Will Trump win again???

[doctalaughs]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I am saying my everyday reality is not yours, and don’t speak in such all in compassing platitudes about conditions and situations you don’t have to experience on a daily basis. Speak for yourself relative to your own corner of the world, not some blanket platitude.

And as to your comment about white folks getting killed by cops, that’s either just ignorant or being lazy on drilling down on the statistics. Specifically, as data scientists and policing experts often note, comparing how many or how often white people are killed by police to how many or how often black people are killed by the police is statistically dubious unless you first adjust for population.
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. This means black Americans are over 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers. Facts, not pithy platitudes ...

Both this post and your next ignore the glaring fact that black Americans commit far more crime than their proportional share of the population (in fact, more than the 2.5 factor you mention).

That being said, I agree with your basic premise that there is some underlying racism that affects black Americans more than whites (the amount of this effect could be debated). However, the argument and facts listed above are not even minimally supportive of that conclusion, as it implies that black and whites should be fatally shot in the same proportion to their demographic percent when one group is far over-represented in crime....

 

[Matty44]

Already clarified. Maybe you should actually address my points first and try to legitimize faux news as still being a news outlet

Huh? You clarified nothing. And I readily admitted Fox has news and opinion. Hannity, Carlson and Ingram - opinion. Formerly Shep Smith, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace - news.

See how easy that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[medgator]

Huh? You clarified nothing. And I readily admitted Fox has news and opinion. Hannity, Carlson and Ingram - opinion. Formerly Shep Smith, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace - news.

See how easy that is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anderson is news, fareed is opinion. Again, it's not my fault you prefer Garbage outlets like faux and to a lesser degree CNN to get your news.

Try to up your standards

 

[BoolaHI]

Both this post and your next ignore the glaring fact that black Americans commit far more crime than their proportional share of the population (in fact, more than the 2.5 factor you mention).

That being said, I agree with your basic premise that there is some underlying racism that affects black Americans more than whites (the amount of this effect could be debated). However, the argument and facts listed above are not even minimally supportive of that conclusion, as it implies that black and whites should be fatally shot in the same proportion to their demographic percent when one group is far over-represented in crime....

But then the primacy of your posit implies that all crimes are differentionally equal -they most certainly not. And in fact, only a tiny sliver require the assertion or response of deadly force.

 

[Matty44]

Both this post and your next ignore the glaring fact that black Americans commit far more crime than their proportional share of the population (in fact, more than the 2.5 factor you mention).

That being said, I agree with your basic premise that there is some underlying racism that affects black Americans more than whites (the amount of this effect could be debated). However, the argument and facts listed above are not even minimally supportive of that conclusion, as it implies that black and whites should be fatally shot in the same proportion to their demographic percent when one group is far over-represented in crime....

Dude, don’t waste your breathe on him. It’s pointless. America is systemically racist. The end. Don’t argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[doctalaughs]

We, as a society, use affirmative action as a form of reparations. This is how you need to look at it. In order to make up for past discrimation the racial, ethnic, sex of the person is now a major factor in our society.

That’s why the discussion of monetary reparations is absurd. White America is already paying the cost for past misdeeds for the past 40 years.

I suppose this could be a logical way to think of AA. That being said, it’s silly for immigrants who came over from Europe in 1970, Asians and non-slaveholder descendants 4 generations later to pay “reparations”

 

[Painted]

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

The president’s businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials. One expert calls the differing numbers “versions of fraud.”

www.propublica.org

 

[BoolaHI]

Dude, don’t waste your breathe on him. It’s pointless. America is systemically racist. The end. Don’t argue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, follow Matty and his don’t blame me, of over 300 posts, that only a minuscule two dozen people have ever agreed and or liked his comments in over 10 years, yes, that’s 10 years—certainly that in itself is some SDN record—right?

But I must always be correct, because I’m seeded with that type generational oracle sage ubiquitous intelligence that dominates and subordinates any other perspective than the one of me playing in my precious suburban cul de sac and the greatness of what America was....

I thought you were done and over with me dude, bro, homie ( and stop misappropriating urban culture)....

 

[BoolaHI]

Never-Before-Seen Trump Tax Documents Show Major Inconsistencies

The president’s businesses made themselves appear more profitable to lenders and less profitable to tax officials. One expert calls the differing numbers “versions of fraud.”

www.propublica.org

Tax man comets. As I have always asserted, the hundreds of partnerships of the LLCs he has internationally will reveal not just many many conflicts of interests but probably some entanglements with both unsavory foreign partners and/or connections to sovereign funds......the easier items will be how much less he is actually worth and his manipulation of the tax system that in some instances may cross the line on fraudulent asset statements and income, which are all federal crimes.

 

[Matty44]

Anderson is news, fareed is opinion. Again, it's not my fault you prefer Garbage outlets like faux and to a lesser degree CNN to get your news.

Try to up your standards

Cooper is the least bad of the three, but is in no way a straight news anchor. They’re all opinion masquerading as straight news.

If you’re interested, ya know, since you aren’t to familiar with CNN...

Redirect Notice

I’m sure you’ll skip the link and immediately bash it as fake news cause of the URL, but it largely has commentary from a Cornell law professor and an NPR commentator.

Anyways. Just not a fan when people bash Fox and pretend CNN is real news journalism. I respect MSNBC more than CNN cause they at least have the integrity to be upfront about what they are.

 

[doctalaughs]

But then the primacy of your posit implies that all crimes are differentionally equal -they most certainly not. And in fact, only a tiny sliver require the assertion or response of deadly force.

I’m uncertain what you mean by the “primacy of your posit” - if you could elaborate.

All I’m saying is that I think the jury is still out on how large an effect bias/racism has on minorities in America today. Popular opinion is that it’s a huge, huge problem creating a cataclysm in our society. But it seems that the studies differ. For example, this recent large study implies that there is zero police bias in shootings:

White cops are no likelier to shoot dead African-Americans than black ones are

New research suggests that increasing racial diversity in police departments will not cut the number of non-white Americans shot dead by police

www.economist.com

I agree that we should continue to strive to improve. But we also have to realize that bias and racism is human nature and you’ll never have zero “bad apples.” —You can have a billion body cams but not sure it’s more effective than using dollars in other areas (such as early childhood education in minority communities to reduce crime)?

 

[Matty44]

Yeah, follow Matty and his don’t blame me, of over 300 posts, that only a minuscule two dozen people have ever agreed and or liked his comments in over 10 years, yes, that’s 10 years—certainly that in itself is some SDN record—right?

But I must always be correct, because I’m seeded with that type generational oracle sage ubiquitous intelligence that dominates and subordinates any other perspective than the one of me playing in my precious suburban cul de sac and the greatness of what America was....

I thought you were done and over with me dude, bro, homie ( and stop misappropriating urban culture)....

Culture appropriation now too? Wow. You’re a true snowflake huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

I’m uncertain what you mean by the “primacy of your posit” - if you could elaborate.

All I’m saying is that I think the jury is still out on how large an effect bias/racism has on minorities in America today. Popular opinion is that it’s a huge, huge problem creating a cataclysm in our society. But it seems that the studies differ. For example, this recent large study implies that there is zero police bias in shootings:

White cops are no likelier to shoot dead African-Americans than black ones are

New research suggests that increasing racial diversity in police departments will not cut the number of non-white Americans shot dead by police

www.economist.com

I agree that we should continue to strive to improve. But we also have to realize that bias and racism is human nature and you’ll never have zero “bad apples.” —You can have a billion body cams but not sure it’s more effective than using dollars in other areas (such as early childhood education in minority communities to reduce crime)?

Well, I can only comment as a man of color, but when that bias is squarely centered at you, and it’s underscored by a rather illustrious and graphic history of this nation and it’s actions, one cannot accept that there are a “few bad apples”, as it minimizes, and frankly patronizes the lives lost, just see the most recent examples of Dallas and Fort Worth.

 

[AMEHigh]

The 24/7 news cycle in main stream media is horrible. That doesn’t change the words and actions of this administration. Nor does it change the history of this country. The media wouldn’t report on his ridiculous tweets if he didn’t tweet them. But yes I think the coverage is ridiculous hence why I don’t have a tv and vet my news sources. The media coverage doesn’t give me a reason to vote for trump or ignore the problems of this country.

 

[BoolaHI]

It’s rather ironic, the kind of irony that borders on sardonic profundity, that one can not only submit, but profusely advance the thought that there is a media bias, but not societal bias.

This despite the history of over 250 years, laws that dictated racial subordination, slanted public policy and governance, incredible structural inequities that result in the lack of capacity and infrastructure and probably the most important, absolute control and dissemination of both the history and surrounding narrative that paints a flattering and rather revisionism in favor of the dominant culture.

So yes to media bias but not societal bias????

 

[BoolaHI]

Culture appropriation now too? Wow. You’re a true snowflake huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Huh, name calling huh? From the boy who couldn’t walk across 110th street without a permission slip or armed guard...so, where do we call home that supports you, ahem 24 likes over 10 years—no need to answer, no is interested.

 

[Matty44]

Huh, name calling huh? From the boy who couldn’t walk across 110th street without a permission slip or armed guard...so, where do we call home that supports you, ahem 24 likes over 10 years—no need to answer, no is interested.

When you start crying and claiming that “dude” and “bro” are YOUR words or words that don’t belong to my culture -despite you having no clue what my culture is, and that somehow I’m not allowed to use them, then yeah, that makes you a cute little snowflake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

When you start crying and claiming that “dude” and “bro” are YOUR words or words that don’t belong to my culture -despite you having no clue what my culture is, and that somehow I’m not allowed to use them, then yeah, that makes you a cute little snowflake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The funny thing is , since you been talking so much, 3 folks have deleted likes or approval of your comments (careful you might get down to single digits by the end of the day) —ahh, the consummate consensus builder and practitioner of servant leadership you exude is instructional and inspirational— not.

 

[Matty44]

The funny thing is , since you been talking so much, 3 folks have deleted likes or approval of your comments (careful you might get down to single digits by the end of the day) —ahh, the consummate consensus builder and practitioner of servant leadership you exude is instructional and inspirational— not.

Consensus isn’t the arbiter of truth my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

An neither is some outlier who would desperately argue a micro point (media bias) but then deny the greater macro truth ( and deny the rich and documented history of both structural and political bias towards dominant white society), sounds like the folly of a fool and the errand of a pillock git.

And I though you were over me, why so much attention to me, when you previously announced you were not going to respond anymore, can we also add liar to your illustrious CV.....

 

[vector2]

Systemic racism is too difficult to understand for many if they've grown up in a such an insulated life and culture that the experience of living as a person of color is just a mere abstraction. They assume that since they've never been overtly racist to someone and they've never seen their friends or family be overtly racist, that therefore the people who claim there is a systemic problem must be either exaggerating or lying.

Overt racism (aka the 3000 KKK members) is significantly different from institutional racism. Lee Atwater, adviser to Reagan, really phrased it the best in 1981:

------------------------------
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****". By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone.
------------------------------



Institutional racism rears its head in much more insidious ways than the shaved mouthbreathers at Charlottesville. Institutional racism is the experience that people of color have had in:

1. Job discrimination as evidenced by the study I posted earlier about resume callbacks based on "black" and "white" names. Keep in mind, that study was from 2004, not 1964. And it was based off classified ads posted in Chicago and Boston newspapers. Just imagine the results if it was the south or the heartland.

2. Housing discrimination. Just 5 years ago a New Jersey bank paid a huge settlement because out of 1900 mortgages, only 25 went to minority applicants. Minority homeownership and wealth still hasn't caught up because discrimination that lasted 150 years is still going on in many places.

3. Criminal justice discrimination. This goes back hundreds of years and could take up a whole thread on its own. But it's plainly obvious the racism involved in the crack vs. powder cocaine issue, drug sentencing in general, likelihood of blacks vs. whites to get death penalty, and the fact that blacks get 20% longer sentences than whites for committing the same crime.

4. While higher education has come much farther over the years, primary education is still subject to significant institutional racism in that so many school districts are subject to funding based on property taxes. White flight from the 1950s to now is what decimated the educational systems of many metro and urban areas, so I think it is only fair that affirmative action exists if opportunity is not equal in the years leading up to college.

 

[Matty44]

An neither is some outlier who would desperately argue a micro point (media bias) but then deny the greater macro truth ( and deny the rich and documented history of both structural and political bias towards dominant white society), sounds like the folly of a fool and the errand of a pillock git.

And I though you were over me, why so much attention to me, when you previously announced you were not going to respond anymore, can we also add liar to your illustrious CV.....

I’m done trying to convince you of anything, I’ve determined that is pointless. I’ll respond to any post I like though dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

I’m done trying to convince you of anything, I’ve determined that is pointless. I’ll respond to any post I like though dude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You sure you can — did you ask your mom -do you need to check in/careful going without snacks and a juice box can be brutal.

 

[pgg]

Zakaria feels more opinionated.

There's also that whole serial plagiarism thing that CNN didn't seem to care about, beyond a brief suspension. I still can't believe that guy kept his job. WTF, CNN?

Npr >>> cnn or faux

Totally agree. Though they do have one news anchor, I don't remember her name, who routinely asks incredibly leading and biased questions in her interviews. (She has an weird almost slurring voice too, which is astonishing for a person who's hired to work in radio.) I can't stand to listen to her. Nails-on-chalkboard voice. Reflexive eyerolling is a hazard while driving too.

CNN's been a laughingstock for the better part of a decade now. Even other liberalish outlets and pundits make fun of them.

And Fox is, well, Fox. Shepard Smith just quit, and he was one of the few people there I had any respect for.

 

[Matty44]

There's also that whole serial plagiarism thing that CNN didn't seem to care about, beyond a brief suspension. I still can't believe that guy kept his job. WTF, CNN?

CNN's been a laughingstock for the better part of a decade now. Even other liberalish outlets and pundits make fun of them.
[/ QUOTE]

Thank you. At least there’s one person who knows the truth about the most trusted name in news [emoji2961]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gern Blansten]

Its a simple question. Do Lemon, Cuomo and Cooper claim to be new anchors or opinion journalists. It’s quite easy for me to delineate the hosts at Fox News, and I already have. Can you not to do the same? CNN claims they are all straight news. Just curious if you believe they are news or opinion. Is that so hard for you to answer?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know you didn't ask me, but I do not believe that Anderson Cooper is a straight news guy.

 

[Matty44]

I know you didn't ask me, but I do not believe that Anderson Cooper is a straight news guy.

Lol [emoji23]

I see what you did there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[d9sccr]

That's where you're unbelievably, undeniably wrong. Maybe you havent noticed, but the only people on the right who have spoken out against Trump are those who are resigning, not seeking reelection for a few years or ever, or switching parties (Flake, Amash, Romney etc). Anyone who dares will get ripped on Twitter and primaried so fast it would make their head spin. Even superwarhawk Lindsey Graham can only manage a "pretty please daddy won't you reconsider?" in light of the debacle unfolding in Syria.

A couple other things.

1. No full vote is required to open an impeachment inquiry although I suspect Nancy will do so soon anyway just to shut everyone up. Additionally, I suspect Mitch will create a farce or a charade when the Senate holds a trial, however that is constitutionally his prerogative.

2. Republicans changed the rules in 2015 to allow unilateral House subpoena power which they employed dozens and dozen of times while Obama officials complied. Now in true hypocritical form they are brewing a constitutional crisis by not complying with House subpoena power. Absolutely shameful.

3. Please research how long it took Republicans to come around to impeachment during the Watergate hearings. You honestly could not be anymore wrong when you say "he'd have been impeached already"

4. About the tax return thing, saying "nowhere required to do so" is sad commentary about the standard to which you think we should hold a president

Thus far, at least publicly, he's said nothing treasonous. There's a legal definition for treason, he's not met that. That's all I'm saying. Like I said before, he says a lot of crap. If you're aware of something that the entire Democratic party and their media have missed, by all means let them know.

1) You are correct, no vote is required to initiate an impeachment inquiry, however, the subpoena power of the house is limited to legislative powers without the authorization of the chamber. Pelosi can't just scream impeachment inquiry and that is sufficient, at least if past precedent is used (precedent appears to be quite important to you regarding tax returns, why is it not an issue here?) Thus far the "subpoenas" reportedly carry no penalty for non-compliance, because they're not actually subpoenas, but requests at this point. At least that's the Republican argument. You can disagree and insist the Pelosi screaming impeachment is authorization enough, but nobody really knows. There isn't a textbook for this. The Speaker hasn't been given that power by past precedent or written law whereas there has been a vote in the past to proceed with this. It'll likely go to the courts if they don't vote. Trump and the Republicans are attempting to force a vote because there are a lot of purple seats that would have to either vote to proceed or not, something Pelosi isn't willing to do at this time.

I was referring to it as a faux-inquiry on the basis that the House have their narrative and now looking for confirmation bias. That's what it appears to be on the surface and there's no release of countervailing evidence according to Republicans sitting in on these committees.

2) Straight whataboutism. Let's stop with the revisionist history that the Obama administration was free from scandal and completely compliant. Fast and Furious comes to mind when Holder was held in contempt...I'm sure there were more instances. That said, this isn't "business as usual" in term of impeachment being an every day thing. I assume that the other reason Pelosi hasn't held a vote is because past precedent allows the minority party to have subpoena power as well.

3) If he met the actual criteria for being blatantly treasonous, he'd have been impeached. There's no way around that. You're making the Republican party out to be something it isn't. A big part of the reason not everyone was on board with the Watergate impeachment initially is because it still isn't known who ordered the entire thing. The cover-up is what got Nixon, not the crime.

4) He isn't required to release his returns. The house could've passed a bill to change that. They haven't. Why? At least then they could point to Cocaine Mitch as being a roadblock. Let's not act like the standards of the office dropping started with Trump. He certainly has worsened it, but Obama and Clinton did plenty as well.

 

[Gern Blansten]

When did arguments start getting decided by how many likes a person has? Even worse, people going back in to remove likes.


CNN has been a joke for years and is so anti-Trump that it is embarrassing. They deliver opinion only. Fox is insufferably pro republican. Sean Hannity is like nails on a chalkboard for me.
MSNBC is an embarrassment to watch (and no one does). Rachel Maddow's election night coverage when Trump won was an embarrassment. I can't believe she still has a job in the news industry with the meltdown she had that night.

 

[Matty44]

When did arguments start getting decided by how many likes a person has? Even worse, people going back in to remove likes.


CNN has been a joke for years and is so anti-Trump that it is embarrassing. They deliver opinion only. Fox is insufferably pro republican. Sean Hannity is like nails on a chalkboard for me.
MSNBC is an embarrassment to watch (and no one does). Rachel Maddow's election night coverage when Trump won was an embarrassment. I can't believe she still has a job in the news industry with the meltdown she had that night.

About the same time science started to be decided by consensus. And when truth became relative, secondary to “your truth.” And when opinions started to be ranked based on the person’s level of perceived oppression. No longer are rationality and logic useful, just perception.

It’s truly sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[d9sccr]

Systemic racism is too difficult to understand for many if they've grown up in a such an insulated life and culture that the experience of living as a person of color is just a mere abstraction. They assume that since they've never been overtly racist to someone and they've never seen their friends or family be overtly racist, that therefore the people who claim there is a systemic problem must be either exaggerating or lying.

Overt racism (aka the 3000 KKK members) is significantly different from institutional racism. Lee Atwater, adviser to Reagan, really phrased it the best in 1981:

------------------------------
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now you don't have to do that. All that you need to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues that he's campaigned on since 1964, and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "N*****, n*****, n*****". By 1968 you can't say "n*****"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this", is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "N*****, n*****". So, any way you look at it, race is coming on the backbone.
------------------------------



Institutional racism rears its head in much more insidious ways than the shaved mouthbreathers at Charlottesville. Institutional racism is the experience that people of color have had in:

1. Job discrimination as evidenced by the study I posted earlier about resume callbacks based on "black" and "white" names. Keep in mind, that study was from 2004, not 1964. And it was based off classified ads posted in Chicago and Boston newspapers. Just imagine the results if it was the south or the heartland.

2. Housing discrimination. Just 5 years ago a New Jersey bank paid a huge settlement because out of 1900 mortgages, only 25 went to minority applicants. Minority homeownership and wealth still hasn't caught up because discrimination that lasted 150 years is still going on in many places.

3. Criminal justice discrimination. This goes back hundreds of years and could take up a whole thread on its own. But it's plainly obvious the racism involved in the crack vs. powder cocaine issue, drug sentencing in general, likelihood of blacks vs. whites to get death penalty, and the fact that blacks get 20% longer sentences than whites for committing the same crime.

4. While higher education has come much farther over the years, primary education is still subject to significant institutional racism in that so many school districts are subject to funding based on property taxes. White flight from the 1950s to now is what decimated the educational systems of many metro and urban areas, so I think it is only fair that affirmative action exists if opportunity is not equal in the years leading up to college.

I personally think this a huge issue and not one just limited to urban areas. There's probably a larger gap between urban and suburban than suburban and rural areas in terms of poor public education. Suburban schools, at least in my experience, are far superior to both urban and rural schooling. The rural gap is understandable just based on numbers and who would want to live there. All we've done the past 20 years is recklessly spend money we don't have, how some of this hasn't been redirected into public schooling is beyond me. It's something that literally everyone can benefit from. Maybe we need to look at technology as the answer to bridge this gap. Online courses being taught by the best teachers we can find would certainly help level the playing field. Increased quality of education may also help more people in the long term than AA, which often helps out people that are going to succeed on some level anyway

 

[Splenda88]

A moderator should close this thread...

 

[Matty44]

A moderator should close this thread...

On what basis?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Splenda88]

Because it is no longer on topic...

 

[Matty44]

Because is it no longer on topic...

The topic of whether trump will win or not is largely based on society’s views of political and social issues, which is the topic of discussion. You don’t need to read the posts if you’re not interested.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pgg]

A moderator should close this thread...

Because is it no longer on topic...

This thread has nearly 50 pages and ~2000 posts in it. It's about 4 months old. Threads like that meander. This thread will probably remain active until next November, when it gets replaced with either "Holy $*(#@ Trump won again" or possibly "Holy $*(#@ Warren won" ...

We talk about off-topic things in this forum. It's generally better to let off-topic threads drift than have lots of new threads cluttering up the place.

In general, if you think a thread should be closed, report it and moderators will discuss it. (No need to report this thread for the reason you posted though, it won't get closed.)

 

[BoolaHI]

About the same time science started to be decided by consensus. And when truth became relative, secondary to “your truth.” And when opinions started to be ranked based on the person’s level of perceived oppression. No longer are rationality and logic useful, just perception.

It’s truly sad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Perceived oppression? Nothing perceived about it...within my own generation I had relatives that could not register to vote, that could not attend state universities, that could not obtain loans, could not just receive public services but often were relegated to subordinate themselves to white people, that could not marry who they wanted, could not own property, child please, there is nothing perceive about any of these stark realities.

 

[Matty44]

Perceived oppression? Nothing perceived about it...within my own generation I had relatives that could not register to vote, that could not attend state universities, that could not obtain loans, could not just receive public services but often were relegated to subordinate themselves to white people, that could not marry who they wanted, could not own property, child please, there is nothing perceive about any of these stark realities.

You love to twist stuff around don’t you? I was commenting on the state of our current culture and the oppression olympics of the left where status and authority is given to the most marginalized group. It wasn’t a comment on race 50-150 years ago. Simmer down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

You love to twist stuff around don’t you? I was commenting on the state of our current culture and the oppression olympics of the left where status and authority is given to the most marginalized group. It wasn’t a comment on race 50-150 years ago. Simmer down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To you, you have absolutely no culpability and further no nexus to those past actions, because you not only a direct benefactor of the status quo, but also want to have the ability to eat your cake as well, so to also experience the freedom and liberation from that period. Again, so have a serious media bias, but not a huge societal bias that has 250 years of documented history.....strange how you can rationalize and bifurcate such similar topics.

 

[Matty44]

To you, you have absolutely no culpability and further no nexus to those past actions, because you not only a direct benefactor of the status quo, but also want to have the ability to eat your cake as well, so to also experience the freedom and liberation from that period. Again, so have a serious media bias, but not a huge societal bias that has 250 years of documented history.....strange how you can rationalize and bifurcate such similar topics.

So what would you have us do to rectify the sins of the past? What current day policies/laws/systemic problems need to be changed? Things were unfair to minorities in the past. I get it dude, I’m not an idiot. What’s the solution? Affirmative action? Reparations? You rant on and on about the past, what needs to be done to counteract the bias of the last 250 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

So what would you have us do to rectify the sins of the past? What current day policies/laws/systemic problems need to be changed? Things were unfair to minorities in the past. I get it dude, I’m not an idiot. What’s the solution? Affirmative action? Reparations? You rant on and on about the past, what needs to be done to counteract the bias of the last 250 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rant? Let’s see what happens if you were under the thumb of someone for over 200 years because of the mere appearance of your skin color—Rant would be the mildest of cathartic responses.

 

[Matty44]

Rant? Let’s see what happens if you were under the thumb of someone for over 200 years because of the mere appearance of your skin color—Rant would be the mildest of cathartic responses.

Case in point. You never respond. You just rant. What’s your solution to the problem? More ranting? Doesn’t do anything. Complaining everyone’s racist? Not productive. The past sucked? Ok, so what needs to be changed today? As far as I know, there aren’t any racist laws in place today, you aren’t legally allowed to pay minorities or women less. If someone is caught doing anything remotely discriminatory, they get destroyed in the media, shamed, and prosecuted if there are legal grounds to do so. Yeah, some people still harbor racist feelings, but as others have mentioned, you’re never gonna get that number to zero. So what are you pushing for politically?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Splenda88]

Case in point. You never respond. You just rant. What’s your solution to the problem? More ranting? Doesn’t do anything. Complaining everyone’s racist? Not productive. The past sucked? Ok, so what needs to be changed today? As far as I know, there aren’t any racist laws in place today, you aren’t legally allowed to pay minorities or women less. If someone is caught doing anything remotely discriminatory, they get destroyed in the media, shamed, and prosecuted if there are legal grounds to do so. Yeah, some people still harbor racist feelings, but as others have mentioned, you’re never gonna get that number to zero. So what are you pushing for politically?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, a lot people who harbor these feeling are in position of power... I am sure you got the point that the other poster was trying to make.

 

[Matty44]

Well, a lot people who harbor these feeling are in position of power... I am sure you got the point that the other poster was trying to make.

Right. And they keep making all those racist laws like......?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AMEHigh]

So what would you have us do to rectify the sins of the past? What current day policies/laws/systemic problems need to be changed? Things were unfair to minorities in the past. I get it dude, I’m not an idiot. What’s the solution? Affirmative action? Reparations? You rant on and on about the past, what needs to be done to counteract the bias of the last 250 years?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We're not talking about the past.
For the 500th time racism and sexism (homophobia and xenophobia) are still a problem TODAY, RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT.
Like I said previously there is extensive research on this, so you can read up about it if you do actually care. (We already posted above about how voter ID laws and gerrymandering for example need to change).
I posted problematic policies and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
And yep I think we will continue to "rant and be hysterical" about it until 1) people recognize the problems (which many people in this post seem to have difficulty doing) and 2) people do something about it.

 

[vector2]

Thus far, at least publicly, he's said nothing treasonous. There's a legal definition for treason, he's not met that. That's all I'm saying. Like I said before, he says a lot of crap. If you're aware of something that the entire Democratic party and their media have missed, by all means let them know.

1) You are correct, no vote is required to initiate an impeachment inquiry, however, the subpoena power of the house is limited to legislative powers without the authorization of the chamber. Pelosi can't just scream impeachment inquiry and that is sufficient, at least if past precedent is used (precedent appears to be quite important to you regarding tax returns, why is it not an issue here?) Thus far the "subpoenas" reportedly carry no penalty for non-compliance, because they're not actually subpoenas, but requests at this point. At least that's the Republican argument. You can disagree and insist the Pelosi screaming impeachment is authorization enough, but nobody really knows. There isn't a textbook for this. The Speaker hasn't been given that power by past precedent or written law whereas there has been a vote in the past to proceed with this. It'll likely go to the courts if they don't vote. Trump and the Republicans are attempting to force a vote because there are a lot of purple seats that would have to either vote to proceed or not, something Pelosi isn't willing to do at this time.

I was referring to it as a faux-inquiry on the basis that the House have their narrative and now looking for confirmation bias. That's what it appears to be on the surface and there's no release of countervailing evidence according to Republicans sitting in on these committees.

I'm absolutely baffled as how you can mischaracterize anything going on as "Pelosi screaming impeachment inquiry" when Trump and the whistleblower essentially started this whole thing by coming right on out and revealing the wrongdoing. - aka asking or even extorting a foreign power to investigate your chief political rival to help oneself in an election. And then it was revealed in text transcripts that Sondland is covering it up to various State Dept members. And then it was revealed that the audio transcript was moved to a top secret classified server for no other reason than to continue covering it up. And then it was revealed that Trump's stooge of a personal attorney (who, for god knows what reason, is "investigating corruption" with foreign countries at the behest of somebody even though he's not a US govt employee) is now under investigation and the four goons he was working with have already been arrested while trying to flee the country and indicted. And then it was revealed that John Bolton (yes, John f***** Bolton of all people) was so alarmed by what was going on that he wanted the NSC attorney notified.

And yes, the whole point of the Constitution and the House rules is that an inquiry can proceed without some mythical vote. I know this because the Constitution purposefully leaves the "guidelines" very broad as it is one the most essential powers in the branches being able to check each other. If you want to speak about precedent, consider for a second that the inquiry for Nixon originated in the Senate judiciary committee, not the House. Or that the facts about Slick Willy that led to impeachment originated from the independent counsel, not the House.

To be absolutely clear, I think they should hold an inquiry vote as well, but the talk of there being some kind of a lawsuit in regard to the line the House is currently taking is a pipedream. Constitutionally, the only thing the House actually has to vote on are the actual articles of impeachment. The only lawsuits coming in the future will be those related to ignoring House subpoenas.

2) Straight whataboutism. Let's stop with the revisionist history that the Obama administration was free from scandal and completely compliant. Fast and Furious comes to mind when Holder was held in contempt...I'm sure there were more instances. That said, this isn't "business as usual" in term of impeachment being an every day thing. I assume that the other reason Pelosi hasn't held a vote is because past precedent allows the minority party to have subpoena power as well.

Yes, straight whataboutism is what you're engaging in with your second point; I'm glad you titled it. I was giving you and everyone else a history of how the current usage of House subpoena came to be and the precedent upon which its usage was built. Compliance with subpoenas has been the norm for both parties until the 2015 GOP House blew it up in the name of unilateral power; that is a fact, not whataboutism. I didn't vote for Obama and I'm not an Obama apologist, but you're living on Mars if you think you can compare the relative amount of scandal in the Clinton, GWB, or Obama administrations combined to the clownshow that's going on now. Do I really have to list the number of people in the Trump orbit who have been sentenced to prison since he started campaigning and was elected, or the number of people in the administration who have resigned due to grift and corruption? Do I have to remind you that Trump is Individual 1, the unindicted co-conspirator in the campaign finance charge for which Michael Cohen is currently in prison?

3) If he met the actual criteria for being blatantly treasonous, he'd have been impeached. There's no way around that. You're making the Republican party out to be something it isn't. A big part of the reason not everyone was on board with the Watergate impeachment initially is because it still isn't known who ordered the entire thing. The cover-up is what got Nixon, not the crime.

Again, you're either gaslighting or just being very naive if you think that's true. Putting aside for a moment whether Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors (he has), it takes a herculean amount of toothpulling to get a member of the GOP to admit that they might disagree with Trump just a little, and rightly so since Trump still holds an 85-90%+ approval rating within the party and wields his twitter page and ability to instigate a primary like a hammer (look at the fates of Corker, Flake, Hurd, Amash). The degree of stockholm syndrome is so extreme that Trump was literally able to insult a man's wife appearance and imply the man's father killed JFK, and that man is still sucking up to him. It's pathetic. The bungling in Syria has even started a new movement by Kellyanne Conway's husband to get people on the right to stop being cowards and actually mention Trump's name when they disagree with him. It's even more embarrassing to watch GOP members deflect on whether plainly inappropriate behavior by a president is, indeed, inappropriate.

You know it and I know it, Trump's line about being able to shoot someone on 5th avenue has started to skew more reality than fantasy. Trump's cabal will protect him at all costs. Similar to Nixon, the narrative will only change if public sentiment for impeachment shifts even higher than it is currently.

4) He isn't required to release his returns. The house could've passed a bill to change that. They haven't. Why? At least then they could point to Cocaine Mitch as being a roadblock. Let's not act like the standards of the office dropping started with Trump. He certainly has worsened it, but Obama and Clinton did plenty as well.

We're in agreement, the House absolutely should pass a bill. In the meantime, New York and California have both passed laws requiring the release of his returns and Trump has ignored them and challenged them in court. And more whataboutism with Clinton and Obama, yawn.

Additionally, look at the following:

"The United States House Committee on Ways and Means has formally requested from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) six years of Trump's returns. As of April 23, 2019, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has refused to comply with the second deadline given by the committee.[12][13] On May 10, 2019, committee chairman Richard Neal subpoenaed the Treasury Department and the IRS for the returns and seven days later the subpoenas were defied.[14][15] On May 20, 2019, a judge upheld the House subpoenas and rejected a lawsuit which Trump filed to keep his tax and financial records secret.[16][17] The judge also denied a requested stay of his order.[18] A draft IRS legal memo, written in fall 2018 and reported in May 2019, concluded that the IRS must provide the requested tax returns to Congress unless Trump invokes executive privilege, contradicting the administration's justification for defying the earlier subpoena.[19] "

So once again, Trump continues to break the law and not comply with the request from ways and means.


Beyond the legalese, I'm curious as to why you think he so vehemently, desperately doesn't want them released, to the point that he has already sued everyone who has access to them to get them not to release the returns if they are subpoena'ed. Do you even care, or is it a la-dee-dah, not important, bury my head in the sand sort of issue for you?

 

[Splenda88]

Right. And they keep making all those racist laws like......?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you really think only laws can have an impact on society? You can not be serious!

 

[Ezekiel2517]

The most reasonable voice in this thread has been Blade. Lol

 

[BoolaHI]

Case in point. You never respond. You just rant. What’s your solution to the problem? More ranting? Doesn’t do anything. Complaining everyone’s racist? Not productive. The past sucked? Ok, so what needs to be changed today? As far as I know, there aren’t any racist laws in place today, you aren’t legally allowed to pay minorities or women less. If someone is caught doing anything remotely discriminatory, they get destroyed in the media, shamed, and prosecuted if there are legal grounds to do so. Yeah, some people still harbor racist feelings, but as others have mentioned, you’re never gonna get that number to zero. So what are you pushing for politically?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So borrowing guidelines and the host of class actions against banks (all won ) against banks and their lending practices specific to minority communities -sure don’t fool yourself.

 

[Painted]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies