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.
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. Unlike other Fake victims (Trayvon Martin, Alton Sterling, Micah Johnson, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, OJ Simpson, Philando Castile, Rodney King, Sandra Bland, etc), this one was on video and more clearly the cops abuse of power. 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.
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.
May 10th, on Meet the Press, Chuck Todd presented a video that was deceptively edited of Attorney General Bill Barr's reply to why he was dropping charges against Michael Flynn. Todd said he didn't mention the 'the rule of law' or explained himself well -- when the full clip certainly did both. Chuck apologized when called on it.
From 2017 to 2020, the oxymoronically named House Intelligence Committee headed by Adam Schiff, spread falsehoods about Russia and Donald Trump, and obstructed releasing the Transcripts. Adam repeatedly went on FakeNews channels like CNN and MSNBC and announced he had hard evidence proving the plot. During all that time, the committee was getting report after report that not only was there no evidence of Trump colluding with Russia, there was evidence of the DNC and the Hillary Campaign doing exactly that. Any real news agency would be outraged at being lied to, but CNN and MSNBC will have Adam back.
CBS FakeJournalist Weijia Jiang (the female Jim Acosta) tries to make every story about her, and has a record of lying to get attention. Examples include claiming: Trump used the n-word on tape, someone in the Trump administration called the coronavirus the “kung flu” to her face. During a press conference claimed that Trump had botched testing so he could open up the economy (which wasn't about lives or jobs lost, depression, suicides, etc), in response to why the lives were being lost Trump retorted, "ask China" -- and She pretended he'd only said that because she was Chinese. Even other left wing reporters (except CNN who ran with the lie) admitted Weijia was out of line.
Belkin International, is the parent company for Belkin, Linksys and Wemo: American manufacturers of consumer electronics that specializes in connectivity devices including routers, iPod and iPhone accessories, mobile computing accessories, surge protectors, network switches, hubs, (USB and computer network) cables, KVM switches, racks and enclosures, and other peripherals.
Wink is an American brand of software and hardware products that does smart home devices. During the middle of a COVID pandemic they decided to shift from paid to subscription only model with 7 days notice to customers -- meaning if customers don't pay the extortion then their products become useless. While they were going to piss off users either way, the way they handled was guaranteed to cause maximum irritation and alienation