[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Sumac

This is a problem, but not as much as BLM and their allies are trying to make it to be. Also, burning cities won't help it, but will lead to opposite result: more rich people and businesses leaving, overwhelming amount of crime...it won't be "police free towns with peaceful people", they will become "crime-ridden shitholes, which should be cleaned by military, before decent people will starts living there again".

I'm not sure that mostly peaceful protests that sometimes become riotous is much of problem (or a problem at all) compared decades of continuous murders of black people by the police.

Also, most of those people killed were either aggressive or criminals. I am sure there are some exceptions, but it happens with people of all races and sexes.

Most of them aren't. I think that's a pretty well established fact at this point.

Of the African Americans that are criminals few of them have committed crimes or resisted arrest to the point that warrants the level of violence against them. We've long accepted that your punishment matches your crime. Someone who is guilty of...say shoplifting shouldn't die in police custody.

All this happens disproportionately to black people. There is something wrong with a system that a black man selling pirated DVDs is shot dead on the spot whereas white guys like Dylan Roof who shoot up a church or school get taken alive. Also when it does happen to white people it almost always results in the officers in question going to jail.

Maybe we should address uncomfortable problem, which is overwhelming amount of Black criminals? Left media do a lot to obfuscate this, like in Brianna Taylor case, who was a drug-dealer, but presented in media like a total innocent or Floyd who has become saint in everything, but name, who was just a generic thug, who would've died anyway from overdose.

If you want to talk about the uncomfortable socio and economic problems which in some cases make black people more likely to turn crime then great but I'm guessing that's not what you meant.

France is a good example of similar problem: where immigrants were given a lot of money and some opportunities, but they refuse to integrate into larger society. I know, it is not black and white case, but at this point, blaming everything on "society", "white people", "racism" and so on is just dumb.

It seems you're conflating immigrants with all people of colour living in the West. Not that immigrants from Asia deserve it either but most of these cases of police overreach happen to actual citizens that are born in the countries in question. They don't have to integrate they are integrated by their birth.

I want to hear what Trump did to ensure he stays in power.
Did he eliminated electoral college? Did he started mail voting, which can be (and most likely will be) easily falsified? Had he a 4 year-long campaign on the biggest media (mostly consisting out of lies) to smear absolutely everyone among his political enemies? Do Twitter and Facebook under his control to the point their censor bad articles about him?

Also, it weren't Republicans burning their own cities, establishing "independent countries" in the cities and being violent against everyone this year.

So, what exactly Trump did to ensure he stays in power, aside from vague threats? And it not like democRATS don't threat violence against Trump-supporters.

Trump and the Republicans would never eliminate the electoral college. It's the sole reason they are currently in power despite losing the popular vote by millions and that wasn't the first it's happened either. The electoral college does give the GOP an unfair advantage over the Democrats but since it also keeps third parties at bay so even the Dems aren't eager to get rid of it.

What Trump has done is had his people look into legality of overturning term limits. He did this literally the day he was sworn in.

He jokes about it about his rallies but he has legit refused to accept the result if he lost or commit to a peaceful transition of power.

He attempts disenfranchise people less likely to vote for him (although that's not a tactic unique to him) also undermines confidence in postal votes at a time when they will be a crucial decider and has intimated to elements his base that they should be ready violence should he lose.