radius777
radius777's JournalKarl is a journalist who can only describe 'what is'
not what we wish it to be. Like it or not Trump could run a second time and there's nothing we can do to stop it. He should be in jail but our system and its laws benefit wealthy white collar criminals like Trump and his friends.
Karl's analysis is excellent because of this. He's asking difficult questions of the media itself, for it not to be played by Trump like it was the first time.
Trump did drive ratings, as you said yourself the cable ratings were way up.
The main three networks proper are not where the big money is at anyway when it comes to political coverage, which is mainly done by the cable news networks (CNN,MSNBC,FOX), online sites/blogs (politico, huffpo, axios etc) and the major news papers like NYT, WaPo, etc.
Trump is a clown but he's skilled at one thing and that is sensationalism. He was a former reality TV star and tabloid celebrity. He's not a normal politician practicing normal (ie, boring) politics. Thus, he and his crazy antics cause articles to be written, headlines/chyrons blazing on TV sets, books to be sold, etc.
Masks (if high quality and properly worn) work against any variant.
There are certain activities (eg, eating) where one can't wear masks. But for most activities masking, distancing and ventilation work well enough for most of society to continue operating.
If they voted for Trump, ipso facto they are racist,
or at least don't see racism as a deal breaker.
White xtian supremacy, fragility and jealousy.
Jews are a highly successful minority. In Western society only white xtian protestants are 'supposed' to be at the top, even Catholics initially faced blowback.
Jews are also blamed by the far-right for attempting to 'depurify' xtian whites and 'destroy' the traditional white order via various policies (globalism, diversity, social justice etc).
The far-right views Jews as highly intelligent, but also dangerous. So IOW it is also a form of projection.
This is a political forum for Democrats and liberals,
not a legal/law website.
Values and opinions are not informed by a literal reading of the law. The law once held that black people and women were property. Such a view (even when it was supported by law) was wrong then and wrong now. Rittenhouse is a terrorist despite what (one interpretation) of the law found. And judges and juries have often nullified the laws, and if required could've done so here - but were clearly on the racist cry baby's side from the beginning.
Agree, DU is not for 'non-partisan discussion', it is
for liberals and Democrats, and Rittenhouse is an abhorrent figure (from a moral and political view) to liberals, who can clearly see the favoritism he received from the judge, and that if the situation were reverse (if a BLM activist had shot him in self defense) they surely would not have been treated with such kid gloves. The cops viewed him as 'on their side' from the beginning, and he felt entitled to threaten and then kill those he viewed as political enemies. He's a terrorist pure and simple.
Agree completely, the victims should've offed him in self defense,
however I doubt the judge/jury would've viewed them favorably, being perceived (whether they were or not is inconsequential) as supporters of BLM.
Agree about Shittenhouse's thought process. He went down there to 'do battle with the left/antifa/BLM' and was an aggressor in the entire situation. The police/authorities were on his side from the beginning, as they are generally on the side of RW militia types, which Rittenhouse clearly is.
Recall that there was a similar situation in Portland, involving antifa activist Michael Reinoehl - who claimed he shot a far-right protester in self defense. Reinoehl then went on the run and was later gunned down in cold blood (IMO, based on what I've seen) by US Marshalls, who never gave him a chance to surrender and have due process. Law Enforcement in this country is fundamentally right wing and racist, and until we reform them, as well as the entire criminal justice system, there really will be no justice in America, as the forces of oppression will always resist reform.
Brooks appears to be a troubled individual who
society failed to help or reform in any meaningful way. Whites with troubles often are shown empathy, whereas blacks/browns generally are not. Once a person gets caught up in the system they become ostracized (by employers, society, etc) and sink deeper into a life of crime.
When it comes to whites our system works overtime to protect them from the consequences of their actions. Look at how the terrorist Rittenhouse was treated with kid gloves. Look at the short sentences many of the insurrectionists are getting (if they get any time at all).
Yet when blacks and browns commit crimes, even minor ones, they are thrown into the meatgrinder of the system, with little concern for their wellbeing or humanity. "Personal accountability" is then what whites will say in response, a standard they themselves are not held to.
Her main point isn't wrong though,
that policing (and the criminal justice system as a whole) exists as a force to protect whites from non-whites. It's why Rittenhouse can kill people and walk away a free man, because he was 'doing his job' (protecting the white structure from the BLM movement) in the eyes of the white judge and jury.
Profile Information
Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 10:37 PMNumber of posts: 3,635
