"You have to admit that those sources are not exactly neutral, especially that left voice. They are people’s opinions."
Yes, but the facts are the facts. Did they say anything that wasn't true? I mean, opinion is subjective, obviously, but did they make any untrue claims about events or anything like that? And yeah, obviously with a name like "Left Voice," there's a bias involved... but I would also say that what is said in that article is justified. MSNBC is biased too (just as an example), they just don't have the decency to be upfront about it, and they often give less justification and cite fewer sources than that LV article did. There's no such thing as neutral, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either naïve or lying.
As for the racism and policing stuff, again, read the article I wrote and the materials I linked to. Biden hasn't really expressed regret in a believable way about the "crime bill stuff," and his comments on policing since then have shown that he doesn't understand the problem. For example "shoot 'em in the leg." The reason that BIPOC are disproportionately affected has as much to do with the system as it does with any single politician's intent, but it's also worth noting that anyone who truly had good intentions would make more of an effort to hear things from the perspective of those being affected, as opposed to just telling them how it's gonna be.
I don't think Biden is the kind of racist who uses racial slurs casually and feels sick when a person of color enters the room. I think he's the kind of racist who looks the other way at that kind of thing, and compromises with segregationists. The kind who votes for wars that kill brown people overseas because it suits US corporate interests. The kind who tells Black people not to be disappointed with his performative identity politics when they're trying to tell him that people in their communities are concerned, and one of those concerns is that they're dying at the hands of police. I think it's more a case of systemic racism than personal bigotry, but I also think we can only make so many excuses for age, and maybe we shouldn't let people with those kinds of biases remain in positions of power.
For the record, you don't have to say "these people," I'm an abolitionist, and I'm perfectly comfortable with it. I won't pretend to speak for anyone else, especially those in marginalized communities, but hearing their stories is part of how I came to this position. Law enforcement as it exists now disappears, yes, but that doesn't mean public safety does. The police are a large source of violence themselves. Like I said, read the materials I linked in the article I wrote about defunding the police, I think you'll find answers to at least most of your questions there. In short though, no, it's not about leaving things to the honor system. In fact, a big part of it is about taking the people who have a monopoly on state-sanctioned violence *off* of the honor system.
While you are correct in saying that my views are what could be called far left, I don't think that necessarily lines up with the way you're using the word "extremism." I don't think you can just lump socialism and capitalism into the same bucket of "bad" and call it a day. For example, fascism is a capitalist ideology, but not every capitalist is necessarily a fascist. I am personally on what is referred to as the "libertarian left," which basically means I identify more with, say, Noam Chomsky than someone like Lenin. That is a massive oversimplification, of course, but a lot of my positions are about opposing the extremism involved in our current system, such as the violence involved in giving trillions in bailouts to the ultra-rich and giant corporations, while leaving tens of millions of people facing eviction and hunger. Also, while I will admit to being radical myself, there are certain things that I think even less radical people should be able to get on board with. For example, I don't think it's fair to call universal healthcare "radical" or "far left" when every other industrialized country has it. That said, I also think more people would be on board with socialism if they actually understood it.
I reject the idea that a Democratic candidate was the only choice, and in fact I think that things are unlikely to change for the better with the two major parties in power. No offense, but it's easy to say that beating Trump was all that mattered when you don't live in one of the countries that we'll be bombing whether it's Trump or Biden, or any other major party candidate, in the White House. Not that I think voting in a 3rd party president would fix anything overnight either, but that's a different rabbit hole.
If you look at the evidence, our democracy is on life support at best, and was that way before Trump. We kinda squeaked through this election, but I would note that Trump is an incompetent buffoon, and I'm not entirely certain it would've gone the same way had he been a more competent wannabe dictator. I would also point out that our government does not truly represent the interests of the people, and therefore, calling it a democracy is perhaps too optimistic. The DNC has been caught red-handed manipulating elections more than once, and in 2016 they came right out and said that they thought there was no problem with it.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but the reason I tend to be more vocal in my criticism of Democrats is because I think I have a chance of getting through to their supporters; many of whom I believe truly mean well, even if I can sometimes seem grumpy about it. Republicans, particularly Trump supporters, are too far outside my conception of anything reasonable to even try to appeal to. I'll admit that's a failing on my part, but I just don't even know where to start with someone who votes for a guy who openly runs on stuff like "I'm gonna build a wall and make Mexico pay for it." I also take issue with the way that Democrats attempt to portray themselves as "the party of the people," while more often than not being just as pro-corporate and pro-war as Republicans.
Biden has shown that he is unwilling to do what is necessary to protect the environment, though he'll happily pay lip service to the cause. Same with election reform (see Iowa). The Democrats do plenty of their own voter suppression: https://medium.com/politically-speaking/this-isnt-how-democracy-works-98c1542fb231
Here's another little preview of things to come: Biden worked to lower the money for regular people in the latest 'stimulus' bill:
Note that he apparently had no problem with all the money going to foreign militaries or our own coup attempts abroad.