This is a book and documentary where Joel Gilbert (investigative journalist) goes over the well documented parts of the Trayvon Martin fraud - where he was a drug dealing thug that ambushed a latino guy, and was beating the shit out of him when he was shot in self defense and not some innocent tween shot for wearing a hoodie. But it adds in his own research where he details that Rachel Jeantel was not Trayvon's real girlfriend (Diamond Eugene), and the prosecutors were either incompetent or perpetrated the fraud out of malice. A fascinating watch.
A cop arresting George Floyd for passing a counterfeit $20 and resisting arrest put his knee on the neck of George (in a move that is legal in Minnesota, but illegal in some other states). George complained he couldn't breathe, and after ignoring his complaints for several minutes, George died. Since George was black and the officer was white, the far left activists and their media race baited (and dog whistled) their violent wing (Antifa, BLM, etc), so we got violent riots and looting that had virtually nothing to do with the injustice against George. While there was no evidence this was race based, the public was outraged over the unnecessary continued abuse of a subdued suspect and justice was going to happen... in fact the officer was arrested for 3rd degree murder and the riots and looting continued. Obama and other far lefties that had previously said looting was not about the crime but opportunism, of course egged the rioters on. If you believe the Democrats/Far Left rhetoric, this display of anti-Americanism, was inevitable.
There was a FakeNews scandal where ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and all the usual far-left sources were gleefully reporting that Trump's rally attendance was low because kids organized a campaign via TikTok to RSVP and take all the tickets. It was FakeNews because it was false. RSVP was unnecessary and it was first-come, first-serve like all the other rally's, so their campaign did nothing to take other people's spots by not showing up. Any place with journalists (fact checkers) would have known that. The reason attendance was lower than some predicted (still higher than anything Joe Biden could muster) was foul weather, news hype about COVID likely scared off some, expected violence from the mainstream left (BLM, and other Democrat activsts). There were agitators harassing people at the gates and preventing attendance. But the media misreported all of that, and was celebrating cheating, lying and bullying as a way of disrupting their political opponents -- showing that they're not journalists, but left wing propagandists.
Collusion is cooperation or conspiracy in order to cheat or deceive others (usually done secret or illegal ways). In modern parlance, it's most often used to work with foreign or anti-American agents, agencies, or nations to undermine elections or American interest. Here I list a few examples.
If you can look at both sides best arguments (and counter-arguments), not cherry picking their worst or exaggerating their points, we can usually deconstruct which is appealing to reason/facts, and which to emotions/disinformation. Fortunately, the highly funded left has good, polished videos like thier best arguments on systemic (Institutional) racism and Charlie Kirk did a pretty good deconstruction of the flaws in their reasoning, and it's pretty easy for the non-gullible to see through the fundamental flaws of their argument. Their points are:
Schools: are often funded by property taxes, so a rich school gets more money than poor schools. Semi-true, but outcomes aren't based on district money, and many black/poorer areas get more money per student (we over-compensate) and outcomes still don't improve (we've tried). The white/black divide doesn't follow incomes or school funding, and whites and asians in poorer schools often outperform blacks and latinos in richer ones, but blacks in poor schools that try, can outperform whites in good or worse neighborhoods.
Wealth Disparity and Red-lining: they blame wealth disparity, and blame that on red-lining (who could buy property). The problem is that ended (legally) in the 1960's, it wasn't based on race (as they claim) but geo's/income, and Asians, Whites other immigrants and in those areas were able to overcome those barriers, why were blacks the only ones who couldn't? We inverted it in the 70's and since with special loans/benefits to minorities or opportunity zones, and didn't get significantly different outcomes for blacks.
Colleges: they imply colleges could exclude blacks through "legal segregation", but this is false. There were black colleges since forever, and desegregation in colleges started in the 1940's with Brown vs. Education outlawing it in 1954. Since then we've had the opposite, special incentives and lowering of standards if you're black, while whites and Asians are given special penalties in college admissions and are still over-represented.
Implicit bias: this is the idea that everyone is racist and they just don't know it. But there's never been any evidence that this is significant. It turns out that in sales and life, your charm, dress, speech, looks, and things unrelated to race, are far more significant to our success than any implicit biases that hurt all of us (not just blacks). So until they can show evidence that this matters, it's just a distraction.
Resume filtering and black unemployment: there was a disputed and unrepeated Harvard Study that claimed to show that Black sounding names get fewer callbacks. But callbacks aren't conversions to hires, most academic studies can't be reproduced and are later debunked (and this one hasn't been). And right now the institutional racism actually favors the minorities. Black unemployment is higher -- but not if you normalize for income, education and degree type. And when you look at incomes of equally educated/experiences blacks or whites, there's no difference: blowing this hypothesis out of the water.
Solutions: Pretend that Slavery and Jim Crow laws are responsible for black outcomes. In other words, ignore any responsibility of the individual, family or culture might have in black under-performance or criminality. Blacks are the only race that can't overcome their color -- which is completely disproven by black immigrants or black children raised in white or asian homes, which all outperform the black average. They want you also to ignore that public school failures have been part of the problem, as well as single parent families in the black community, welfare, gangs, and other things that hold people back far more than the problems they want you to focus on.
Better explanations for each of these problems are culture, family values, dual parent homes, gangs and discipline. So their argument is a fallacy and the problems are not primarily racism.
There's this fallacy invented and propagated by the far left (and part of Black Conspiracy Theology), meant to undermine America, called "Systemic Racism" (aka Institutional Racism): the idea that racism in ingrained into the culture and legal or corporate policies.
While it is true that Democrat party was founded on Andrew Jackson and his Indian extermination campaigns, and Democrats created a lot of institutional racism with their KKK, Jim Crow laws, Woodrow Wilson, or in the 30's with FDR's New Deal, Social Security, Wagner Act (which excluded as many blacks as possible). Republicans have been trying to wipe it out since before the Civil War, and including the Republican civil rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. For my entire lifetime, there's pretty much nowhere for institutional racism to legally hide: every attempt is rooted out and eliminated. There is the exception of Democrats false flag of "affirmative action" (anti-majority racism). But with the exception of anti-white/asian policies, there are no policies (official or unofficial) that allow cops to assault civilians based on the color of their skin.
Despite all recent evidence is that police abuse is actually less common against blacks (relative to murder rates), every time there happens to be a police (or civilian) abuse problem against someone who is black, the old leftist tropes are trotted out in order to divide us for political gain -- while similar assaults against Whites, Latinos or Asians are ignored. Once you get past the surface Fake victims like Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown,. Finally, when an obvious abuse of power video came out (George Floyd) the nation was ready to burn, and the DNC and their operatives were there, flinging matches. The rioters, protestors, DNC operatives and their media all propagated the same lies (1) that this was an institutional problem (not individual) (2) that the officer wouldn't have equally abused a White, Asian, or Latino that was resisting arrest, in the exact same way (3) that justice was already being served against the perpetrator (Officer Derek Chauvin), without any marches, riots or looting necessary in the first place. Americans are united in that we all oppose abuse of power of any individual (Black or White), where the Democrats succeed in dividing us is that many don't believe the lie that this problem is systemically ingrained in our legal code, and that the solution is supporting violent radicals (and rioters). The reason these events are newsworthy is because of how rare they are.
Every action causes a reaction. Some reactions are pleasant surprises, many are negatives, some are counter productive (perverse) and make the problem worse. Since consequences matter more than intentions, we have a social obligation to plan for them (and avoid them). The phrase "unintended consequences" is used as either a wry warning against the hubristic belief that humans can control the world around them, or more often against a really bad implementation of not-so-smart ideas or implementations. Those that deny unintended consequences are denying science (reality).
Assuming the goal is to provide mass benefit, then if an idea has to be subsidized, then it's probably not a good (economically viable) idea. Of course if the goal is wealth redistribution (stealing from people under the false agenda of helping) -- then subsidies are always rationalized. Mass transit is an example of the failures of public policy. While they sound good in concept, when you look at how much money they lose, and thus have to take from taxpayers to exist, they are disasters. Here's some examples.
NYT published a complete fabrication on what would happen if Trump refused to leave the Whitehouse and a 2020 Biden win. While this sensationalism plays well for the ignorant #resistance crowd, it's nothing vaguely related to news -- but it is parroting the same conspiracy theory floated by the Biden (or Hillary) campaigns. Repeating that makes NYT the mouthpiece of the DNC, but not a News organization. A news organization would debunk the Biden/Hillary campaigns for floating the absurd theory. There were the same theories floated about Obama on 2016, but the Times didn't bother to even repeat them, let alone hypothesize on what it would mean for the country.
I don't think Joe Biden is a racist... but I do think Joe Biden makes Donald Trump look refined and delicate on issues of race. It demonstrates those who oppose Trump but support Biden because of "race" are likely hypocrites. Examples:
1970's Biden opposed forced bussing in his state (but supported it for other states), claiming "he didn't want his kids to grow up in a "racial jungle" in regards to desegregation"
1994 Crime Bill (and mass incarceration in the entirety of 80's and 90's) got Joe Biden's full throated support calling blacks, "super predators": which is a sore spot for blacks persecuted under the bill. Joe claims it was other things (mandatory minimums) the was the bad part of the bill. There's a lot more nuance than the media simplification -- but in hindsight Biden was on the wrong side of the issue from a black/race PoV.
2007 During Obama's campaign he referred to Obama's charm as, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,”... as if Barack was the first charming and articulate black politician in history? If a Republican had said that, the media would have crucified him.
2020.05.22 Biden goes on black radio host and twitter giant (Charlamagne the God's show) and replied "If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black." Activists were outraged that a white guy tried to be the arbiter of blackness. More rational people were outraged that the underlying point was that blacks couldn't have differing opinions or political leanings. Biden claimed it was just a joke... and about as funny as if he wore blackface and sang Mammy.
Even the co-founder of Wikipedia (Larry Sanger) admits that Wikipedia's NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is long dead and forgotten. He used examples such as:
Obama's article fails to list all the scandals, and Hillary's is spun heavily, while Trump's had 5,224 unflattering words and listed many debunked scandals.
Their abortion article says things like, "When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine".
Lies of omission on negative consequences of drug legalization policies, totally pro-LGBT adoption policies, their article on historical Jesus has many opinions as fact, and their pro-Vaccine position or Global warming omits or discounts the opposing views.