I-5 wrote:Doug Baldwin would be a good choice...but like bob says, it's not like they're nominated and elected. They have to want to. I haven't heard much from Doug, so I don't know what he's up to.
I-5 wrote:By the way, I didn't say Russell might run for office....I said I could see him running. Meaning if he did, it wouldn't surprise me - it's not a prediction. I don't think Russell is defined by wanting people to like him like you say, either. But that's my opinion only.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Russell should stay out of politics if he wants to keep his sanity.
I-5 wrote:For an extremely politically correct individual that goes to great lengths not to insult anyone as Riv pointed out, Russell Wilson is acutely aware that by using his platform to support Black Lives Matter, that he risks alienating many fans, and obviously it's worth it to him. He doesn't do anything by accident. Whether it's wise or not is not mine or anyone else's business but his own.
Outside of offering support for the movement, of which there have been many athletes that have weighed in, has Russell spoke out that much about BLM? I know that he's made a few politically correct comments regarding not wanting his children to grow up in the fear of being targets of racial discrimination, but outside of that, I haven't actually heard him voice much of an opinion on the more difficult issues like police reform that would risk alienating fans.
I-5 wrote:Yeah, he's gone quite a bit past voicing support for the movement.
"This isn’t like this hasn’t been going on for years, that’s the scary part and the sad part. The difference now is we get to see it every day because of social media and phones and everything else. The world is truly seeing the ugliness of society at times, and what is really disappointing is just knowing that we as athletes try to make a difference, and sometimes people don’t want to listen and don’t want to recognize that that could have been us, that could be us. That’s a real reality. Us as a team, the Seahawks, we’re definitely discussing what do we do next, how do we make a change, how do we cause a movement and how do we make a difference? We’re in the midst of that right now.
We don’t have weeks, we don’t have months, we don’t have years to change it, we’ve got to all do it together, and we’ve got to do it now. We need change now. We need people to make a difference now, and we’re calling on people like yourselves to help us along the way too.”
-----------------
I don't see anything alienating about his statement. I didn't hear him painting the entire police force with one brush - I heard him saying this is a reality for black people. It just is, no matter what other people think. Of course, people will still be offended by it, but do you think Russell is worried about them at this point? I think Russell clearly sees himself on the right side of history, and that's despite any bad press on either side of the issue. That seems pretty clear to me. You may disagree of course.
I-5 wrote:The problem is there is a sizable segment of the country that does not see the problem, starting with the leader of the nation. If you saw the black man ask him about the MAGA slogan and when it was ever great for blacks, he completely sidesteps the question. It's the same reaction as to when the players kneeled during the anthem, the fans booing definitely don't see the problem, they interpret it as disrespect. You may be more englightened, of course, but that doesn't mean the rest of the country is. Yes, Russell is pointing out the problem first, because the country isn't on the same page about that. You have to start there if there is going to be a solution.
Which is why I said that at the top of BLM's wish list needs to be the removal of Donald Trump from office. They need to be out there getting as many people registered and to the polls as possible. The drop off of black voter turnout in 2016 is arguably the reason why we got stuck with that POS in the first place so they have some culpability in the current leadership problems. Having their poster boy Colin Kaepernick out there telling everybody that he doesn't vote isn't the message they need to be sending.
RiverDog wrote:Which is why I said that at the top of BLM's wish list needs to be the removal of Donald Trump from office. They need to be out there getting as many people registered and to the polls as possible. The drop off of black voter turnout in 2016 is arguably the reason why we got stuck with that POS in the first place so they have some culpability in the current leadership problems. Having their poster boy Colin Kaepernick out there telling everybody that he doesn't vote isn't the message they need to be sending.
BLM has spent the past 4 months, or longer if you want to go back to its genesis, pointing out the problem. When will it be time to start coming up with some solutions?
I-5 wrote:Nov 3 isn't going to change the constant yapping, just where it's coming from. I think we can guarantee that.
Yeah. But most presidents don't encourage the yapping like Trump. They don't care about being front and center or feeding their egos. Sure, Fox News will go after Biden and Kamala riling up the people who buy into Fox's drivel, but Biden will mostly ignore it and stay on his agenda. He and Kamala will mostly give carefully written speeches to as I call it "keep the peace." It may be fake, but it keeps the nation quiet. They'll follow their scientific advisors, create a pandemic relief plan, and bring the nation online in a more coordinated fashion than President Chaos.
Aseahawkfan wrote:Yeah. But most presidents don't encourage the yapping like Trump. They don't care about being front and center or feeding their egos. Sure, Fox News will go after Biden and Kamala riling up the people who buy into Fox's drivel, but Biden will mostly ignore it and stay on his agenda. He and Kamala will mostly give carefully written speeches to as I call it "keep the peace." It may be fake, but it keeps the nation quiet. They'll follow their scientific advisors, create a pandemic relief plan, and bring the nation online in a more coordinated fashion than President Chaos.
I-5 wrote:That sounds pretty good to me right about now.
RiverDog wrote:I have no doubt that the nation will be in a lot better hands with a Biden presidency, at least initially. I'd trust any Democrat to manage the country during a pandemic than I would 90% of the Republicans I've seen, especially Trump. The big question will be the economic recovery a year from now. If the Dems gain control of both the White House and Congress, you can expect that their solution will be a TON of deficit spending. College debt forgiveness, reparations for slavery, you name it, they'll throw trillions around like it's candy. There'll be more money being tossed in the air than Pac Man Jones in a strip club. They'll "make it rain".
Aseahawkfan wrote:I trust any president but Trump. Bush Sr would have handled a pandemic both domestically and internationally very well. Wish we that guy in office right now.
NorthHawk wrote:I think it's wrong to suggest any politician cares less about the economy than another. The difference is their approach to how to improve the lives of people within the context of a thriving economy or in building up the economy. Over the past approximately 50 years
we've seen a gradual shift to the right and the consequences are the small percentage at the top getting the largest rewards from higher productivity while the majority bottom is getting left behind (in relative terms).
RiverDog wrote:The Democrats are not nearly as concerned about the consequences of an economic shutdown as the Republicans are, at least as it applies to private business. They have strikingly different views of our capitalistic system than do the Republicans. Democrats put more faith in the federal government to provide economic vitality, the Republicans more trusting of private business. There's not a single government program or department that is at long term risk of elimination due to the shutdown whereas there are thousands of private businesses, including about 20% of all the restaurants in the country, that will close permanently due to the shutdown.
When a pandemic strikes, we need a leader that won't hesitate to shut down the country, at least initially. Democrats are more likely to have that attribute in their bloodstream than are Republicans.
c_hawkbob wrote:That's a partisan load of bull. Democrats care every bit as much as Republicans about the economy. The real economy, not just Wall Street. Stronger unions, higher minimum wage, greater protections for consumers. Affordable health care for everyone. All of those thing make up the real economy of the nation, not just corporate profits.
As for the pandemic, no one is advocation going back to a shutdown, with a national mask mandate, proper support for the medical community and a willingness to follow the science one shouldn't be necessary.
NorthHawk wrote:I think it's wrong to suggest any politician cares less about the economy than another.
The difference is their approach to how to improve the lives of people within the context
of a thriving economy or in building up the economy. Over the past approximately 50 years
we've seen a gradual shift to the right and the consequences are the small percentage at the
top getting the largest rewards from higher productivity while the majority bottom is getting
left behind (in relative terms).
Aseahawkfan wrote:I just don't get how these folks are reacting to the Breonna Taylor case. I could have bet money none of them were going to be charged for murder or anything close. They keep calling it racism rather than what it was: egregious incompetence.
Unless they find some information that some secret KKK faction of the police ordered the police there as some hit team, I don't get it. From everything I read the police were called their for the investigation of an actual crime and the bf shot at them for breaking into the house, they shot back. How exactly do you try those cops for a crime for being sent to the wrong address on a no knock warrant given only for dangerous criminals, then when fired at, firing back? I don't get it.
And some of these idiot celebrities and liberal media are framing this like the cops just woke up, got a call from the KKK, and decided to show up at Taylor's apartment and shoot her. Really? That's where we're at? The liberal wants to run the nation using mob justice? That's their governing? No wonder Trump has a shot of winning. Our choices are a jackass that doesn't want to buy into the science of a virus because he wants to save the economy and a group of leftists who want to try people according to the whims of mobs protesters who think crimes should be decided by skin color if a white cop shoots a black person and couldn't care less about the shooting, harm, or actions of anyone else. This is America right now. Unbelievable.
I5 must be ecstatic he is in Canada.
They keep calling it racism rather than what it was: egregious incompetence.
I-5 wrote:Should egregious incompetence that results in a needless death result in manslaughter charges at the least, since the result went beyond wanton endangerment and caused death?
I-5 wrote:Should egregious incompetence that results in a needless death result in manslaughter charges at the least, since the result went beyond wanton endangerment and caused death?
Aseahawkfan wrote:Not in this instance. Given the boyfriend had a gun and fired at the police wounding one, then this was a situation of extremely bad circumstances that led to a death. It should lead to a whole lot of people fired though. The mistakes from the intelligence that led to a no knock warrant to start with was bad and led to a bad outcome. Which means the entire process should be reviewed.
From what I have read they issue no knock warrants for violent offenders who they expect to fire back if the police knock and announce themselves. And someone did indeed fire back, just not for the reasons we issue a no knock warrant. The police wouldn't know that. Just like the boyfriend wouldn't know the police were breaking his door in with a no knock warrant. When that happens, you get this type of situation.
I do think that the press constantly making these issues racial is criminal. No real investigation into the causes on the merits of the case. Just white cops shot black person, they must be racist or it must be systemic racism. Never anyone in the left wing media going, "Maybe this happened for other reasons. Maybe we should look into those reasons and fix those reasons rather than just railing on about general racism and systemic racism for a problem that would be better fixed by looking at the specific causes in this case."
Don't you think that would be a smarter way to fix problems by actually looking at the problems in a given case and fixing those?
I-5 wrote:Maybe someone can educate me on what happened, since I haven't followed it closely. Why did the boyfriend fire at the cops? Did he know who was at the door and why? If it was unannounced, does someone with a license to carry and sitting at home have a right to defend themselves?
Were there body cameras to show either way what happened exactly?
I don't see what it matters what Barkley or Shaq thinks, without the facts above.
Wanton endangerment does not include death, that's why I said manslaughter.
I-5 wrote:Thanks for the details. Being in Canada is not much of a consolation. It's better, but Canadians are very aware and nervous about what's happening across the border, because everything is like a domino.
I keep going back to the question...if they were unannounced, the boyfriend has no idea that those are cops on the other side. So if they turn out to be cops, now he commited a crime? That doesn't add up. Put yourself in his shoes, someone comes through your door by force, you have no idea who, and you shoot to protect yourself and your girlfriend...now you're a criminal because it's a cop?
Take the race issue out of it, let's say everyone is white, and the F** up still ends up in a death. Wanton endangerment leading to death is manslaughter.
I-5 wrote:I don't see what it matters what Barkley or Shaq thinks, without the facts above.
No. The boyfriend was let off too. He was deemed to have been using self-defense.
If someone fires back during a no knock warrant and you return fire as a police officer, it is not deemed manslaughter unless they prove the police officer was not acting within the confines of his rules of engagement.
You do not get to fire on the police and not expect them to fire back. That's why this is a big time screw up on and bad situation. It would be incredibly difficult to prove even manslaughter. They'll be lucky to stick these wanton endangerment charges.
NorthHawk wrote:Which then brings up the question of how easy is it to get a no knock warrant? I think the requirements should be far more stringent than for a regular warrant because of the danger the innocent public
and the police.
From what I've heard and read, the information about the suspect was a few months old and they didn't check to see if he was in custody already.
It's a disastrous screwup with lethal consequences.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests