Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Do you really think only laws can have an impact on society? You can not be serious!

No, but this is a political thread, and lots of conversation centered around Trump and his racism, which should probably be self evident in his racist laws which he is of course making if he’s truly racist, right?


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.

I’ve read more about the voter ID stuff since we last talked about it. I still don’t buy that it’s racist. You can show data that less minorities vote if ID is required, but that doesn’t really make it racist. Maybe those minorities that end up not voting just simply don’t care enough to spend the bit of time it takes to get an ID required. It’s not like anyone’s asking people to pay a certain amount of money or be of a certain status or location or some other requirement meant to weed people out. It’s a simple ID. And as someone else alluded to, you need ID in this country for NUMEROUS things, it seems pretty mild to require ID in something as important as an election. Did you need an ID to take the MCAT? Did that make medical school admissions racist?


Gerrymandering....yeah, both sides do it. It’s not great either way, but it happens a bunch.

So yeah, still not seeing much Trump has done that is racist policy wise. And still not convince there’s much in the way of systemic, legal racism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
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.

Good. What’s your point? Sounds like the system works, no? Banks have bad practices, practices get called out, banks lose in the court of law. That doesn’t mean systemic racism exists. It means some people did some bad stuff and got in trouble. So what do you want?

It’s like all the stuff about cops and racism and unarmed black people getting killed. As was mentioned earlier, when adjusted for for variables such as type of crime, etc the amount of whites and blacks killed by cops is about equal. And the amount of white cops that kill black and black cops that kill blacks is about equal. And when a cop is found to have acted poorly/racially/whatever and uses force out of his scope of duty, or heaven for bid, kills someone unlawfully, they are prosecuted. That doesn’t mean there’s systemic racism.

Systemic racism is means the system is racist. Hard to decipher, I know. Further, that would mean that there are guidelines and laws in the system that are racist, I.e. Jim Crow laws. I just don’t see those things existing today. And if voter ID laws and gerrymandering are the worst of it, I’d say that’s a pretty weak case for systemic racism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
One more time about the racism of voter ID since Matty's reading comprehension leaves something to be desired:

"
North Carolina
In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.[61] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.[62][63] On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.[64]


Texas
In July 2016, a federal appeals court found that Texas's voter ID law discriminated against black and Hispanic voters because only a few types of ID were allowed; for example, military IDs and concealed carry permits were allowed, but state employee photo IDs and university photo IDs were not.


Alabama
In 2018, critics have accused the state of intentionally disenfranchising non-white voters, aided by the Supreme Court which, in its Shelby County v. Holder 5-4 decision, allowed jurisdictions with a history of suppression of minority voters to avoid continuing to abide by federal preclearance requirements for changes in voter registration and casting of ballots.[73] Within 24 hours of the ruling, Alabama implemented a 2011 law requiring specific types of photo I.D. to be presented. The state closed DMV offices in eight of ten counties which had the highest percentage black population, but only three in the ten counties with the lowest black population. In 2016, Alabama's Secretary of State (SOS) John Merrill began a process to require proof of citizenship from voters, despite Merrill saying he did not know of a single case where a non-citizen had voted. Purging of voter rolls is another method of disenfranchisement and it was done so aggressively in Alabama. Even four-term Republican Representative Mo Brooks who, in March 2018, was rated the House's least bipartisan member by The Lugar Center and who was a candidate in 2017, for the seat relinquished by Jeff Sessions, found that he himself had been purged from the rolls. Merrill also refused to publicize the passage of legislation that enabled some 60,000 Alabaman former felons to vote.[74][75] Alabama's new requirement regarding proof of citizenship, had been approved by federal Election Assistance Commission Director Brian Newby, an associate of voter disenfranchisement advocate, Kansas SOS and Republican Gubernatorial nominee, Kris Kobach.[76] Kobach was cited as a primary author of Alabama HB 56, passed in 2010, which was described as tougher than Arizona's law.[77] Much of the law was invalidated on appeal at various levels of appeals courts or voluntarily withdrawn or reworded.[78][79][80]


Georgia
In Louisville, Georgia, in October 2018, Black senior citizens were told to get off a bus that was to have taken them to a polling place for early voting. The bus trip was supposed to have been part of the "South Rising" bus tour sponsored by the advocacy group Black Voters Matter. A clerk of the local Jefferson County Commission allegedly called the intended voters' senior center to claim that the bus tour constituted "'political activity,'" which is barred at events sponsored by the county. Latosha Brown, one of the founders of Black Voters Matter, described the trip's prevention as a clear-cut case of "'voter intimidation. This is voter suppression, Southern style.'" The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund sent a letter to the county calling for an "'immediate investigation'" into the incident, which it condemned as "'an unacceptable act of voter intimidation'" that "'potentially violates several laws.'"[81]

Georgia's Secretary of State, Brian Kemp, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, was the official in charge of determining whether or not voters will be allowed to vote in the November 2018 election and has been accused of voter suppression. Despite being prevented by a court from implementing wholesale disenfranchisement, thanks to Kemp's "Exact Match" policy, the state legislature wrote a new law in 2017 that facilitates use of the strategy. Minority voters are statistically more likely to have names that contain hyphens, suffixes or other punctuation that can make it more difficult to match their name in databases, experts noted, and are more likely to have their voter applications suspended by Kemp's office. Barry C. Burden, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and director of its Elections Research Center said, "An unrealistic rule of this sort will falsely flag many legitimate registration forms. Moreover, the evidence indicates that minority residents are more likely to be flagged than are whites." Kemp has suspended the applications of 53,000 voters, a majority of whom are minorities. "Even if everyone who is on a pending list is eventually allowed to vote, it places more hurdles in the way of those voters on the list, who are disproportionately black and Hispanic," said Charles Stewart III, Professor of Political Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[82]

Georgia officials kept hundreds of voting machines locked in warehouses on Election Day 2018, creating a shortage at the polls.[83]

North Dakota
An ID law in North Dakota which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans was overturned in July 2016.
The judge wrote, "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."[58]

Wisconsin[edit source]
In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.[58] A study by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, estimates that strict ID laws in Wisconsin led to a significant decrease in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate effect on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters.[68][69]


"
 
What was it Ilhan Omar said about some people who did some things? I guess by your logic radical islamic terrorism must not exist then./sarcasm

No, but by my logic, your logic doesn’t exist. I’m glad you picked up on the layers of meaning and sarcasm in my post. But even if I wasn’t mocking Omar with my wording, mimicking her poor choice of words wouldn’t be implying that terrorism doesn’t exist. I said some people did some bad stuff (bad banking) and were punished. How in your logic does that imply my belief in the lack of its existence?

But nice attempt at sarcasm I guess...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Yes, those former cops will do time for murder. They committed a high crime and never had the temperament to be police officers. There needs to be a better way to screen these people psychologically before giving them a gun and a badge.

Police need to be more like social workers when possible and less like Swat or special forces.
 
No, but by my logic, your logic doesn’t exist. I’m glad you picked up on the layers of meaning and sarcasm in my post. But even if I wasn’t mocking Omar with my wording, mimicking her poor choice of words wouldn’t be implying that terrorism doesn’t exist. I said some people did some bad stuff (bad banking) and were punished. How in your logic does that imply my belief in the lack of its existence?

But nice attempt at sarcasm I guess...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The analogy works because you are disputing that institutional racism exists. You are claiming that the banks, or voting commissioners in voter ID law states, or the various judges who end up with racial sentencing disparities, or employers who don't call back qualified people named Lakisha, or cops who kill unarmed black people are all individually culpable for their behavior, but that there is no greater systemic or institutional problem. That is as stupid as claiming that the individual Saudis had no unification of behavior or ideology when they perpetrated 9/11. You'll understand this as soon as you realize that Jim Crow followed society's preexisting beliefs and ideologies, not the other way around.

The ultimate point you're missing though is that you think institutional racism is synonymous with "THE LAW." Historically, it probably used to correlate much more (see the Lee Atwater quote earlier), but nowadays you can't use absence of evidence vis a vis codified racism to mean evidence of absence. The fact is, progress has been made, however because we live in a small-L liberal democracy there is still a wide berth for citizens, corporations, and local govts to operate, and many times their (perfectly legal) practices and policies end up being unfair or racist unless something is "affirmatively" done to combat them. You have already presupposed that institutional racism doesn't exist, so I don't expect any evidence would convince you, but I hope the lurkers might pick up on and learn about some aspects of the system (criminal justice, economic, employment, housing, voting) that remain unjust to this day.
 
Last edited:
The ultimate point you're missing though is that you think institutional racism is synonymous with "THE LAW." Historically, it probably used to correlate much more (see the Lee Atwater quote earlier), but nowadays you can't use absence of evidence vis a vis codified racism to mean evidence of absence. The fact is, progress has been made, however because we live in a small-L liberal democracy there is still a wide berth for citizens and corporations to operate, and many times the practices end up being unfair or racist unless something is "affirmatively" done to combat them You have already presupposed that institutional racism doesn't exist, so I don't expect any evidence would convince you, but I hope the lurkers might pick up some on some aspects of the system (criminal justice, economic, employment, housing, voting) that remain unjust to this day.[/B][/B]


Ah ha! NOW you’re getting it. That’s exactly my point. What affirmatively needs to be done? That’s what I keep asking. Systemic racism, in the form of laws and policies, we’ve done away with already. People are punished when they break the law. So what’s left? People named Lakisha getting 50 percent less interviews than people named something more ‘white.’ Ok, soooooo WHAT DO YOU WANT AFFIRMATIVELY done to deal with that? That’s the heart of my point on all of this. You want to make people have quotas for every interview? You want affirmative action in more areas of life? What?

Society as a whole has moved from the spectrum of slavery to segregation to non-segregation with hard racism to soft racism/today. America is less racist than it has ever been in history and yet the cries of racism fly from the hilltops daily. And if you ever want to move to a place where it’s almost non-existent, then we need to stop making it a point of everyday life. Stop brainwashing kids into thinking America is a racist hell-whole where everyone is systemically oppressed. The legal work has been done to eliminate legal racism. Call out REAL racism when it actually exists and deal with it quickly and forcefully. Then move on. But the way the media especially, and the left focus on intersectionality and oppression SO much, I feel it does the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Ah ha! NOW you’re getting it. That’s exactly my point. What affirmatively needs to be done? That’s what I keep asking. Systemic racism, in the form of laws and policies, we’ve done away with already. People are punished when they break the law. So what’s left? People named Lakisha getting 50 percent less interviews than people named something more ‘white.’ Ok, soooooo WHAT DO YOU WANT AFFIRMATIVELY done to deal with that? That’s the heart of my point on all of this. You want to make people have quotas for every interview? You want affirmative action in more areas of life? What?

Society as a whole has moved from the spectrum of slavery to segregation to non-segregation with hard racism to soft racism/today. America is less racist than it has every been in history and yet the cries of racism fly from the hilltops daily. And if you ever want to move to a place where it’s almost non-existent, then we need to stop making it a point of everyday life. Stop brainwashing kids into thinking America is a racist hell-whole where everyone is systemically oppressed. The legal work has been done to eliminate legal racism. Call out REAL racism when it actually exists and deal with it quickly and forcefully. Then move on. But the way the media especially, and the left focus on intersectionality and oppression SO much, I feel it does the opposite of what they are trying to accomplish.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I honestly can't say it in any simpler language. Systemic or institutional racism is not necessarily synonymous with overtly racist laws and policies. Like seriously, are you able to understand why a voter law that disproportionately affects minorities is systemically racist even if the text of the law doesn't literally read "BLACK PEOPLE NOT PERMITTED TO VOTE" ? Are you able to understand why, if an organization as powerful as a bank a creates a rule, even if it's technically legal, which essentially guarantees that only 2% of their mortgages lent are to black people, it's systemically racist even if the bank handbook doesn't literally read "NO MORTGAGES FOR BLACK PEOPLE" ? It seems to me like even that degree of nuance is lost on you.

What can affirmatively be done? Essentially we have enacted and continue to enact the sort of protections required, while simultaneously promoting awareness and tolerance. Some of those things include the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, both of which the Right is trying to destroy today. There are numerous states which have criminal justice reform bills, and there may even be another national criminal justice reform bill to fix some of the mistakes from the bill in the 90s. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the agency responsible for overseeing mortgages and perhaps could refer discriminatory behavior to the DOJ, but Trump has currently crippled their activities. There is a growing awareness from judges of the injustice and inherent racism in many drug sentencing laws, and many of these cases are being reviewed and the sentences commuted. There is a growing anti-death penalty movement. Mayors make different law enforcement personnel decisions nowadays- police chiefs have to be acutely aware of potential incidents involving shooting of unarmed minorities. We saw recently in the news that that cop in Dallas was arrested for murder. Maybe you're too young or your memory is short, but many times in similar circumstances in the past the shooting was swept under the table and the cop faced no consequences. As for employers, we are doing something with the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, and sure we can try enforce penalties and fines, but at the end of the day, laws can only do so much.

But moving on, the part where you essentially say that if you want to make racism non-existent, stop talking about it is some of the most clueless sht I've ever heard, especially at a time when white nationalism-fueled violence is on the rise. I'm pretty sure I nailed your demographic earlier, because honestly only someone who is a product of insulated white culture in America would ever deign to think that ignoring the problem of race in America is the best way to fix it. I'm 100% certain you've never had an experience like I did as a brown kid growing up in 90% white flyover country when some other kid on the playground told me to "go back to where I came from." Imagine my confusion when I considered the fact that I was born in a hospital 7 miles away from my school. Or my sister as a teenage candy striper in the hospital getting asked by some old dude whether she was half-n*gger. These incidents have likely gotten more rare in my hometown, but it surely wasn't because of people like you who bury their hands in the sand and pretend that America just magically evolved its way into better race relations and now everything is fine and let's all hush up and not talk about it.

Ultimately though,, you ask a striking question when you shout about what should we do if an employer doesn't pick a resume because the name is Lakisha. Laws alone can't change the hate in someone's heart or change the ignorance with which they were raised over a lifetime, but maybe education and day to day exposure to people different than oneself can make a dent. In the meantime, hell yes, create a quota if similarly qualified people of color aren't being considered for jobs.
 
Last edited:
Right. And they keep making all those racist laws like......?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


“The court called this strategy what it is: racist. The panel wrote that “using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics.”




 
I honestly can't say it in any simpler language. Systemic or institutional racism is not necessarily synonymous with overtly racist laws and policies. Like seriously, are you able to understand why a voter law that disproportionately affects minorities is systemically racist even if the text of the law doesn't literally read "BLACK PEOPLE NOT PERMITTED TO VOTE" ? Are you able to understand why, if an organization as powerful as a bank a creates a rule, even if it's technically legal, which essentially guarantees that only 2% of their mortgages lent are to black people, it's systemically racist even if the bank handbook doesn't literally read "NO MORTGAGES FOR BLACK PEOPLE" ? It seems to me like even that degree of nuance is lost on you.

What can affirmatively be done? Essentially we have enacted and continue to enact the sort of protections required, while simultaneously promoting awareness and tolerance. Some of those things include the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, both of which the Right is trying to destroy today. There are numerous states which have criminal justice reform bills, and there may even be another national criminal justice reform bill to fix some of the mistakes from the bill in the 90s. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is the agency responsible for overseeing mortgages and perhaps could refer discriminatory behavior to the DOJ, but Trump has currently crippled their activities. There is a growing awareness from judges of the injustice and inherent racism in many drug sentencing laws, and many of these cases are being reviewed and the sentences commuted. There is a growing anti-death penalty movement. Mayors make different law enforcement personnel decisions nowadays- police chiefs have to be acutely aware of potential incidents involving shooting of unarmed minorities. We saw recently in the news that that cop in Dallas was arrested for murder. Maybe you're too young or your memory is short, but many times in similar circumstances in the past the shooting was swept under the table and the cop faced no consequences. As for employers, we are doing something with the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission, and sure we can try enforce penalties and fines, but at the end of the day, laws can only do so much.

But moving on, the part where you essentially say that if you want to make racism non-existent, stop talking about it is some of the most clueless sht I've ever heard, especially at a time when white nationalism-fueled violence is on the rise. I'm pretty sure I nailed your demographic earlier, because honestly only someone who is a product of insulated white culture in America would ever deign to think that ignoring the problem of race in America is the best way to fix it. Ultimately, you ask a striking question when you shout about what should we do if an employer doesn't pick a resume because the name is Lakisha. Laws alone can't change the hate in someone's heart or change the ignorance with which they were raised over a lifetime, but maybe education and day to day exposure to people different than oneself can make a dent. In the meantime, hell yes, create a quota if similarly qualified people of color aren't being considered for jobs.

I had given up on replying.
I truly appreciate your response.
Hopefully people reading and not responding are at least getting something out of this since clearly he isn’t.

Another thing that I think people aren’t paying close attention to or have no knowledge about is about how many federal judges are being nominated and confirmed under this administration. The legacy of that will last for decades. So excuse me for being pissed that a man who says Mexicans are bringing their murderers and rapists and likes to grab women by the ***** is literally altering our federal courts for decades to come. He has named 1 in 4 federal judges....and not surprisingly they’re overwhelming male and white. 78% male and 87% white. Let’s look at the demographics of Obama’s two Supreme Court justices vs trumps. Hmm. UGH.

But nope that’s not a problem at all. Nothing to see here folks, carry on.
 
At first when I started reading this I thought it was a parody letter that someone might've put on social media for a laugh, but it turns out it's actually a letter written by the honest-to-god President of the United States of America to the leader of a foreign country


mGTPHnJ.png






On the other front, some news about Mike McKinley, senior adviser to Pompeo, who just resigned

"
“The timing of my resignation was the result of two overriding concerns: the failure, in my view, of the State Department to offer support to Foreign Service employees caught up in the impeachment inquiry on Ukraine,” Mr. McKinley said in an opening statement. “And, second, by what appears to be the utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance a domestic political objective.”

Mr. McKinley told investigators that State Department officials were discouraging people from testifying, and were not supporting diplomats who had received subpoenas and requests to appear before the House, according to a person familiar with his testimony.
Echoing concerns raised by Ms. Yovanovitch last week in her own testimony, Mr. McKinley warned that reported efforts by some Trump administration officials to pressure foreign powers like Ukraine “to procure negative information on political opponents” would “have a serious impact on foreign service morale and the integrity of our work overseas.”

“I was disturbed by the implication that foreign governments were being approached to procure negative information on political opponents,” he said
.
Mr. McKinley’s testimony was the latest in a string of accounts that top career diplomats and administration officials have given to impeachment investigators about how experts were sidelined as the president pursued his own agenda on Ukraine, including in a July telephone call in which Mr. Trump asked President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.

Taken together, the interviews have corroborated and expanded on many aspects of the intelligence whistle-blower complaint that prompted the impeachment inquiry, which claimed that Mr. Trump abused his power to enlist a foreign government for his own political gain.

"
 
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I do... Once Warren wins Iowa, it's basically over.

So the next question is can she beat Trumpo? Cause hes probably the only thing standing between M4A and confiscatory taxes. I dont think his HC policy is very helpful but I mean come on... I mean ive been out 3 years and have bascially lived like a resident for this exact scenario. Looks like it might actually pay off in the end.
 
I missed the debate to preserve my sanity, so perhaps one of you ladies or gents could enlighten me:

How much time was spent on Russian collusion, the issue that Democrats and the media jabbered about for approx. three years?
 
But moving on, the part where you essentially say that if you want to make racism non-existent, stop talking about it is some of the most clueless sht I've ever heard, especially at a time when white nationalism-fueled violence is on the rise. I'm pretty sure I nailed your demographic earlier, because honestly only someone who is a product of insulated white culture in America would ever deign to think that ignoring the problem of race in America is the best way to fix it. Ultimately, you ask a striking question when you shout about what should we do if an employer doesn't pick a resume because the name is Lakisha. Laws alone can't change the hate in someone's heart or change the ignorance with which they were raised over a lifetime, but maybe education and day to day exposure to people different than oneself can make a dent. In the meantime, hell yes, create a quota if similarly qualified people of color aren't being considered for jobs.
I had given up on replying.
I truly appreciate your response.
Hopefully people reading and not responding are at least getting something out of this since clearly he isn’t.

Another thing that I think people aren’t paying close attention to or have no knowledge about is about how many federal judges are being nominated and confirmed under this administration. The legacy of that will last for decades. So excuse me for being pissed that a man who says Mexicans are bringing their murderers and rapists and likes to grab women by the ***** is literally altering our federal courts for decades to come. He has named 1 in 4 federal judges....and not surprisingly they’re overwhelming male and white. 78% male and 87% white. Let’s look at the demographics of Obama’s two Supreme Court justices vs trumps. Hmm. UGH.

But nope that’s not a problem at all. Nothing to see here folks, carry on.

Ya know, you can keep mischaracterizing what I've said, and that's fine I suppose. My message this whole time is that the hysteria, the outrage culture, and the identity politics pushed by the left and the main stream media (aka the left) is doing more harm than good. And what you do is a perfect example. I say to call out REAL racism, deal with it forcefully and swiftly, and you claim I'm advocating ignoring racism. Trump makes a basic point that, in the argument for controlling our borders, we need to be aware that rapist and other criminals are coming over illegally, along with people that aren't criminals. To a sane person, that's not an offensive statement, its just fact. And yet you, brainwashed by the billion times the media has shouted "TRUMPS A RACIST! HE HATES MEXICANS! CALLS THEM ALL RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS!," echo back the nonsense and inflame racial tensions.

And listen AMEHigh, your last statement is the perfect summation of why people like you and people like me will never agree on anything, and it goes to the core of how we think, and to the core of how the left is ruining our country, and that is a lack of ability (or desire) to examine a person for their beliefs and the content of their character. You, the one who thinks he's on the moral high ground here or something, sit there and denigrate 2 judges on the SOLE basis of their race and gender. Imagine if I said, "Wow thank god that Trump got some more white men on the supreme court, can't believe the two judges Obama put in during his term. Two women, and one wasn't even white, UGH!" I'd be raked over the coals for being racist and sexist. Yet you somehow don't even realizing that's exactly what you're doing, but you've been so warped into thinking its totally fine since the gender is male, and the race is white. You mention nothing of their judicial philosophy, nothing of their character, nothing of past rulings. Simply, white man, BAD! Small oppressed minority GOOD! Its pathetic and frankly disgusting, but that's what our culture has come to.

America should be a meritocracy, not a bunch of quotas, affirmative action, and forced diversity in the name of equity, regardless of quality. Racism and sexism goes both ways, and neither is good. Judge someone solely on their merit, their ideas, and their abilities.

Fortunately, that culture is largely contained in the media, the universities, and large cities. The whole of America isn't quite ready for full on crazy just yet. So I hope to God Biden is done. That'll lock up another four years for Donald J. Warren miiiiight have a shot if she back tracks SUPER far to the middle after the primaries. And yeah, Beto would be a dream candidate, but it aint gonna happen.
 
Ya know, you can keep mischaracterizing what I've said, and that's fine I suppose. My message this whole time is that the hysteria, the outrage culture, and the identity politics pushed by the left and the main stream media (aka the left) is doing more harm than good. And what you do is a perfect example. I say to call out REAL racism, deal with it forcefully and swiftly, and you claim I'm advocating ignoring racism. Trump makes a basic point that, in the argument for controlling our borders, we need to be aware that rapist and other criminals are coming over illegally, along with people that aren't criminals. To a sane person, that's not an offensive statement, its just fact. And yet you, brainwashed by the billion times the media has shouted "TRUMPS A RACIST! HE HATES MEXICANS! CALLS THEM ALL RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS!," echo back the nonsense and inflame racial tensions.

And listen AMEHigh, your last statement is the perfect summation of why people like you and people like me will never agree on anything, and it goes to the core of how we think, and to the core of how the left is ruining our country, and that is a lack of ability (or desire) to examine a person for their beliefs and the content of their character. You, the one who thinks he's on the moral high ground here or something, sit there and denigrate 2 judges on the SOLE basis of their race and gender. Imagine if I said, "Wow thank god that Trump got some more white men on the supreme court, can't believe the two judges Obama put in during his term. Two women, and one wasn't even white, UGH!" I'd be raked over the coals for being racist and sexist. Yet you somehow don't even realizing that's exactly what you're doing, but you've been so warped into thinking its totally fine since the gender is male, and the race is white. You mention nothing of their judicial philosophy, nothing of their character, nothing of past rulings. Simply, white man, BAD! Small oppressed minority GOOD! Its pathetic and frankly disgusting, but that's what our culture has come to.

America should be a meritocracy, not a bunch of quotas, affirmative action, and forced diversity in the name of equity, regardless of quality. Racism and sexism goes both ways, and neither is good. Judge someone solely on their merit, their ideas, and their abilities.

Fortunately, that culture is largely contained in the media, the universities, and large cities. The whole of America isn't quite ready for full on crazy just yet. So I hope to God Biden is done. That'll lock up another four years for Donald J. Warren miiiiight have a shot if she back tracks SUPER far to the middle after the primaries. And yeah, Beto would be a dream candidate, but it aint gonna happen.

Dems better realize super-fast that the country would prefer almost anything over a far-left liberal candidate... I’m not hopeful though - so bracing myself for another 4 years of this administration. I predict the Dems nominate Warren and act “super surprised” that she loses, blame the opposition for bigotry and racism while not admitting most Americans dislike Trump intensely but vote 90% on policy not rhetoric.

I’m not voting for Trump but I sure as hell am not voting for Warren or Sanders. Biden already has my vote if he’s nominated, despite his possible early senility. He even had the self awareness to admit during an interview that he’s not as sharp as 15 years ago but will be wise enough to listen to smart advisors.
 
Last edited:
Ya know, you can keep mischaracterizing what I've said, and that's fine I suppose. My message this whole time is that the hysteria, the outrage culture, and the identity politics pushed by the left and the main stream media (aka the left) is doing more harm than good. And what you do is a perfect example. I say to call out REAL racism, deal with it forcefully and swiftly, and you claim I'm advocating ignoring racism. Trump makes a basic point that, in the argument for controlling our borders, we need to be aware that rapist and other criminals are coming over illegally, along with people that aren't criminals. To a sane person, that's not an offensive statement, its just fact. And yet you, brainwashed by the billion times the media has shouted "TRUMPS A RACIST! HE HATES MEXICANS! CALLS THEM ALL RAPISTS AND CRIMINALS!," echo back the nonsense and inflame racial tensions.

And listen AMEHigh, your last statement is the perfect summation of why people like you and people like me will never agree on anything, and it goes to the core of how we think, and to the core of how the left is ruining our country, and that is a lack of ability (or desire) to examine a person for their beliefs and the content of their character. You, the one who thinks he's on the moral high ground here or something, sit there and denigrate 2 judges on the SOLE basis of their race and gender. Imagine if I said, "Wow thank god that Trump got some more white men on the supreme court, can't believe the two judges Obama put in during his term. Two women, and one wasn't even white, UGH!" I'd be raked over the coals for being racist and sexist. Yet you somehow don't even realizing that's exactly what you're doing, but you've been so warped into thinking its totally fine since the gender is male, and the race is white. You mention nothing of their judicial philosophy, nothing of their character, nothing of past rulings. Simply, white man, BAD! Small oppressed minority GOOD! Its pathetic and frankly disgusting, but that's what our culture has come to.

America should be a meritocracy, not a bunch of quotas, affirmative action, and forced diversity in the name of equity, regardless of quality. Racism and sexism goes both ways, and neither is good. Judge someone solely on their merit, their ideas, and their abilities.

Fortunately, that culture is largely contained in the media, the universities, and large cities. The whole of America isn't quite ready for full on crazy just yet. So I hope to God Biden is done. That'll lock up another four years for Donald J. Warren miiiiight have a shot if she back tracks SUPER far to the middle after the primaries. And yeah, Beto would be a dream candidate, but it aint gonna happen.

You are the one who said “And if you ever want to move to a place where it’s almost non-existent, then we need to stop making it a point of everyday life.” Over and over, we keep trying to get it through your thick head that for many people of color in America who are not in your situation, it is a point of everyday (or nearly everyday) life. And for those people whose day to day experiences with racism have become almost non-existent, It sure as sht didn’t happen because their ancestors took your advice and just shut up about it.

You have the distinction of knowing that statistically you will likely never be subjected to anything but a fair mortgage rate, job interview callback, voter registration, customer service experience, police encounter or prison sentence. But you also have a failure of imagination or a failure of empathy in realizing that others’ experiences are not the same as your own. Try to have a shred of self-awareness and realize that you are not the arbiter of what is “REAL” racism.

Repeatedly, you have been told how institutional racism exists and how it goes beyond solely individual actions and culpability. You have ignored the examples. Repeatedly, you have been given a history of trump’s racism and have ignored it (in favor of spouting off a massaged version of his soundbites) because of the cognitive dissonance it creates for you in thinking how you could have voted for a racist if you, yourself, are not racist. So bravo, you continue to reinforce what I said immediately when you first stumbled into the thread pretending you want to learn more: you are interested in trolling, not an honest discussion.
 
Last edited:
Gerrymandering, for one. There probably isn't anything more explicitly racist in the USA than laws that tilt the elections of lawmakers away from minorities.

Except the democrats gerrymander just as much. I agree it should be outlawed but is it not also racist if you gerrymander in such a way that tilts elections away from a white majority?
 
Republicans fear 'suburban revolt' against Trump in 2020


Some Republicans are sounding the alarm over Donald Trump’s devastating effect on their support among suburban voters.

The latest evidence of panic came in a secret audio recording of a conversation between Dennis Bonnen, speaker of the Texas house of representatives, and an influential conservative activist.


According to the Washington Post, Bonnen can be heard saying: “I just think we’ve got to get through 2020, guarantee if we try and hold this majority – which, with all due respect to Trump, who I love by the way – he’s killing us in the urban-suburban districts.”
 
And yep I will say it over and over, it is 100% problematic if over 80% of federal judges and Supreme Court justices are male and white (and politicians, and doctors, and police, etc). Look at the history of our "justice" department that is largely male and white. Who has had the most injustices under such system? Hmmm, I wonder? If you don’t think people’s lived experiences and biases (both implicit and explicit) don’t affect how they do their job then you are very naive and incorrect based on large amounts of reasearch.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
And yep I will say it over and over, it is 100% problematic if over 80% of federal judges and Supreme Court justices are male and white (and politicians, and doctors, and police, etc). Look at the history of our "justice" department that is largely male and white. Who has had the most injustices under such system? Hmmm, I wonder? If you don’t think people’s lived experiences and biases (both implicit and explicit) don’t affect how they do their job then you are very naive and incorrect based on large amounts of reasearch.

You're flagrantly an open racist, and you're also blindly ignorant of the purpose of the judiciary as a branch of government.
 
@Mikkel Ok, that's fine if you think I'm an open racist.

In honor of Elijah Cummings:

"Many of these Americans who are struggling to survive are Americans of color. Their cries for assistance confront America with a test of our moral compass as a nation."
"My life is based on pain, passion and purpose."
 
And yep I will say it over and over, it is 100% problematic if over 80% of federal judges and Supreme Court justices are male and white (and politicians, and doctors, and police, etc). Look at the history of our "justice" department that is largely male and white. Who has had the most injustices under such system? Hmmm, I wonder? If you don’t think people’s lived experiences and biases (both implicit and explicit) don’t affect how they do their job then you are very naive and incorrect based on large amounts of reasearch.

So what would you say to the study I posted above that shows white and black officers shoot black suspects at exactly the same rate (zero, I repeat zero difference)? I would like a reasoned logical argument why random quotas for any profession (or school) are necessary, instead of a meritocracy. Quotas or social/job engineering seems to be a racist method to justify a questionable ends.
 
So what would you say to the study I posted above that shows white and black officers shoot black suspects at exactly the same rate (zero, I repeat zero difference)? I would like a reasoned logical argument why random quotas for any profession (or school) are necessary, instead of a meritocracy. Quotas or social/job engineering seems to be a racist method to justify a questionable ends.

Ugh. You must be a white male. Impossible for you to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Gerrymandering, for one. There probably isn't anything more explicitly racist in the USA than laws that tilt the elections of lawmakers away from minorities.

Gerrymandering is partisan, not racist.
 
Here is my take.
Racism is real and the impact on the lives and opportunities is real.
However, the tide is turning over the past 50 years.
I would argue that there has never been a better time in the U.S. to be an underrepresented minority. The country is moving in the right direction, albeit, not fast enough and the lingering detrimental effects of the past 200 years still has an impact.
If I was LGBT, African American, a female, or an illegal immigrant, and I had the choice of living in today's society or the 1970's, I know which one I would choose.
Inequality will always exist, but I honestly believe that it is getting significantly better. There are heartbreaking stories out there like the shootings in Dallas and Fort Worth in the recent past. Those are major setbacks to the progress in our country, but to ignore the overall progress is not good either.
I feel like the younger generation see things as they are now, which is not perfect, but they fail to recognize how much progress has been made, because how could they know when they did not experience it. There are definitely areas of the country where the amount of progress made is less and I feel horrible for that. However, to vilify all white males does not seem to be a reasonable response either.
 
Last edited:
Ugh. You must be a white male. Impossible for you to understand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m sorry, but the current white male persecution complex is really tiresome. It not only shows a lack of empathy and insight into both historical and current events, but it is really f*cking childish. Stop whining. Being born white male is the second greatest advantage you can be born with behind only being born into wealth.
 
So what would you say to the study I posted above that shows white and black officers shoot black suspects at exactly the same rate (zero, I repeat zero difference)?

I already addressed that previously. I said that we ALL have biases since we're all living in this country and exposed to them.
I linked to the Harvard Implicit Bias tests and encouraged someone to take it, which again shows that we all have certain biases. (I've taken the tests). We all need to recognize them and improve them. But if you don't recognize something is a problem, then you aren't going to address it.

There's an experiment in which young kids are shown a picture of Timothy McVeigh and a random black guy, then are asked who they think the criminal is. The vast majority of both the black and white kids point to the random black guy.
There is plenty of data about bias in the media/tv/film. Who is typically shown as the criminal? Who is typically painted in a more negative light? (Look at the early headlines of Brock Turner vs Trayvon Martin. Brock Turner was touted as a wonderful stanford student vs Trayvon Martin was reported on having done marijuana and getting suspended. Just one example that we're all exposed to these biases.)

For the 500th time, I never said that all white men are bad/racist. I said that implicit and explicit biases exist in all of us. The history of this country makes it more likely that a white heterosexual man has not experienced the same oppression as a black homosexual woman.
People in this thread over and over have pretty much said racism and sexism don't exist. So if white men (and others) believe that something is not a problem, then they are not going to address it. Hence, why I believe it's important for certain professions to have diverse point of views in order to address certain issues.

I'm not Jewish. I've been trying to educate myself on anti-semitism lately. However, since I'm not Jewish and don't understand the intricacies of that community I am not the best person who would be able to address the problems in that community. Therefore, I think it's a good idea that there is a representation of Jewish people in certain organizations, neighborhoods, policy makers, etc.

How many clothing stores in recent times have released items with racist pictures on them? You know why that happens...because there aren't people of color in the room where these decisions are being made. Sure no one is going to die from seeing a racist shirt, but that's just a simple example of why representation matters for many of us. Now expand that example to life altering and saving professions.

Clearly as a black woman I'm not literally a slave getting raped and/or killed by my white master like my ancestors were. However, that doesn't mean that I don't think things need to and can improve. It doesn't mean that I think all white men are bad. It just means that things still need to change, we all need to recognize and improve our biases and that representation matters.
 
I’m sorry, but the current white male persecution complex is really tiresome. It not only shows a lack of empathy and insight into both historical and current events, but it is really f*cking childish. Stop whining. Being born white male is the second greatest advantage you can be born with behind only being born into wealth.

Of course it’s childish. And so is someone saying “ugh!” In disgust of white men being on the Supreme Court simply cause they are white and male. And so is telling people they can’t have an opinion or even use certain words cause of their race and gender. It’s all childish, and hence my sarcasm and mockery of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
@Mikkel Ok, that's fine if you think I'm an open racist.

You openly admitted to being a racist when you judged people solely on the basis of their skin color.

The fact that you simply don't care that you're a racist is shocking.
 
I’m sorry, but the current white male persecution complex is really tiresome. It not only shows a lack of empathy and insight into both historical and current events, but it is really f*cking childish. Stop whining. Being born white male is the second greatest advantage you can be born with behind only being born into wealth.

No, Gravel, all the conservative whiners have a point. Whites are getting decimated at all levels of employment and power in favor of unqualified affirmative action cases. Just look at this picture (including both sides of the table) from yesterday of the seat of power of the Western World:

BAk1M74.jpg


Clearly "reverse racism" or whatever stupid term they've come up with is in full swing against white ppl, and brown and black people who want to make sure they have a seat at the table are the real racists.
 
Dems better realize super-fast that the country would prefer almost anything over a far-left liberal candidate... I’m not hopeful though - so bracing myself for another 4 years of this administration. I predict the Dems nominate Warren and act “super surprised” that she loses, blame the opposition for bigotry and racism while not admitting most Americans dislike Trump intensely but vote 90% on policy not rhetoric.

Bingo.

Can we talk about the most recent debate and Warren (1) Wanting to force companies to have at least 40% of their board of directors elected by the employees (2) Still refusing to say she'll raise taxes to pay for Medicare for all (30 Trillion dollars). Even Sanders seems more honest/logical at times...

I don't understand how she is the front runner.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Bingo.

Can we talk about the most recent debate and Warren (1) Wanting to force companies to have at least 40% of their board of directors elected by the employees (2) Still refusing to say she'll raise taxes to pay for Medicare for all (30 Trillion dollars). Even Sanders seems more honest/logical at times...

I don't understand how she is the front runner.

Having employees on the board makes sense. A company doesn't exist without it's employees. Moreover, much of the Western world has this exact setup. In Germany, many companies are mandated to have 49% of the board made up by employee representatives. We've walked away from labor having power and this is a great way to get some of that back. Look at medicine, physicians have lost representation at the highest levels of the hospital and as a result, we get treated like cogs instead of professionals.

FWIW, Warren would be a centrist in just about any Western democracy except in the US. Sanders would be left-leaning. I don't understand how America is simultaneously the greatest country in the world, but at the same time, can't even provide basic services that every major western power is able to. The window in the US is so skewed because we have a party who's rally cry for healthcare is "let them die!".
 
A lot of Democrats think they lost in 2016 because they didn't go far left enough.

2016 was a perfect storm and the democrats bought it hook, line, and sinker. Hillary was demonized by the GOP for years (benghazi!) and there was no oxygen in the room due to Hillary running for President. That said, in every debate, and by every poll, Hillary was winning. Unfortunately, it didn't work out as planned and no one can look back and say that was a good outcome. Likewise, Brexit was one of those massive self-inflicted wounds that should have never happened, but here we are with the UK about to shoot itself in the foot. There is a lot of establishment angst built up precisely because the government doesn't serve the vast majority of the population. Those with wealth are making out like gangbusters while your average family is bankrupted by routine medical care.

As we saw 100 years ago, those who are willing to say anything to be elected and get into power will benefit over those who try to play by the rules. The GOP are bad faith actors in every sense of the word. We have a pretty good parallel with what happened with Clinton over Benghazi. Did she stonewall, obstruct, and gaslight? No she stood up, cooperated with the investigated, and laid down 12 hours of testimony on the record. All those years of investigations literally turned up nothing. When faced with the Democrats in power and they wanting oversight over the current administration, the administration refuses to cooperate with oversight and in direct violation of the Constitution they hold so dear (really it's only the 2nd amendment).
 
Having employees on the board makes sense. A company doesn't exist without it's employees. Moreover, much of the Western world has this exact setup. In Germany, many companies are mandated to have 49% of the board made up by employee representatives. We've walked away from labor having power and this is a great way to get some of that back. Look at medicine, physicians have lost representation at the highest levels of the hospital and as a result, we get treated like cogs instead of professionals.

FWIW, Warren would be a centrist in just about any Western democracy except in the US. Sanders would be left-leaning. I don't understand how America is simultaneously the greatest country in the world, but at the same time, can't even provide basic services that every major western power is able to. The window in the US is so skewed because we have a party who's rally cry for healthcare is "let them die!".

By 'western', I assume you mean European? Nearly every European country has double to triple the unemployment rate of the US (Italy 10%, Spain 14%, France 9%. EU as a whole is 7% compared to US - 3.7%). USA has roughly double the GDP growth of most western European countries. I don't think we should be modeling our economy after theirs. Now China, one of the fastest growing economies by GDP, I very much doubt lets their employees elect people to the board...

Would you rather have a job or be able to vote on board members?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.