Thank you for letting me know how to find the statistic. It checks out. Now to the basic point that it doesn't demonstrate systemic bias. According to your stat, Blacks are 3 times more likely to be killed by police, because 28% of those shot are Black while Blacks are only 13% of the population. But Blacks are 7 times more likely to be arrested for murder. According the FBI UCR , Table 43 A there were 4,078 Blacks arrested for murder versus 3,650 Whites in 2019.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43

That means Blacks were just over 50% of those arrested for murder…

This is completely ridiculous piece that displays incredible ignorance about America. America is awash with guns. People already have tens of millions of them and millions are flooding across the open border Biden has instituted. The only people who will obey gun control laws are the law-abiding citizens. Fewer will obey an Executive Order as it is dictatorial and lacks all legitimacy. Local police will not enforce it. Gangs and criminals will not obey any gun restrictions. Gun control laws makes regular citizens into criminals and forces them to deal with black market gun dealers.

The Progressive Democrat police defunding…

So you are unaware of the well-known speeches by Obama, Biden, Schumer, and most other Democrats favoring the filibuster? Please do the tiniest bit of research before making up provably false assertions. Democrats have never advocated eliminating the filibuster when they were in the minority.

I doubt you really do oppose the filibuster. If the Democrats lost the Senate in 2022 and the Republicans move to eliminate the filibuster, won't you be issuing a passionate defense of it?

So it was racist when the Democrats used the filibuster to stop Senator Scott's police reform bill last year? The Democrats were happy to use the filibuster repeatedly when they were in the minority and they gave speeches waxing eloquent in defense of the filibuster. They are thus total hypocrites: they don't even believe their own attacks on the filibuster. It is just a short term political ploy to push through a partisan agenda they have no mandate to pass. But attempting to end the filibuster will backfire badly for the Democrats. When Republicans take control of the Senate in 2022, they will be able to repeal everything the Democrats passed. How the Democrats will whine then about the loss of the filibuster. https://news.yahoo.com/tim-scott-blasts-biden-democrats-024134783.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADHunEhvYvnPKxh1wAzPugRhf-HC_h946E4CHpT2Y8W-QEXslvoKIsqqfKgHShCJTD_00mG75YUEtQQBBU3mKMGxlJW81si53iKSQt2YLE9vIdNqya9O9iMVVTbHBmWyFMrYPJYdrHdqLzV5e5AEE7kvYvJTZNN1WGW7v-0pTWyZ

All very touching and nothing I would object to. But, back to the question, would you agree to pay an extra 10% of your salary in taxes so people can buy caviar and filet mignon with their food stamps?

In most localities only a small percentage of the workforce make the minimum wage. Typically it is paid to entry level , non-unionized, relatively unskilled workers for non-demanding work. A year later most of the people making the minimum wage at one point in time get raises or move on to other higher-paid jobs and no longer make the minimum. A very small percentage of those making the minimum are actually living on it. What is the value of the labor of an inexperienced entry-level teenager ? If the minimum is raised too high, it denies young people entry level opportunities. Worse it makes automation economically more attractive and thus increases unemployment. The value of having a minimum wage is to prevent gross exploitation of naive workers. But it is illusion to believe decreed wage levels can override fundamental economics.

Thanks for the insult, but is there anything I wrote that was incorrect? Do you admit to being blind to the censorship being imposed by billionaire Tech Giants and BLM -Diversity Dogma apparatchiks? Who is opposing free speech?

I agree with your main thesis that the word "liberal" doesn't mean what it once did.

I disagree with the comments on LBJ. There was nothing inevitable about the passage of Civil Rights bills in 1964-5. On paper there was no way to overcome Senate filibusters by Southern Democrats. Republicans might vote against cloture just as an act of partisan calculation. However, Johnson was a master politician and had an deep knowledge of the Senate and the Senators. He got the bills passed by forging an alliance of Republicans and Democrats, that reduced the die-hard segregationists to a minority that did not have the votes to stop cloture. He was one of the few leaders who could have gotten those bills passed. He would loathe the Progressive Democrats of today, not the least because of their disdain for the Senate and its institutions.