Donald Trump

"

LostForm wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

^ pretty weak damage control tbh

damage control? nah you are just sucking down the sensational bullshit they are feeding you.

Who is feeding me bullshit? I posted a raw video of an incident. The media isn't even reporting on it.

"

LostForm wrote:

Good job btw of charlotte police denying to release the body cam footage, that should smooth things over pretty nice eh? Like we have the incident on tape, but nah, we arnt going to show you what really happened..


Tomorrow the news might really be nuts, people are being bused in from other places like baltimore today.

So you might really have the red meat you are salivating for.

The rioters are doing an excellent job of convincing the undecided that they should vote for Trump. The current administration seems to think this kind of violence is acceptable so long as it is for a cause they support. Hillary will just be more of the same - appeasement and platitudes for the cameras, but nothing done to actually help the problem.

Although not directly mentioning the shootings, the FBI director gave a decent perspective of how increased enforcement was working before Obama and his appointed minions of "calmly and productively" engaging criminals.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/law-enforcement-and-the-communities-we-serve-bending-the-lines-toward-safety-and-justice

I'm sure Clinton will bring more such peaceful results to the nation if she is elected. She will probably try to spend more time looking for people she can do a photo op with then trying to fix the problem. We already know her party has been instructed not to offer support for the BLM's positions



That the Democratic party (the historical party of slavery) should still be racist in their innermost thoughts is not surprising. We get a glimpse into how they think about Latinos in the following email with the term "Taco Bowl Engagement"



Even such democrats as Thomas Jefferson, who advocated for emancipation, had what modern so called progressive thinkers would consider racist ideals:

"Like others of his day, he supported the removal of newly freed slaves from the United States. The unintended effect of Jefferson’s plan was that his goal of “improving” slavery as a step towards ending it was used as an argument for its perpetuation. Pro-slavery advocates after Jefferson’s death argued that if slavery could be “improved,” abolition was unnecessary.

Jefferson’s belief in the necessity of abolition was intertwined with his racial beliefs. He thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted two “separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country. Jefferson’s belief that blacks were racially inferior and “as incapable as children,” coupled with slaves’ presumed resentment of their former owners, made their removal from the United States an integral part of Jefferson’s emancipation scheme. Influenced by the Haitian Revolution and an aborted rebellion in Virginia in 1800, Jefferson believed that American slaves’ deportation—whether to Africa or the West Indies—was an essential followup to emancipation.

Jefferson wrote that maintaining slavery was like holding “a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go.”17 He thought that his cherished federal union, the world’s first democratic experiment, would be destroyed by slavery. To emancipate slaves on American soil, Jefferson thought, would result in a large-scale race war that would be as brutal and deadly as the slave revolt in Haiti in 1791. "


from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation https://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-slavery

Perspective is a very selective thing. Choose the wrong viewpoint and you will never see the problem clearly enough to solve it. Using a good cause (ending unjustified shootings) for bad purposes (violence, disruption and looting) only serves to make the cause look like a sham.

Obama promised Hope and Change



Hillary offers to continue taking the nation down Obama's road to ruin.

you powers on conflation are lost on me dude, did you really just quote Thomas Jefferson Foundation as proof that Obama is a racist against blacks? I mean really? calmly and productively is inciting riots?

you are really out there man.

"

LostForm wrote:

you powers on conflation are lost on me dude, did you really just quote Thomas Jefferson Foundation as proof that Obama is a racist against blacks? I mean really? calmly and productively is inciting riots?

you are really out there man.

There were multiple points in that post. None of them implied what you are suggesting.

If you have difficulty grasping the concepts, I can simplify it for you, just let me know. If all you need is the TLDT version:

DNC is historically party of racism and their policy of not supporting enforcement or speaking up about mischaracterizations of racism actually hurts the community that is protesting in the riots. If people want more riots and more police shootings than they should vote for Hillary, who will continue pretending to care.

go ahead and read comey's statement again, and understand that he is blaming increased crime on new technology putting it in everyone's faces, forcing people to make assumptions and stereotypes, and

"We must find a way to bend these lines toward each other.

And here’s the good news: It’s hard to hate up close. It’s hard to hate someone once you sit and stare into their eyes and start to understand where they’re coming from, and why they feel the way they do.

We have to get up close if we are to bend these lines. We must start seeing one another more clearly.

We have to resist stereotypes. We have to look for information beyond anecdotes. And we must understand that we need each other."


ok, read that statement again please, and then realize how stupid stereotyping the entire democratic party because of some shit Thomas Jefferson said in 1791 during slavery and also linking his statement is.
You are conflating several things here. if you need the tldr version, thanks.

also, Obama said police need to engage protesters 'calmly and productively', but what do you care, you can just tack criminal in there instead and conflate it with the rest.

Lol Merkel is backing in her immigration politics in Germany, they are now having huge problems. she's currently losing support and her elections.


I think Trump's opinions about immigrations might be more popular everyday.

Dalai, you're conveniently forgetting the shift in stance on civil rights which began previous to and culminated in the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Lyndon Johnson (D). Yes, it's fully accurate to say that prior to World War II, the Republicans were the party of civil rights and Democrats were the racists. But that's why lifelong racist politicians like Strom Thurmond began as Democrats, flirted with the short-lived Dixiecrat party in 1948, and switched over to Republican in 1964 after Johnson's apparent betrayal.

You are dredging up shit at least five decades out of date and trying to pass it off as current regarding the party as a whole. More specifically, prior to 1968, Hilary was a Republican. It's as if the racist transformation of the southern GOP made her flee from it.

"

LostForm wrote:

go ahead and read comey's statement again, and understand that he is blaming increased crime on new technology putting it in everyone's faces, forcing people to make assumptions and stereotypes, and

I'm going to relink Comey's statement, for those who may not wish to backtrack. Either you read something else, or you didn't grasp Comey's meaning. While I can explain what I mean, I can't ask Comey to come in here and explain his speech for you, so I'll highlight some key parts.




(the hating up close part is nice, and true, but isn't germane to policy implementation, and in the case of riots - it breaks down and becomes counter intuitive.)

Where it leads IS important:

"We must start seeing one another more clearly. We have to resist stereotypes. We have to look for information beyond anecdotes."

Stereotypes of the police. Stereotypes of race (black or white, or any other) Stereotypes of every police shooting is a crime, and stereotypes that the police are out to kill people. Another would be the stereotype that the black community must pit itself against police, or that enforcement is racially motivated.

(which is the whole crux of the BLM movement)

Comey goes on to illustrate this in the beginning of his speech:

"As we did that work, I remember being asked why we were doing so much prosecuting in black neighborhoods and locking up so many black men. After all, Richmond was surrounded by areas with largely white populations. Surely there were drug dealers in the suburbs.

My answer was simple: We are there in those neighborhoods because that’s where people are dying. These are the guys we lock up because they are the predators choking off the life of a community.

We did this work because we believed that all lives matter, especially the most vulnerable."



And we must understand that we need each other."

"

LostForm wrote:

ok, read that statement again please, and then realize how stupid stereotyping the entire democratic party because of some shit Thomas Jefferson said in 1791 during slavery and also linking his statement is.

Some "shit"? So, one of the most progressive thinkers of his time, who helped shape America's destiny and is still looked upon for inspiration is just talking shit? You didn't even specify whether you thought it was good shit or bad shit. Some would say it was bad talk coming from a good person. If Thomas Jefferson had his way, slavery would have been abolished from the outset with the Constitution. One of his early drafts of the Declaration of Independence spoke out against it:

http://www.blackpast.org/primary/declaration-independence-and-debate-over-slavery

However, then, like now, many people who derived benefits for keeping other people under their thumbs opposed it. Back then it was slavery (free work was the benefit), now it is welfare (keeping people dependent on government programs, taking their earnings through extra taxes, and demanding their vote or shutting off the supply of free stuff).

If you mean the democratic party that supported Jim Crow laws, oppose civil rights legislation and was for retaining slavery - aka - the same democratic party we have now, feel free to proclaim that they have changed, and are no longer the racists they used to be.

They had to change, because they were going to be made politically extinct.

They do speak more carefully, and they show up in the proper places and say the proper words at the proper times. Their legislative actions (give more freebies and mandate easy stuff that looks good)don't accomplish anything for the minority communities and in several cases actually do more harm than good.

"

LostForm wrote:

You are conflating several things here.

Have you recently switched from using inconceivable to conflate?



There is a story about blind men all trying to describe an elephant.



In this case, I am telling you it is an elephant and you are claiming that I am conflating the trunk, the tusks, the legs and the ears. We have the historical factors of very strong racism, we have racist thinking by influential thinkers whose philosophy guides the party, we have emails from the current party showing racism, we have failure of the existing administration to address or even attempt to address the underlying problems of racism, and we have a developing situation (the original part of protest violence) that has been made worse by the inaction in words and deeds by the current administration. The elephant's tail (no, it isn't a snake that is being conflated into a tail) is that this particular problem is largely caused by poor perspective.

Which is where Comey's speech comes in.

So, since you managed to copy from Comey's speech, but posted something (concern about technology) that wasn't his primary focus I'll provide a quick run through:
"Many in law enforcement in New York City—where I worked then—believed we were destined to have a structural level of violence of more than 2,000 murders each year. Two thousand was simply the baseline level of violence that we had to accept. The job of law enforcement was to try to push the carnage down toward 2,000.

That was so wrong.

Last year, 328 people were murdered in New York. That is still 328 too many, but it is a number that was unimaginable 25 years ago.
"


"Kids of all colors went to school in 2014 in an America with historically low crime. And just that term—“historically low”—doesn’t quite capture how the world has changed between 1990 and 2014."



-section about how due to lower crime, the public doesn't understand how much enforcement has helped them:

"A problem we face today is that nobody speaks for those who have not been victimized by crime in recent years because those “victims” don’t exist. There are tens of thousands of people who were not murdered or raped or robbed or intimidated because crime dropped in our country. The victims don’t exist, so they can’t form a constituency, they can’t talk to the press, they can’t talk to Congress.

There are millions of people—people of color—who in 2014 enjoyed their lives and their neighborhoods in ways that were impossible in 1990. They were not trapped in their homes, putting their children to sleep in bathtubs to keep them safe from stray bullets, so they are not here to participate in this important discussion.

They were out living.

Somehow we need to imagine their voices in the current debate about justice in this country as we strive to make ourselves more just."



So, now that we have some context - here's the elephant's tail - perspective - the real root of the problem -

"There are millions of people—people of color—who in 2014 enjoyed their lives and their neighborhoods in ways that were impossible in 1990. They were not trapped in their homes, putting their children to sleep in bathtubs to keep them safe from stray bullets, so they are not here to participate in this important discussion."
...

In 2014, grandparents—especially in minority neighborhoods—could sit on the porch, watch the kids play, and remember the bad old days when the gang bangers and drug dealers ruled the roost. They remember what it was like, even if so many Americans can’t, because so many Americans were lucky enough not to have experienced it.

To achieve a historically peaceful America—especially in the hardest hit neighborhoods—a whole lot of young men went to jail, especially men of color.

Folks can debate—and should debate—causes of the decline in crime, but surely serious people can agree law enforcement contributed significantly to saving neighborhoods and lives by the thousands. The work of law enforcement helped get us to 2014, a place most people, especially law enforcement, thought impossible."


The section where he does mention videos:

"Each incident that involves real or perceived police misconduct drives one line this way."

Is still about perception, and it is about the perception of the incident that is key. Without context and understanding, and/or with a base presumption of stereotyping the police, the lines will continue to diverge, regardless of what actually happened. This is what we are seeing. The Lack of video - not the video - is enough to cause protests in North Carolina.

The protests happen because the community has presumed the police are guilty of a crime without any evidence.

"Part of being clear-eyed about reality requires all of us to stare—and stare hard—at what is happening in this country this year. And to ask ourselves what’s going on.

Because something deeply disturbing is happening all across America.

I have spoken of 2014 in this speech because something has changed in 2015. Far more people are being killed in America’s cities this year than in many years. And let’s be clear: far more people of color are being killed in America’s cities this year.

And it’s not the cops doing the killing.

We are right to focus on violent encounters between law enforcement and civilians. Those incidents can teach all of us to be better.

But something much bigger is happening.

Most of America’s 50 largest cities have seen an increase in homicides and shootings this year, and many of them have seen a huge increase. These are cities with little in common except being American cities—places like Chicago, Tampa, Minneapolis, Sacramento, Orlando, Cleveland, and Dallas.

In Washington, D.C., we’ve seen an increase in homicides of more than 20 percent in neighborhoods across the city. Baltimore, a city of 600,000 souls, is averaging more than one homicide a day—a rate higher than that of New York City, which has 13 times the people. Milwaukee’s murder rate has nearly doubled over the past year.

And who’s dying?

Police chiefs say the increase is almost entirely among young men of color, at crime scenes in bad neighborhoods where multiple guns are being recovered."

Where does Obama/Current Administration and their lack of efforts come into the picture?

Comey explains that too:

"That’s yet another problem that white America can drive around, but if we really believe that all lives matter, as we must, all of us have to understand what is happening.

Communities of color need to demand answers.

Police and civilian leaders need to demand answers.

Academic researchers need to hit this hard."

Hillary and the current administration don't really see a problem. They make no effort to dig into it, but act as if some quick feel good talking points will make the problem go away.
As long as the public thinks they care, the democrat leadership really hasn't and won't do anything substantial to fix the problems.

Comey said:

"I do have a strong sense that some part of the explanation is a chill wind blowing through American law enforcement over the last year. And that wind is surely changing behavior."

That chill wind is coming from liberal leaders who don't support officers but feel they can get more political gain from chiding and persecuting law enforcement. People who assume the police are automatically guilty are just KKK lynch mobs with a different target. The racism and stereotyping have flipped, but now, it's considered acceptable.

"What could be driving an increase in murder in some cities across all regions of the country, all at the same time? What explains this map and this calendar? Why is it happening in all of different places, all over and all of a sudden?

I’ve been part of a lot of thoughtful conversations with law enforcement, elected officials, academics, and community members in recent weeks. I’ve heard a lot of theories—reasonable theories.

Maybe it’s the return of violent offenders after serving jail terms. Maybe it’s cheap heroin or synthetic drugs. Maybe after we busted up the large gangs, smaller groups are now fighting for turf. Maybe it’s a change in the justice system’s approach to bail or charging or sentencing. Maybe something has changed with respect to the availability of guns.

These are all useful suggestions, but to my mind none of them explain both the map and the calendar in disparate cities over the last 10 months.

But I’ve also heard another explanation, in conversations all over the country. Nobody says it on the record, nobody says it in public, but police and elected officials are quietly saying it to themselves. And they’re saying it to me, and I’m going to say it to you. And it is the one explanation that does explain the calendar and the map and that makes the most sense to me.

Maybe something in policing has changed.

In today’s YouTube world, are officers reluctant to get out of their cars and do the work that controls violent crime? Are officers answering 911 calls but avoiding the informal contact that keeps bad guys from standing around, especially with guns?"

(in this case, youtube is the medium, but it is still the perception of the police that is the problem - youtube has how many millions of videos and all the other people in those non-police videos aren't quitting from their jobs or holding back because someone filmed them at work.)

So- the message is that there is a stereotype of police brutality underlying every incident, and instead of improving anything, it is allowing and partially causing far more deaths in the very communities that are protesting.

"

LostForm wrote:

also, Obama said police need to engage protesters 'calmly and productively', but what do you care, you can just tack criminal in there instead and conflate it with the rest.

Here is the section I was referring to (I hadn't seen or read his interview on Good Morning America at the time I posted)

"The president told the mayors he and his administration are committed to providing any assistance needed and stressed his desire for local police to find ways to "calmly and productively" engage protesters. "

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-obama-calls-mayors-tulsa-charlotte-after-police-shootings-n652286

Which places all the emphasis on local police reactions, not protestor actions. The calmly and productively is euphemistic speech for Obama urging restraint on the police.

His message on Good Morning America (what I have seen so far) is only slighlty different in that he does address the protestors:

"President Obama called for protesters to seek out peaceful means to address concerns of racial inequalities in the American policing system. "

However, the primary problem (the misperception and presumption of systemic police guilt) is not addressed at all.

Instead Obama downplays the violence:

“[The] overwhelming majority of people who have been concerned about police-community relations [are] doing it the right way,” the president said. “Every once in a while you see folks doing it the wrong way.”

The wrong way - kind of like saying that Bill Cosby obtained sexual consent the wrong way? Or that the semi truck the protestors set on fire oxidized the wrong way?

Let's put Obama's statement in perspective for a rape:

“[The] overwhelming majority of frat boys who have been having consensual sex [are] doing it the right way,” the president said. “Every once in a while you see folks doing it the wrong way.

As for conflating protestors with criminals:

I'm pretty sure GGG doesn't want a link to a violent video, so I'll let you Google it on your own.

Charlotte, NC - September 22, 2016. Black mob viciously attacking, head stomping, dragging, and stripping a random white man in a downtown parking garage.

So, there's a crime and it sure is hell isn't protesting police violence. It's just another hate crime.

Then we have these protest.. er criminals...


Because setting another human being on fire is doing protesting the wrong way, and not at all criminal:

Rioters attempt to set a photographer on fire.


(You can google the video of it)

Or there's the death of Justin Carr - the civilian who was likely killed by other protestors (though that's preliminary as investigations are just starting)

Throwing rocks at random drivers is surely a protected form of peaceful protest isn't it?



Or is that just free speech done wrong?

"Great way to protest in support of #BlackLivesMatter. Smash up apartment windows where black people live."



If we start counting Charlotte, Tulsa, Dallas, Ferguson, Baltimore, pick your favorite top twenty "peaceful protests" it looks like more than Obama's "Every once in a while".



I'd say that car was on fire, but perhaps you think I'm conflating things?

like history is just meaningless to you or something? In case you havnt noticed, Jefferson was very very wrong in his postulates, both about the possibilities of integrated society and also the benefits of sending former slaves back to Africa.

I mean you can sit here and say Liberia has turned out better than the USA, and I am sure in another 4000 word essay you might try to, but the fact is you, and Jefferson are wrong, proved by history.

And please tell me some more about how the democratic segregation party merging with the republican party did not change the politics of either the democratic party or the republicans, because man that has got to be some mental gymnastics.


And please please please grab a few more anecdotes from charlotte to display as the larger picture, because frankly I think history is going to prove you wrong there too, even if you are contradicting the very statement you linked as the problems our country is facing and his suggested solutions.

Also you bolded the wrong part, the part you changed was:

"local police to find ways to "calmly and productively" engage protesters. "

"

Although not directly mentioning the shootings, the FBI director gave a decent perspective of how increased enforcement was working before Obama and his appointed minions of "calmly and productively" engaging criminals.

con·flate


/kənˈflāt/


verb

verb: conflate; 3rd person present: conflates; past tense: conflated; past participle: conflated; gerund or present participle: conflating




combine (two or more texts, ideas, etc.) into one.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Dalai, you're conveniently forgetting the shift in stance on civil rights

Nah, not forgetting it at all, or omitting it in an effort to obfuscate. Sometimes I leave point blank openings for other people - just to see if they are going to use any facts or history in their counter statements, or just argue from emotion.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

which began previous to and culminated in the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by Lyndon Johnson (D). Yes, it's fully accurate to say that prior to World War II, the Republicans were the party of civil rights and Democrats were the racists. But that's why lifelong racist politicians like Strom Thurmond began as Democrats, flirted with the short-lived Dixiecrat party in 1948, and switched over to Republican in 1964 after Johnson's apparent betrayal.

You are dredging up shit at least five decades out of date and trying to pass it off as current regarding the party as a whole. More specifically, prior to 1968, Hilary was a Republican. It's as if the racist transformation of the southern GOP made her flee from it.

Hillary was indeed a Goldwater girl, and I've read conflicting accounts on whether (if not both) it was the heavy racism she witnessed or the continual losing in elections that brought about her swift change in party from Republican to Democrat.

Using Hillary's status then or things like KKK members Robert Byrd as examples would be silly. Hillary's "Super Predaors" and Bill Clinton's: "Black people watch the same television as normal people." (paraphrasing - not going to dig for the actual quote atm) are indicative of a mindset that isn't rooted in all people being equal.

The civil rights movement showed the democratic party a motivated group of people that could be exploited. The immigrants are the same target for them. If the immigrants voted largely for the GOP, the democrats would be using the army, air force and marines to deport them as fast as they can.

This doesn't mean they are blatantly - restore slavery - racist. Rather that they view a large section of the US population as a commodity they can manipulate. They don't see them as individuals with rights and differing desires. They see them as a homogenous block - iow - stereotyping.

That many in the GOP leadership do this as well is certainly possible. That the GOP's primary interaction with minorities is not trying to control them for voting purposes is a big difference between the two.

Both parties are primarily driven by money. The ability of those with money to exploit others -minority citizens or immigrants, drives a large part of their campaign support.

In many cases of proposed laws - the devil is in the details of implementation. The democrats largely don't care about the details - it's full speed ahead for them. As long as they get to proclaim a PR victory, it is time to move on.

Implanting wind power turbines onto every child's forehead? That'll save the environment, pass it and move on! (for those who want a strawman to rail against that was one) A non strawman illustration would be the passage of Obamacare - very few had the time or inclination to even read through it, but they advocated and voted to pass it anyway.

Now -

As for the civil rights act, the records show the Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill in much higher percentages than the Democrats did.

House:

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

Senate:

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

Futher,

"The 1964 bill virtually mirrored Republican-backed legislation from 1875. Democrat pundits pretend that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was the creation of the Kennedy or Johnson administrations, but in fact it was an extension of the Republican Party’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts."

Had the democrats been primarily responsible for the Civil Rights Act, Time magazine wouldn't have chosen the Republican leader of the Senate to honor for passing it:

Everett Dirksen (R-Ill):




The 1875 Civil Rights Act

The Civil Rights Act of 1875 protected all Americans, regardless of race, in their access to public accommodations and facilities such as restaurants, theaters, trains and other public transportation, and protected the right to serve on juries. However, it was not enforced, and the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1883.

The legislation was written by Senator Charles Summer, a Republican from Massachusetts.