Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

https://www.facebook.com/1541453915/posts/10221676767738753/?

This could be conservatives in this car 

That phrase is interesting because it's imprecise enough to be true and false at the same time.

We've not specified what the proportionality is to. We've also not really specified what a "victim" is. Does that mean an unarmed person? A person that didn't deserve it?

We know black people are killed by police disproportionally to white people. This is math. Unless the numbers are more than 3 to 1 it would be disproportionate to general population. Now one might have to argue we'd have to go into geographic factors. And we'd have to parse through different things.

We also know there's going to be a certain thumb on the scale in all the retellings because there simply isn't much robust oversight. The people shot are dead. The people shooting are the ones often writing the reports. The people overseeing them are most often strongly empathizing with them and very often willing to cover for them. Our data is most often rosier than reality, logic should tell us. 

Does this mean these killings are happing all over? Most likely not. They are certianly not happening at the rate that certain hysterias seem to paint. But I do think it's a thing (and you know what, police killing white victims is pretty terrible too)

Just taking the raw numbers, police shoot and kill twice as many whites as blacks.  As you correctly note, if all other factors were equal, the ratio should be on the order of 3:1.
But all other factors are not equal.  Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites do.  I've seen summaries of two different surveys--one a couple of years ago and one a couple of days ago in the WaPo, that say that, under the same circumstances, police are very slightly more likely to kill white suspects.  When you get to other forms of hostile interaction, the statistics all support the idea of cops harassing, hassling, getting physical with blacks they encounter in the line of duty than with whites.  And all that stuff rightly leads to blacks not trusting cops, and thinking that "call the police if you're in trouble" is crazy talk.  But cops are not killing blacks in circumstances where they would not kill whites.
The idea that police "overkill" young black men is widespread, particularly among blacks.  I listened to a podcast today on which the guest speaker was Michael Steele, the former head of the RNC, African American, and he talked about how he felt compelled to warn his sons of how to behave around police officer because "we know" how dangerous it is to be black and interacting with police.  But he's mistaken.  It's just not true.
It also was not true, BTW, that blacks were killed in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam, although many black leaders, including MLK, and many others as well, believed it at the time and still do.

Just taking the raw numbers, police shoot and kill twice as many whites as blacks.  As you correctly note, if all other factors were equal, the ratio should be on the order of 3:1.
But all other factors are not equal.  Blacks commit more violent crimes than whites do.  I've seen summaries of two different surveys--one a couple of years ago and one a couple of days ago in the WaPo, that say that, under the same circumstances, police are very slightly more likely to kill white suspects.  When you get to other forms of hostile interaction, the statistics all support the idea of cops harassing, hassling, getting physical with blacks they encounter in the line of duty than with whites.  And all that stuff rightly leads to blacks not trusting cops, and thinking that "call the police if you're in trouble" is crazy talk.  But cops are not killing blacks in circumstances where they would not kill whites.
The idea that police "overkill" young black men is widespread, particularly among blacks.  I listened to a podcast today on which the guest speaker was Michael Steele, the former head of the RNC, African American, and he talked about how he felt compelled to warn his sons of how to behave around police officer because "we know" how dangerous it is to be black and interacting with police.  But he's mistaken.  It's just not true.
It also was not true, BTW, that blacks were killed in disproportionate numbers in Vietnam, although many black leaders, including MLK, and many others as well, believed it at the time and still do.

Be careful Sooner.  You are not speaking in unity with the celebs or media.  You could get Drew Breesed - especially if you say you love this country

Another note- don’t assume he can’t win big on his record just because you don’t like it. 

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CBBOrf3naT-/?igshid=hyjwsgczabjo

That the violence is coming from conservatives.

Ah.  OK.  I was with BAB in not understanding what you found ridiculous about my post.
Here's what I posted: "I do think that in general the protests on the other side push more readily into violence, but some, maybe a lot, of the violence occurring about the edges of this protest movement is coming from 'conservatives' who are acting in order to discredit the protesters."

Note that I put "conservatives" in quotes.  I seem to not know what a conservative is anymore, even though I have spent my life thinking that I was one.  They (we) used to be people who stood for small government, lower taxes, rule of law, high character, and an opportunity society that lifted all boats.  Now they seem to stand for knocking heads and bringing in armored personnel carriers and standing behind the police even in cases of obvious police misconduct, as well as celebrating the lowest-character POTUS we've had since maybe forever.  (I'm not describing you, BTW, just people who once would have been considered borderline white separatists but now march proudly under the conservative banner and seem to have taken control of the movement.)
Beyond that, I presumed that "some, maybe a lot" of the violence around the edges of these protests is not being committed by leftists but by some of these fringe nutjobs running false flag operations.  I have no proof of that, of course.  But I would be surprised if we were to learn that the alt-right just sat on its thumbs while all this was going on.  And just lumping all the violence under the heading "antifa" doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer either, as much as I would like that to be the case.
If that's "ridiculous," well, then I guess I'm at a loss for what to say next.

Ah.  OK.  I was with BAB in not understanding what you found ridiculous about my post.
Here's what I posted: "I do think that in general the protests on the other side push more readily into violence, but some, maybe a lot, of the violence occurring about the edges of this protest movement is coming from 'conservatives' who are acting in order to discredit the protesters."

Note that I put "conservatives" in quotes.  I seem to not know what a conservative is anymore, even though I have spent my life thinking that I was one.  They (we) used to be people who stood for small government, lower taxes, rule of law, high character, and an opportunity society that lifted all boats.  Now they seem to stand for knocking heads and bringing in armored personnel carriers and standing behind the police even in cases of obvious police misconduct, as well as celebrating the lowest-character POTUS we've had since maybe forever.  (I'm not describing you, BTW, just people who once would have been considered borderline white separatists but now march proudly under the conservative banner and seem to have taken control of the movement.)
Beyond that, I presumed that "some, maybe a lot" of the violence around the edges of these protests is not being committed by leftists but by some of these fringe nutjobs running false flag operations.  I have no proof of that, of course.  But I would be surprised if we were to learn that the alt-right just sat on its thumbs while all this was going on.  And just lumping all the violence under the heading "antifa" doesn't seem like a very satisfactory answer either, as much as I would like that to be the case.
If that's "ridiculous," well, then I guess I'm at a loss for what to say next.

Ok- your thoughts are not ridiculous at all as to who the antagonists are. In fact- there has already been some white supremacists caught and arrested for stirring shit op online. And, you are also correct on the other fringe groups- there is an ongoing investigative report going on by Lara Logan, a very respected reporter. She has found numerous fringe groups with all kinds of agendas, including Antifa 

as far as conservatives- I can’t put data to this but it fits so many people I know or have met. They are still very much your first description

They are torn.  They don’t particularly care for POTUS, and even despise him in some cases. But they see the potential alternatives as unacceptable.  They have been hearing the voices of opposition, and they feel those voices are diametrically opposed to their own. Gun control, immigration, religion, taxes, freedom of speech, and in and on. These are the people now who we were discussing before- looking at the pandemic and the racial environment and see only two sides.  They are clearly uncomfortable with only two sides but given that- they will likely go towards the guy you described above. They feel that his not polished, in career politician, Washington outsider is far better than the other things they hear ( like lock down until there is a vaccine or defunded the police)

Lastly- this may seem controversial and people may or may not agree with it which is fine but I happen to agree with it, they feel like from the moment Trump won the election perhaps even before, there has been a concerted effort from the other side including the media to destroy his presidency. They feel that given the constant investigations and impeachment and all the things that Have gone on that he has been fighting with two hands behind his back and actually has been successful given all of that.

He's loving this. He needs an enemy to point to and say "look how bad THEY are"...

Because if not, he might be judged on his record.

see thats the thing 

he doesnt have to point to anybody cause they are pointing to themselves

they are doing all the work for him

just wait till you see his next batch of campaign ads that will probably come out

after this has died down