Two-thirds want BLM riots probed, more than Jan. 6 | Washington Examiner
By: Paul Bedard (Washington Examiner)
Don't shoot the messenger.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Far more voters want the race riots of 2020 investigated than the Jan. 6 Capitol protests, including overwhelming majorities of blacks and Hispanics.
In a new Rasmussen Reports survey that challenges the media's theme about the public's view of both events, majorities of likely voters also back police and reject suggestions of racism by law enforcement.
And in one example of that, 65% disagreed with Black Lives Matter activists who have claimed that Old Glory and the pro-police "Thin Blue Line" flags are symbols of racism, said the survey done with the National Police Association.
Overall, 66% said that they want the Black Lives Matter riots investigated. According to the survey, there were 574 violent clashes and over 2,000 police were injured. Just 49% said they support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's partisan investigation of the Jan. 6 riots.
Just who supports investigating BLM riots, which were notable in Portland, Seattle, Washington, Minneapolis, and other big cities, was surprising.
Rasmussen's analysis said, "Sixty-seven percent of whites, 64% of black voters, 66% of Hispanics and 62% of other minorities think Congress should investigate the 2020 riots in U.S. cities. Seventy-five percent of Republicans, 60% of Democrats and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party say Congress should investigate last year's violent protests."
In the new report, the police group said, "When the mayors of cities in which violent riots took place in 2020 refused to let police immediately stop the crimes taking place, it sent a message to violent criminals across the nation that crimes will be allowed and criminals won't be touched. For the last year violent crimes have increased nationally and the lack of support from politicians has resulted in the number of police officers declining into a short staffing recruitment and retention crisis."
In other findings:
- 53% think Congress should award medals to the law enforcement agencies that defended their cities from violent looters and rioters in 2020.
- 62% believe elected officials who downplayed the 2020 rioting and looting deserve to be criticized, a number higher than the 51% who believe politicians deserve criticism for downplaying the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
- 76% of voters believe young people should be taught to comply with police rather than resist or flee arrest.
Trump and his supports are off topic.
However, if you would like to say something about the protest and subsequent riot, okay. No individuals.
How can Trump supporters be off topic when the Jan 6th insurrection was made up of Trump supporters? You don't want a discussion - you want an echo chamber.
Pretty obvious what and whom you want to discuss. The subject is a survey of the American people and the pulse thereof. Don't like it, don't read. Simple.
Frankly I don't want to "discuss" anything with you, but when you put limits on the topic to not include what IS the topic then I have to call out your ridiculousness.
No you can just scroll on by and troll somewhere else. Easy..........again.
You thought you were gonna come here and shit all over the story at hand. Ain't gonna happen.
If I wanted an echo chamber, I would go to another "group" [deleted]
Then don't.
I didn't say the protest turned riot was off topic. I said Trump and his supports . Comment all you like on the riot and the summer of 2020 but leave your dream of who instigated it at the door. Including your ad nauseum right wing instigators bullshit for the BLM riots
Get it?
Tell that to the current fucking DOJ.
Then supply the damn documents. Because the current DOJ would never release far right rioters; like he does leftists guilty of the exact same crimes- destroying federal property and assaulting federal officers. You have made this unsubstantiated bullshit claim repeatedly; and never offered one shred of damn proof. Hint, these far right agitators didn't suddenly get smart and develop stealth technology; become temporarily sane and learn how to blend in with left wing morons whom they hate; or gain acceptance in places like NY, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, or any other large Democrat controlled bastion of stupidity.
Ronin, your post is yet ANOTHER example of you failing to actually READ the fucking links you post.
Your KGW link clearly states that TRUMP'S DOJ chose to dismiss those cases. Billy Williams, the U.S. Attorney for Oregon that made those calls was appointed by TRUMP.
Oh and YOUR KGW link includes quotes of AG Billy Williams explanation for WHY he made those calls. Lack of evidence being the #1 reason. You know, that whole 'beyond a reasonable doubt' thingy...
BTW, YOUR KGW link also states that AG Billy Williams dismissed many of the cases 'with prejudice'. There MUST have been very compelling reasons for doing so.
Seems you didn't read all of the articles I posted. Which is the reason I post from several sources; because they give information the others don't.
Still more from the same article.
So, again, tell your POS DOJ to prosecute everyone equally; not just those he has a political bent against.
Seems YOU want to ignore the FACTS stated in the KGM article YOU posted.
Why hang your hat on the babblings of the likes of Boebert rather than BELEIVE the CLEAR reasoning stated by the man who made the calls?
So you must have evidence that under AG Bill Barr, he didn't give AG Billy Williams the latitude to make those calls. Please post a link to that evidence. I won't hold my breath...
What part of 'with prejudice' don't you understand Ronin? Trump appointed AG Billy Williams dismissed the cases 'with prejudice'. They CANNOT be refiled by the DOJ. PERIOD, end of story.
That is on YOUR POS DOJ. Own it.
Let's talk about the consistent right wing bias in Rasmussen polls.
The riot and insurrection was planned in advance and was just waiting for Trump to point a tiny finger and say GO!
Then don't post a seed where he/they are part of it.
That's the only reason you stopped in and all you want to discuss is Trump. Tough noogies. Don't read or post if you don't like it. Easy.
Oh fuck you JJ - all you want is to say Liberals BAD...Black people BAD.... Anything that doesn't look like me, talk like me, think like me BAD.... [deleted]
You couldn't be more wrong. The last few months all we have heard is 1/6 ad nauseum all the while just passing over the shit that hit the fan all last summer. This is the pulse at this point in America.
And in case you and your Trump Thumpers should read again. The topic is the survey. Get it THE SURVEY IS THE TOPIC
Don't like the rules a seeder puts out, don't post to it, just move on.
Last summer? What about the last 5 plus years?
Every last Democrat encouraging the "mostly peaceful protesters" to continue with the rioting, looting, arson, assaults, and murders needs to have their day before a Congressional hearing. Especially those Democrats in Portland and Seattle that left portions of their cities in control of leftist terrorists.
Ex Police Chiefs from the areas need to be called as key witnesses against the Democrat stupidity and dereliction of duty. Every last officer that was assaulted, injured, or called any racial slur needs to be brought forward to testify that they were not protected; and were not allowed to fulfill their duties. Follow that up with the current DOJ, who is so interested in getting everyone on the far right; he is releasing those on the far left w/o charges at a rate of 70% for doing the exact same things, destroying federal property and assaulting federal officers.
I am sure they can find some channel, or even get the internet, to carry it 24/7. Republicans will even allow two hand picked Democrats who are properly cowed and subservient to serve on the commission. Hopefully they can blubber on cue.
The whole comment should be deleted.
The whole purpose of a few here is to derail and troll the article
Take it up with the moderators. Not my decision.
[deleted]
I'd suggest that you review the division between State and Federal jurisdictions but I doubt it would do you any good...
Sure.
What is the methodology of the Rasmussen survey?
Yet when the SURVEY is the topic of a comment you have failed to address it. Why?
Aw crap, I mentioned Edward Hopper.
Dozens of deaths, hundreds of police injured, billions in property damage and Democrats like to pretend it never happened and they weren't trying to get the terrorists out of jail..
Bazinga!
Gee, on one hand we have thousands of BLM demonstrations, the VAST majority of which were peaceful protests.
On the other hand we have, thousands of Trump voters attempting to over-turn the government after being egged on by the President himself (at that time).
Which of the 2 should the federal government investigate??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............
Maybe the BLM riots will eventually be investigated, but right now Jan 6 takes priority as much as most R's in Congress are scared shitless that it is.
They already have been. The House Judiciary Committee had a hearing in July of 2020 [Barr testified] and the House Homeland Security had hearings in Sept. of 2020.
In fact, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, who sponsored the survey cited in the seed, conducted their own survey and filed a report entitled 'REPORT ON THE 2020 PROTESTS AND CIVIL UNREST' in Oct. 2020.
Good to know, thank you.
The Senate hearings were bi-partisan AND the testimony is online for all to see.
Anyone who has followed Rasmussen over the years should know by now that their polls are skewed until it counts which is just before an election and then they fall in line with the majority of polls. This poll is likely an half empty salt shaker skewed to the right trying for counterculture balance in an Edward Hopper painting.
Well, FiveThirtyEight gives them a solid B, for the second most Polls evaluated in their study.
748.
Try clicking on the sort by ranking button, you'll find them halfway down the list in a crowd with CNN. A 'B' is nothing to cheer about.
Quantity not quality is how you rate them?
Sure, it's germane to the discussion. Many of the highest grades don't even have 1/10th the polls analyzed by comparison.
The more data in a set, the more accurate analysis of the set can be.
True in most cases, for most data sets.
Not when the rating is based on percent of accuracy.
Wrong
Right. From YOUR link:
Note: The rating doesn't include a fucking thing about privately funded SURVEYS conducted by Rasmussen.
Double down FAIL.
In case you didn't notice my friend, WAAAAAYYY up at the top I asked that posters NOT shoot the messenger.
? I only took a shot at Rasmussen. I haven't taken a shot at you since 1812 ... the sites fell off the fucking musket!
Which is the source..........of the poll at least.
But not the messenger.
But not your call.
On whether Rasmussen is the source or the messenger? You, yourself, called it the source. Are you arguing against your own statement???
Ruh roh Rastro!
These idiots dont even know what a race riot is.
I think the people who got their businesses looted and trashed understand what a race riot is John.
Don't you think?
Thanks for playing everyone. Gonna lock it for the night as I don't want the mods to have to work harder than they already do throughout the night. See ya in the morning.
People can say anything they want, but the fact is the "thin blue line" flag has shown up at white nationalist marches and events more than once. Thus the feeling everything is not hunky dory with it. The police federations should more forcefully denounce the racist use of their symbol.
That how it works John. If every time a crackpot brought a flag to something like this, the organization was required to denounce it, they would have to have full time people denouncing it.
Especially flags like the rainbow LGBT flag
The white nationalist problem in the USA is over cooked by the Fed and liberals. No doubt about it.
I've yet to see a 'rainbow LGBT flag' at a white nationalist march. Care to post a link?
A ridiculous question that doesn't rise to the level of requiring a response.
A ridiculous assertion only warrants a ridiculous question Sparty.
Right back at Duly ..... all your "points" are ridiculously biased and obtuse.
Now get your report on and do that voodoo ..... that you always do .... like you do
It's Dulay, Sparty.
ALL Sparty?
It isn't ridiculous or obtuse to conclude that your comment implied that the rainbow flag was brought to a white nationalist march.
Let's review:
See there Sparty?
I believe that if you want to play games with spelling errors, then I suggest you get his name correct.
It's "Sparty On".
I have called him Sparty for YEARS. If he had an issue, I'm sure he can speak for himself.
BTFW, it's NOT word games to state a FACT. I remember YOU whining about YOUR name being truncated. Maybe it was just misspelling bugsy.
Maybe you can show proof of this?
I've been called several things on here and have never complained about it.
Well the RA was the one that stated that you didn't like your name truncated to bugs. I doubt that the RA got that idea through osmosis.
Who exactly is the RA?
Perrie.
So maybe you can show me where I do not like being called anything other than Bugsy.
I could be wrong, but I don't remember it
Ask the RA.
Oh and I WISH your name was "Bugsy" because my fingers automatically capitalize names and I have to correct it every time I type bugsy, bugsy.
I'm going to be perfectly honest here.
I don't care about capitalization.
Hell, I don't care about spelling.
There is only one person on here that spells it different, and that is because they are being an ass.
My apologies, unlike others here it was an unintentional misspelling.
Yes all .... every one.
Don't need a review, i know what i said and like usual i stick by every word.
Here is the Topline Data (Questions and Percentages of replies)
What a joke. Talk about leading a witness:
I, for one, think that Congress should very closely examine not only the protests that turned violent but the whole of the movement stimulated by the George Floyd murder by a police officer. I think it should attempt to catalogue all of the public events that arose, an estimated amount of people who attended each of these events, as well as the events that turned violent and an estimation of the total people attending versus the number of people who were actually involved in the violence, as well as an attempt to classify said people with the reasons for their presence at these events.
I DO NOT support the inclusion of any of these data with the investigation of the events of January 6. They are two separate issues and only tangentially related. The only reason to combine them is to obfuscate and confuse. The inclusion of both the response to the George Floyd murder and the events of January 6th on the same poll demonstrates the conflation of two totally separate happenings in an attempt to dishonestly equate the two as somehow similar in character and instigation. They are not. The first is a reaction to an extrajudicial killing and the real perception of inherent bias in police and court proceedings, the second is a reaction to the lies of the 45th president (and a significant amount of the Republican Parties members refusal to commit to the truth that he was lying) about the election and the demonstrably false claims of election fraud.
I don't get that from the data. The questions were specific to each event and did not directly ask about both events. I would also say that there were no questions that directly indicated support for the police beyond a general attitude. I know of no people who seriously want the police to be disbanded, and saw no questions directly related to the suggestions of racism by law enforcement.
I think if they want to look into the BLM protests, that would have to include looking into the origins for the protests.
Some might not like what they find.
Political leaders did nothing for months while American cities burned, American businesses were destroyed or looted, American citizens were beaten, raped and murdered. They stood by and watched while rioters in Seattle and Portland attacked civilian government employees and even declared independence from the United States.
It was not until their own offices were invaded that they suddenly decided riots were bad enough to stop and rioters were dangerous enough to prosecute.
When the workplace of the representatives is more important than the workplaces of those they represent, democracy is over.
That is really a false equivalence that you are setting up. The reasons for the protests that turned into riots were different in the two cases. To group them together is disingenuous at best.
This is just hyperbolic bare assertion on your part and, quite frankly, untrue. While you may not like the particulars of how they responded, it cannot be truthfully said that there was no reaction. And what would you have them do?
Let's just call this what it is: A lie.
Then we get to the non-sequitur of your conclusion
So, we have a bare assertion and a lie leading to a twisted ending... I mean, as long as you just don't think about whether or not the stuff you are saying hangs together in any sort of logical fashion it sounds like a good argument, but it is lacking if anyone thinks about it for longer than two seconds.
The idea that the rioters "reasons" for destroying the lives of people who never did them any harm matter one iota is the greatest line of bullshit going today.
What part of that do you actually deny? Every bit of it happened. Over $2billion in damage. Seattle police told not to respond while people were raped and murdered. Here in Dallas, a business owner was nearly beaten to death.
You're really trying to pretend that they're somehow not smart enough to come up with something better than "loot the Target"?
Don't pretend you thought about it.
It sure as fuck DOES matter what their motives are Jack. Ask ANY prosecutor.
So post supporting evidence that police were told not to respond Jack.
That comment is unresponsive AND a strawman Jack. Try harder.
He doesn't have to pretend, his post proves it.
Lol.. Even a Soros prosecutor would laugh at the idea that you can attack innocent citizens and police, commit arson and other felonies because of what you are protesting.
By all means, prove your point for once. Show specifically which criminal statutes allow exceptions for rioters to destroy live of innocent people because of their "reasons"
As far as I know looters and arsonists and those who commit assaults get arrested...
Nobody is excusing violence and looting!
Incidence of which, BTW, have been RARE!
Where did I say anything about 'because of what you are protesting' Sean? Hint: I didn't.
So stuff the BS.
Why the bullshit Sean? You know damn well that I prove my points much more often the the vast majority of members here, including YOU.
BTFW Sean, the motive [intent] of a crime determines the degree of the charge and the penalty in most cases.
Oh and BTFW, HOW MUCH LONGER will it take you to learn to copy and paste a block quote?
You obviously do not know the first thing about debate. You have to use logic and facts. So far you have shown little of either.
It was wrong to riot in both cases, but all rioters have reasons, Jack. Ask them why and you will get an answer. The answer that you get from a Black Lives Matter protester will most likely in all cases be different than a January 6th rioter. Whether or not you acknowledge this fact is beside the point, until you try to bring it to a debate. Then, it is a valid point which you dismiss at your disadvantage. The reasons are very important because if the riot started out as a protest over a legitimate concern and escalated into a riot, there are several very important questions to be asked. What was the genesis of the riot? Who started the escalation to violence? The protestors themselves? Counter-protestors? The Police?
Well, the first part of your sentence: " Political leaders did nothing for months...." You will have to show me where a political leader did nothing. Most everybody had an opinion on what should be done and if they were in a position where they could manage to do it, they did. You may not agree with how they went about the response, but respond they did.
Seattle police did respond . Link
And there was no response ? I think you are wrong.
Nope. I was referring to the response of politicians. Are you trying to pretend that what I was discussing isn't the response to the rioting? Must be.
I did think about it. My two comments are my analysis of your posts. I put more time into each of my posts than the average commenter on here just because I like to ensure the accuracy of what I am saying. So, if you do not want to be accused of posting hyperbolic nonsense, then my suggestion is that you think and research before you type.
Have a nice day!
Lol. I see you threw in rape for good measure. I guess I missed that reporting. Credibility zero.
Lol ....
Guess you weren't paying very good attention then ...
... zero credibility
Good grief - one accusation, in the NYP no less. When I do a search for ‘BLM rape’ all that comes up is references to police officers accused of raping black women. That is consistent with why nobody watching or reading any news source with an ounce of integrity has formed any connection of BLM and rape. You guys are unbelievable.
You'd have to be dealing with reality to grasp the concepts "us people" are talking about and not be the tip of the spear of the Lunatic Fringe.
Concepts? Again, lol. Big Foot is a concept too.
I rest my case .... next
The left relies on facts, the right relies on concepts. Enough said.
Lol ..... now that elicited a huge belly laugh. Thx for the jocularity this morning ..... many thanks!
It comes as no surprise that your sense of humor is as backwards as your politics.
Cool, more reinforcement to prove that like usual, i'm on the right track. Additional empirical data much appreciated! Thx!
Well let's DO deal with the concepts "us people" are talking about then Sparty.
You said:
Then tried to support it with THIS comment:
Your link [written by Andy Ngo
] claims:
Yet Robert James was NOT accused or charged with sexual assault much less rape.
Guess you weren't paying very good attention...
Fail.
Glad you find it amusing. Yes, you missed that reporting.
Then maybe you should believe the Seattle Police Chief.
Or do you not believe the victims?
So you are OK with rape....as long as it's just one.
Interesting quote there Jack.
In Sparty's link, the Seattle police chief is quoted as stating:
Totally different perspective...
Only your perspective.
We see that author of Sparty On's article added the "because the force is down a station", but the police chief never said that herself.
Jack_Tx link never had that add-on.
Prove it bugsy.
Oh and BTFW, the author of Sparty's article is a RW hero...
Must suck not to trust your own heroes.
Um, because on article had that added to it, the other did not.
Not sure you understand what a quote is, but for education purposes, a quote is something that has the EXACT WORDING of what someone said, and to be correct, it would be enclosed in quotation marks.
The part of the post you are trying to get a "gotcha" on is not part of the quotation, therefore, is not part of the quote.
BTFW, you made the assertion that the police chief actually sad that part of the article. Per leftist rules that you should be following, it is up to YOU to prove that she said what you claimed she said. And to do that, that part of the article should be in, wait for it.....quotation marks.
This is your homework for the weekend.
Oh, and BTFW part 2....I don't give a shit who is a "hero" of whatever ideology.
I didn't make that assertion bugsy, the author of Sparty's article did.
That's Andy Ngo's assertion.
Must suck not to trust your own heroes.
You sure as fuck did by posting this..
"In Sparty's link, the Seattle police chief is quoted as stating"
Now, I tried to educate you on the definition of "quote" and how it is cited, but it seems to have gone on deaf ears. Nowhere in that paragraph is because the force is down a station in quotation marks. Yes, it is the assertion of Ngo, but NOT part of the quote from the chief, as you have claimed more than once.
Again, I do not have political or ideological "heroes", so it's best you stop making that bullshit assertion.
It would behoove you to read with comprehension bugsy.
I said that Sparty's LINK said.
Exactly.
NOWHERE have I made that claim bugsy. I said Sparty's LINK [Andy Ngo] stated that the Chief said it.
Now neither YOU or I can PROVE whether the Chief ACTUALLY said that herself. We DO know that is what Andy Ngo claimed she did in his article.
Must suck not to be able to trust your own heroes.
I can. It's not part of the quote in either link.
"I said that Sparty's LINK said".
What you said was.."the Seattle police chief is quoted as stating"
Show us where in the link the chief is quoted saying this.
You can spin the meaning of words all you want.
You're still wrong.
Which PROVES nothing bugsy.
Unless and until you can find a video or a press release from the Chief, no you can't.
I don't need to find a video to show she did not say it. I KNOW she did not.
Now, how about YOU showing video that she did. After all, you are the one making the claim she did.
See there bugsy, just like Ngo, YOU practice truncating statements to bolster your agenda.
AGAIN, my post was:
YOU block quoted it IN FULL in your 11.2.19 post and truncated it in your 11.2.21 post so you KNOW that is a fact.
Your 11.2.19 post also states:
So we BOTH agree that Ngo made the assertion that the Chief said it, NOT I.
For the millionth time, and I know you will want the last word, the police chief never said...AND I QUOTE
"Police Chief Carmen Best has stated that police response times to 911 calls in the surrounding area have “more than tripled” because the force is down a station".
Notice the quotation marks
The only part of the sentence that is QUOTED is "more than tripled".
Nothing else.
YOU made the assertion in 11.2.14 that she said the entire sentence, even the whole paragraph posted.
She did not.
And yes, NGO added that to the sentence, but even he knows what a quotation does to a statement, what is actually said, and what is added for context.
I've done all I can do to educate, but alas....
I'm moving on to important things.
Nope.
You've block quoted what I said in my 11.2.14 post. I NEVER 'asserted' that she said a fucking thing. READ IT S L O W L Y. Perhaps that will help, though I doubt it.
That's rich coming from you. Self Aware Much?
You want respect? Show respect and quit lying!
You forgot to vote up your post Xx.
Based on your comments and seeds, you've yet to stumble onto one...
Well gee Jack, that's on the Trump Administration, isn't it?
If you insist that the Federal government is somehow responsible for crimes committed in the STATES, where was AG Bill Barr when all of that was going on?
So let me get this straight.
Is it your posit that the Capitol of the United States of America is equivalent to a grocery store in Minnesota?
Are you also claiming that the INTENT of property damage and looting is irrelevant?
If you'll recall, the local authorities asked federal law enforcement to stand down. Do you remember the accusations of federal agents snatching people off the streets in unmarked vehicles?
Abiding by the laws governing how active the Federal government can be in local law enforcement matters. You may remember they deployed federal officers to protect federal buildings.
What part of "they work for us" have we forgotten?
Absolutely. There is no excuse for looting. I can't believe that's somehow in question. What the actual fuck???
Point? Is it your posit that the ONLY alternative was to send Federal LEOs?
That isn't an 'accusation', that is a FACT.
You must have skipped over the comments where one of your compatriots was whining about the Oregon AG dismissing cases with prejudice.
Which isn't relevant when your comment was about:
Is it Jack?
That is merely a deflection and fails to answer my question Jack.
It isn't. YOU interjected 'excuse'. I commented about INTENT. Thanks for playing.
More conspiracy driven nonsense in a summer full of it. They spread so much crap....
Except it isn't crap Sean. People WERE snatched off of the street in unmarked vehicles. It's a documented fact. Multiple people have testified to that FACT. NONE of them have been charged with ANY crime.
Hyperbole. Whole cities did not burn to the ground...
Never claimed they did. Read more carefully.
I'm not sure it's reasonable....or even remotely sane.. to pretend that $2billion in property damage somehow doesn't matter because they missed some spots.
Cities burned....Implies what? That cities burned. Again hyperbole.
Exactly! Zero cities got burned to the ground!
I am in The Bronx. Except for a few incidents right after George Floyd nothing happened...
There has been no more evidence for a year.
The mood is lots better now Trump is gone...
Another strawman Jack.
When people compare the two, it is like they have no argument except, butt look what these people did....
That's your defense. The most expensive riots in history that caused billions in property damage, killed dozens and injured hundreds and you dismiss them because no city literally burned entirely to the ground?
That's a new line of defense for the Capitol rioters I guess, it doesn't matter because the Capitol wasn't destroyed.
Wow Sean, is it 'strawman' day over on the right wing?
It hasn't already been used? According to some of the esteemed colleagues of Washington, they were just like tourists and not behaving badly at all.
The current leadership in Congress did not care until the problem was brought directly to them, up close and personal.
Exactly .... they just fiddled away while private businesses all over the country were looted and burned the summer of 2020 ....
Right, that's why they held hearings in multiple Congressional Committees. /s