3.5 more likely to be killed is merely a reflection of the fact that blacks are more likely to have encounters with police because they are more than 3.5 more likely to committ homicide or a robbery (13% of population but 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies)

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, Logosone said:

The protesters in Portland went from peaceful to violent because they were whipped up and infiltrated by the most militant ANTIFA cell in the entire USA, Rose City Antifa.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa

 

This Antifa cell is the oldest and most militant in the United States. What a coincidence that the violence is worst in the city that has the oldest and most militant Antifa cell.

 

And who enabled, supported and encouraged the protesters, and let Antifa run riot in Portland? The Democrats, ie Biden's tribe.

 

If anyone is reponsible for Portland it is Biden and Antifa.

 

I guess you'll bang on the same drum and copy paste the same slogans, chestnuts and phrases.

All of that doesn't really indicate what actual threat is represented by them. Your own hyper partisan views notwithstanding.

[Mama Noodle]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

I guess you'll bang on the same drum and copy paste the same slogans, chestnuts and phrases.

All of that doesn't really indicate what actual threat is represented by them. Your own hyper partisan views notwithstanding.

 

And your denialism and downplay does not mean its untrue. 

 

Antifa (now with BLM) have repeatedly attacked people and businesses and property for months. They really took off once Trump was elected, but the escalation has gotten serious over the last few months. 

 

The American right has been pointing at antifa for over 3 years and nobody cared, but everyone sees them now. Same with BLM. 

 

If everything was just a peaceful protest, and there wasn't anything to worry about, then the Trump Caravan should have been able to go wherever they want, but thats not true now is it? 

[riclag]

18 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Sorry but that is a misrepresentation. In absolute terms more whites are killed by police, and the only way to portray blacks as more likely to be killed is by reference to their population figure of 13%. However this ignores that 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies are committed by blacks.

 

So actually the 3.5 more likely to be killed is merely a reflection of the fact that blacks are more likely to have encounters with police because they are more than 3.5 more likely to committ homicide or a robbery (13% of population but 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies)

 

Three distinct similarities that led to the floyd,,brooks and bates  protests and riots that proceeded . All three resisted arrest

[Morch]

Just now, Mama Noodle said:

 

And your denialism and downplay does not mean its untrue. 

 

Antifa (now with BLM) have repeatedly attacked people and businesses and property for months. They really took off once Trump was elected, but the escalation has gotten serious over the last few months. 

 

The American right has been pointing at antifa for over 3 years and nobody cared, but everyone sees them now. Same with BLM. 

 

If everything was just a peaceful protest, and there wasn't anything to worry about, then the Trump Caravan should have been able to go wherever they want, but thats not true now is it? 

 

What, exactly, are you trying to claim I denied or downplayed? The poster I replied to repeatedly tries to paint Antifa as a severe national (and international) threat, yet is somewhat shy of providing any actual support for such "assessments".

 

I never denied Antifa use violence. Never expressed support for such violence either. I am, however, all for keeping it real, without resorting to scaremongering and exaggerations, especially when in service of hyper partisan political views.

 

I never claimed "everything" was just a peaceful protest. Don't think many did. The wholesale denial you seek to portray is imaginary.

 

So instead of deflecting, making incorrect allegations about things I haven't posted, maybe try and address the actual post.

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

The poster I replied to repeatedly tries to paint Antifa as a severe national (and international) threat

 

Its only a matter of time before one of them sets off a bomb somewhere or tries to assassinate someone (other than the bombes they've set off already, and the people they've killed already) and when it happens I think most people are gonna be very angry that nobody did anything about them when they had the chance. 

[Logosone]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The poster I replied to repeatedly tries to paint Antifa as a severe national (and international) threat, yet is somewhat shy of providing any actual support for such "assessments".

 

So Portland has one of the oldest and largest Antifa cells, Rose City Antifa, and Portland is the worst affected city in terms of riots with over 90 days of uninterrupted violence but this has nothing to do with Antifa? Pure co-incidence?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa

[Wavel]

I’m not American I’m British, so perhaps I shouldn’t comment. But everyone is entitled to an opinion. He’s such a hapless wxxker Trump. There you go I’ve said it. Now I feel sorry to the who put there.

[Sheryl]

A post with completely factually accurate statements and a post with a link to a youtube video that does nto work (apparently fake and already removed by youtube as such) have been removed.

[Morch]

35 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Its only a matter of time before one of them sets off a bomb somewhere or tries to assassinate someone (other than the bombes they've set off already, and the people they've killed already) and when it happens I think most people are gonna be very angry that nobody did anything about them when they had the chance. 

 

Yeah, now please refer back to my posts. Yours and the other poster's hyper partisan views are on record. You're both welcome to these, but when declaring Antifa to be a major national security threat, perhaps a measure of grounding in fact, official assessments, and comparison to other threats are called for. 

 

Edit: at least your dropped your unfounded allegations regarding my words and posts. Tiny steps.

Edited August 31, 2020 by Morch

[Morch]

 

@Logosone

 

As expected, you haven't got anything much to substantiate your scaremongering - so you post the same collection of slogans, catchphrases and a link which doesn't actually live up to your dire descriptions. No attempt to actually address points made, just the same repetitive propaganda-like posts, trying to hammer talking points to the topic.

[Logosone]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@Logosone

 

As expected, you haven't got anything much to substantiate your scaremongering - so you post the same collection of slogans, catchphrases and a link which doesn't actually live up to your dire descriptions. No attempt to actually address points made, just the same repetitive propaganda-like posts, trying to hammer talking points to the topic.

Looks like your whole post is a collection of slogans and falsehoods.

 

The recent weeks have seen unprecedented rioting and destruction all across the US, with one of the main affected cities being Portland where the oldest Antifa group, Rose City Antifa, has ensured 90 plus days of vandalism, violence and destruction.

 

There was no point made worth addressing in your post, I'm afraid.

[EVENKEEL]

7 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

If one race is dying at a greater percentage than another race, during arrests or. custody, is that not an indication that race is being treated differently, ie: racism.

Nope, just means they are stupider, and yes that's a correct spelling.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Logosone said:

Sorry but that is a misrepresentation. In absolute terms more whites are killed by police, and the only way to portray blacks as more likely to be killed is by reference to their population figure of 13%. However this ignores that 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies are committed by blacks.

 

So actually the 3.5 more likely to be killed is merely a reflection of the fact that blacks are more likely to have encounters with police because they are more than 3.5 more likely to committ homicide or a robbery (13% of population but 53% of homicides and 60% of robberies)

 

Too bad you truncated my post because the part you omitted was the most interesting one. As I mentioned in my post, the total number of killings does not really matter as I guess a lot of them have been shot for legitimate reasons. The issue is unfair killings, such as the ones we have known for around one year. In the absence of precise information, killing unarmed people may be an imperfect approximation of unfair killing.

BTW, That's where the 3.5 factor comes from:

"County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

 

 

[Mama Noodle]

1 minute ago, candide said:

The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average."

 

And as multiple people have already told you, that is just one dataset without any other. 

 

African Americans account for most of the murder, most of the mass killings, and most of the gang violence - Because of this, they are statistically more likely (not because "racism" but because of violence) to have police encounters. 

 

No honest discussion or resolution can ever be made without first getting to the root problem, which is gang violence and income disparity. Blaming "racism" fixes nothing and vilifies good people. 

[candide]

Double posting, sorry.

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by candide

[Logosone]

40 minutes ago, candide said:

Too bad you truncated my post because the part you omitted was the most interesting one. As I mentioned in my post, the total number of killings does not really matter as I guess a lot of them have been shot for legitimate reasons. The issue is unfair killings, such as the ones we have known for around one year. In the absence of precise information, killing unarmed people may be an imperfect approximation of unfair killing.

BTW, That's where the 3.5 factor comes from:

"County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average."

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

 

 

Well because that part of the post I agreed with and saw no reason to argue about, unlike the part about blacks being disproportionately more likely to be killed, which is not the case.

 

If blacks are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police that would in fact be less than would be expected given that blacks, with 13% of population commit 53% of homicides and 60% robberies (more than 4.0 times their population).

 

Killing an unarmed person is fairly close to an "unfair" killing, but the term "unfair" is an unusable term which of course would be very dependent on interpretation. Unlike a factual issue like armed or unarmed, which already has grey areas, for example the Washington database counts criminals who had a gun in the car as "unarmed". 

 

Whether a killing was "fair" or "unfair" would require a trial of all the facts, which for statistical reports, as you can imagine is not all that practical. There is in fact considerable debate about data collected as you know.

 

But either way, "the police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

Edited August 31, 2020 by Logosone

[simple1]

5 hours ago, riclag said:

Grow up! Sticks and stones

You know what, I really don't believe with trump its 'sticks and stones'. IMO trump is intent on destroying any equilibrium in US society.

[candide]

17 minutes ago, Logosone said:

Well because that part of the post I agreed with and saw no reason to argue about, unlike the part about blacks being disproportionately more likely to be killed, which is not the case.

 

If blacks are 3.49 times more likely to be shot by police that would in fact be less than would be expected given that blacks, with 13% of population commit 53% of homicides and 60% robberies (more than 4.0 times their population).

 

Killing an unarmed person is fairly close to an "unfair" killing, but the term "unfair" is an unusable term which of course would be very dependent on interpretation. Unlike a factual issue like armed or unarmed, which already has grey areas, for example the Washington database counts criminals who had a gun in the car as "unarmed". 

 

Whether a killing was "fair" or "unfair" would require a trial of all the facts, which for statistical reports, as you can imagine is not all that practical. There is in fact considerable debate about data collected as you know.

 

But either way, "the police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer."

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883

I agree that it's subject to interpretation and discussion. However:

- you cannot calculate statistics on one year only. We know from the article I linked about 2011-2015, we know 2019 from the wapo, but what about 2016, 2017, and 2018?

- I wouldn't bet your comparison makes sense, as unarmed men are by definition usually not involved in armed clashes.

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

They might not care about the USA, but a lot of conspiracy theories seem to revolve around Trump being the saviour. I like to read comments on YouTube and UK online newspapers.

It is posting like your's that really keeps my outlook healthy and well humored. Thanks for the youtube valuable comments claim!

Edited August 31, 2020 by earlinclaifornia

[Logosone]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

I agree that it's subject to interpretation and discussion. However:

- you cannot calculate statistics on one year only. We know from the article I linked about 2011-2015, we know 2019 from the wapo, but what about 2016, 2017, and 2018?

- I wouldn't bet your comparison makes sense, as unarmed men are by definition usually not involved in armed clashes.

You can go back for 50 years and the numbers are fairly constant with blacks accounting for around 53% of homicides and around 60% of robberies, it sounds unbelievable, but feel free to look at the stats yourself.

 

With 7407 black homicide victims in 2018 any figure for unarmed black victims of police shootings will be in the 0.1% region and thus accounts for miniscule portion of the 7407 black homicide victims each year. Most of whom, as you know, are killed by black on black crime. 

 

So there can be no question of any significant bias that leads to disproportionate number of blacks being killed, that it is simply not the case. Many black academics have looked at this and found, to their surprise, it is not the case. Alas, we live in a visual age, and social media shows a black who is clearly treated unfairly that is taken as an indication of overwhelming and disproportionate killing of blacks in the US. It's just not the case if you look at the figures.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

So Portland has one of the oldest and largest Antifa cells, Rose City Antifa, and Portland is the worst affected city in terms of riots with over 90 days of uninterrupted violence but this has nothing to do with Antifa? Pure co-incidence?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_City_Antifa

I’m sure Rose city has many long established groups.

 

Longevity (your latest talking point) does not employ ‘responsibility’.

 

I’ll cite the office of POTUS as an example.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Logosone said:

Looks like your whole post is a collection of slogans and falsehoods.

 

The recent weeks have seen unprecedented rioting and destruction all across the US, with one of the main affected cities being Portland where the oldest Antifa group, Rose City Antifa, has ensured 90 plus days of vandalism, violence and destruction.

 

There was no point made worth addressing in your post, I'm afraid.

 

What "slogans"? What "falsehoods"? I'm not claiming Antifa isn't real, I'm not denying they use violence. I'm pointing out that your own insistence on painting them as a major national (and international) threat is not supported much by fact or official assessments. As this was repeated often enough, saying that there was no point is both disingenuous and cop out.

 

The riots, civil unrest, violent protests or whatever people want to call it - this is real. The problem with your posts (and others of similar mind set) is that they are peppered with unsupported or unverified bits.

Take, for example, the above -

 

- Is the destruction (again, somewhat loaded choice of words) actually "all across the US"? Loosely, perhaps, but as an attempt to imply it happens everywhere, it's simply not true.

- And "unprecedented"? Once more, maybe. But in real terms, how do the damages stack vs. other things, such as natural disasters, large industrial accidents and the like? How does it stack against shutting down government? Who does the assessments on these figures? Government agencies? Private sector firms? It comes down to this - "unprecedented" may sound impressive, but it's not clear what it actually implies.

- Harping on and on about Antifa, and Portland's Antifa is what you do. But as far as I'm aware, you were not able to support claims regarding massive arrests of or charges against Antifa members. Maybe their role is somewhat less central than you claim?