BLM quickly losing support

I have no clue what you're talking about. BLM wants police reform. Democrats support police reform. BLM protests all year long. We just had one in my city a couple of months ago protesting police brutality at a camp in protest.

 

You said it yourself...."BLM is an important tool for mobilizing African Americans. The democrats rely on African American voters."

Its TRUE purpose for Democrats is to mobilize the African American vote and drive turnout in election years. Police reform is the vehicle, not the purpose.

 

Yeah...? Go on. Finish your point.

 

OK.....There is an irony in the reality that the party that purports to be for a colorblind society ( Democrats), is the same party that has the most to benefit from racial unrest. To call it a conflict of interest is an understatement.

 

Because you're not framing it right. Democrats want social justice. BLM wants social justice. So interests are aligned. Do they have an interest in promoting social justice awareness? Yes. Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to suggest that Democrats want violence?

 

Nonsense. My framing is spot on. There is not truly a rash of blacks being disproportionately killed by police due to their race. It is a fabrication using carefully selective reporting that is being pushed in order to as you said "mobilize African Americans".

 

Yeah... see that's just it. You don't get it and you don't try to get it if that's how you're approaching the situation. Police killing black people are examples of how racism plays out in the police. Ferguson went up in flames not just because of Michael Brown's shooting, but because of the history of ticketing. Ticketing was racially targeted to generate as much revenue for the town as possible. People weren't just upset at Brown's death. They were upset at a history of racial discrimination.

 

LOL...So the whole Michael Brown thing was about ticketing? Do you mean that after all he wasnt REALLY the "Gentle Giant" with his hands up begging not to be shot?

As I said "There is not truly a rash of blacks being disproportionately killed by police due to their race. It is a fabrication that is being pushed in order to as you said "mobilize African Americans".

Thank you for helping me to illustrate my point.

 

"Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than bypublic safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concernsand inflict unnecessary harmon members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racialbias, including racial stereotypes.Ferguson’s own data establish clear racialdisparitiesthat adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows thatdiscriminatory intentis part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular."
https://www.justice.gov/sites/defau...5/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

pg 2.

Thanks for playing.

 

So you just answer a different question and then proceed to act as if you have succeeded at something?....LOL. Bless your little heart.

Thank you for helping me to illustrate my point that there is not truly a rash of blacks being disproportionately killed by police due to their race. It is a fabrication that is being pushed in order to as you said "mobilize African Americans".

 

When is BLM going to protest other blacks acting violently and irresponsibly towards other blacks? And then protest them acting violently and irresponsibly towards law enforcement?

 

If I say you have a strawman, don't be surprised when I don't engage with your strawman. If I say that riots have long term causes, and police killings are an immediate cause, don't laugh when I bring evidence to back up my argument.

 

Is it black on black or is it a stupid kid with a gun shoots up a convenience store?

 

I started this particular topic where I said that "There is not truly a rash of blacks being disproportionately killed by police due to their race. It is a fabrication that is being pushed in order to as you said "mobilize African Americans". . The person that starts the topic in no manner shape or form can be engaging in a strawman.

You are hopelessly confused. That doesnt change the reality that I am grateful to you for helping me to illustrate my point. As you said, Ferguson was about ticketing. THANK YOU.

 

Yeah you can. It's really easy to do. You just did it.
You: BLM only riots over police shootings.
Me: No, riots have long term causes and in the case of Ferguson, heavily caused by the practice of racial injustice, specifically ticketing.
You: Lol that proves my point gg.

 

Oh so this is the point where you fabricate the prior conversation? How fascinating!

...and all this time I thought that Ferguson was over the "hands up dont shoot" narrative and Michael Brown "The Gentle Giant". It turns out that they were not rioting over him at all, and instead it was over over a conclusion made by the Obama justice department a year or so later. Fascinating indeed!

 

... I can't believe I have to explain this. When I say "they were rioting over ticketing", they were rioting over the police giving them racially motivated tickets for years, and the immediate cause is the death of Michael Brown. The DOJ report shows us how the two are connected together.

 

Look.....this conversation is getting long in the tooth and not progressing. My point has been made. Whether you understand that is literally of no consequence. It is time to let the reader decide for themselves.

 

You didn't make any points whatsoever. You just engaged in a strawman. I told you flat out you're not looking at this from the right angle. That if you want to understand the link between the two, you have to actually try to see things from the Democrats and BLM perspective.

 

I am more than happy to let the reader decide for themselves.

 

I think we have all seem how BLM works. It soaks up money for itself then rakes it out to the leadership. Perhaps you could explain how Patrisse Cullors, one of the BLM founders and self-described "trained Marxist" suddenly bought a million-dollar mansion in a fairly white neighborhood. It's obvious that this was done using money donated to BLM that was meant to go to helping their constituents rather than buying mansions. Perhaps you could explain how this was taken by the media. If you can't, allow me to help you out. Have you seem this article HERE?

When it becomes obvious that BLM exists solely as a means for their leaders to profit off of racial disharmony, BLM itself will start to wither on the vine. BLM has likely reached its apogee as I type this. I could point to numerous televangelist-led religious groups where the entire corporation fell to pieces once said televangelist was caught in a scandal. Anyone who thinks BLM is immune to the same forces that led to the decline of those groups is living in a fantasyland. Time and again it has been proven that when the leadership ignores its base and what the base believes in, the base stops supporting the organization and certainly the donations slow down or stop altogether. My argument about BLM fading away is based on history - too many other agencies going extinct for acting and doing much the same that BLM is now. We have all seem this happen for decades now, and the only real question for me is "Will BLM collapse following the Enron model, the K-Mart one, or another model altogether, and if so, which one?"

Perhaps you have an argument where you can explain how BLM is immune to the same market forces that have driven every other organization for decades now? Otherwise, your statement "BLM is a worldwide phenomenon now. It's not going anywhere anytime soon." is clearly wrong and you can't actually defend it.

 

Have fun then.

Is this what you're talking about?
"
No Evidence BLM Co-Founder Patrisse Cullors Used Donations To Buy House"
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/patrisse-cullors-topanga-house/

 

It's black on black 5 x more than any other dynamic. They kill each other more than anyone.

 

Funny how you left out how Snopes itself said it was "unproven" meaning, well - we don't know that she didn't, either. Quite telling coming from someone who earlier railed against right-wing sources then uses a left-wing one.

Perhaps you can explain how someone who was dirt-poor when younger now owns, well ...

Now, you tell me how it looks when you have this BLM Imperial Poobah buying up real estate while working as a BLM "volunteer" - or why it is some other BLM higher-up is calling for an investigation into where she's getting her money from. You seem strangely incurious regarding this.

Wait, I have a better idea - how about you explain how BLM isn't going anywhere when other organizations bigger than them acted just like them and now no longer exists? I mean, that is your stance, right?

 

Mostly because I don't care for right wing conspiracy theories. I honestly do not care for conspiracy theories. She has a job, she helped run BLM on a national level. That was her job and what she was paid to do. Don't be surprised when she buys a house with it.