2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I disagree actually. The problem with the "Black Lives Matter" slogan is that it racially polarises a bigger issue. Yes, there is a lot of racism in American law enforcement and that is an absolute disgrace. But the bigger issue, which is in my view far more lethal, and is being obscured by the focus on race, is
(a) the American police are far too militarised and use far too much force for small sh!t (example, a few years ago a huge armed SWAT team raided a guy's house and shot his two dogs in front of his kids for drug posession, in Ireland you'd get a knock on the door and a few Gardai to take you to the station, or even just a court summons through the letterbox - you don't deal with every criminal as if they're a mafia don with hundreds of bodyguards)

and (b), the total and utter impunity any time a cop does anything wrong, even when there's overwhelming video evidence and witness testimony.

By focusing entirely on the racial aspect of, for example, Eric Garner's death, that movement has essentially allowed the other issue - the fact that in a civilised country, those cops should have faced criminal charges regardless of why they did what they did - to be swept aside by the political establishment in the States. The fact that the cops are not held to an absolute standard of only ever using the minimum amount of force necessary, as they are in Ireland and elsewhere. This holds true regardless of the race of the victim of police brutality, but the focus on race has meant that nobody at a high level is questioning whether "maybe, not requiring cops to justify each individual shot they fire after the fact isn't such a good idea, given how often they massively overreact to trivial scenarios".

EDIT: To clarify on Eric Garner, the focus on race has led to the discussion being framed in the context of "why do they do this to black people" rather than the bigger issue of "why the f*ck are they not automatically prosecuted on criminal charges when it's very, very clear that they used an illegal method of violence against this person". I'm not convinced the the latter is an issue of race, as during the Occupy movement there were numerous examples of this happening with both black and white protesters - the issue, instead, is that the American establishment sets a disgracefully high bar for criminally charging cops for things that any other citizen would rot in SuperMax for months just in pre-trial detention.

The problem in turn with all of the above is that - while it's true, just like "all lives matter" is true - it misses the point. Yes, much police action in the US is unnecessarily aggressive; yes, many police forces are militarised to a ridiculous degree. But it carefully glosses over the fact that minorities are disproportionately - insanely disproportionately - affected by police violence and the ingrained racism in the entire justice system from local police to federal legislature.

Sure, there are problems in the administration of justice that are not informed by racism. But that's not a good reason to ignore the problems that are.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

But its not racist, sexist or discriminatory in any way, because its social justice and its the left proposing it as opposed to some Afrikaner.

Interesting, I never knew white people (or at least Afrikaners) face a history of a systemic racism in South Africa that has limited their chances of higher level education and led to them on average having lower wages than their black or Indian counterparts. I mean it's safe to assume you have the statistical evidence to show that to be true, right?

Thargor

The whole GOP race seemed scripted it was so entertaining, there was literally some new insanity every day, right up to Cruzs concession speech:

https://gfycat.com/IdleCreamyDanishswedishfarmdog

JPNelsforearm

oscarBravo wrote: »

JP, when you figure out how to articulate an argument without relying on embedded videos, come back to me.

Im not articulating anything using videos, I am giving examples to back up my initial riposte "When it became a misery stakes competition, that white people, due to their inherent privilege, dont qualify for, and thus can be legislated and discriminated against, in the name of "equality", and "justice".

Sander's quotes, in video and print, would be considered both sexist, racist and horribly inaccurate by anyone with access to the barest of facts and some semblance of logic and fairness. However due to the beneficiaries of those policies and statements belonging to a protected class(as deemed by social justice proponents) he gets a pass. Im using Sanders, as he is a mainstream an example as possible, I could delve into the internet and cherry pick complete lunatics.

Actual justice exists and is legislated for in practically every first world country. As such the only targets left, as seen above, are those who you can race bait against, and present as the enemy and discriminate against, which in this case are the white majority of the US, they are deemed fair game.

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

Interesting, I never knew white people (or at least Afrikaners) face a history of a systemic racism in South Africa that has limited their chances of higher level education and led to them on average having lower wages than their black or Indian counterparts. I mean it's safe to assume you have the statistical evidence to show that to be true, right?

Nice, but that wasnt the thrust of my point, I am pointing out that legislating discrimination against people only seems to be a bad thing in this epoch if it is an Afrikaner doing the legislating.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

The problem in turn with all of the above is that - while it's true, just like "all lives matter" is true - it misses the point. Yes, much police action in the US is unnecessarily aggressive; yes, many police forces are militarised to a ridiculous degree. But it carefully glosses over the fact that minorities are disproportionately - insanely disproportionately - affected by police violence and the ingrained racism in the entire justice system from local police to federal legislature.

Sure, there are problems in the administration of justice that are not informed by racism. But that's not a good reason to ignore the problems that are.

I agree, but your last line works both ways as well - there are a lot of problems caused by racism, but let's not ignore those which aren't.

The fundamental fact here is that the cops being racist would matter a lot less if they weren't able to act on that, or any other assholeish or violent impulses. If a cop knew he'd be locked up for twenty years the second he fired a bullet at somebody who demonstrably didn't deserve it, it wouldn't matter whether he was the most progressive ideologue or the most racist secret KKK member - the rules, and more importantly the exceptionally harsh punishment for violating those rules, would ensure that he'd have to grudgingly act like a human being towards such people.

And the beauty of that would be, he'd have to grudgingly act like a human being towards everyone else, as well. So it would simultaneously put racist cops out of business, while also putting hot-headed cops with anger management issues who only joined the police for the power trip (the Eric Cartman "MUH AUTHORITAH" types, of which there seem to be far too many) out of business as well.

RobertKK

John Kasich giving a great speech right now, he would have made a good president.
He always comes across as a real nice person. Ted Cruz should have been taking notes.

RobertKK

I wonder if Kasich was offered the VP role if he dropped out.

ancapailldorcha

RobertKK wrote: »

I wonder if Kasich was offered the VP role if he dropped out.

As was mentioned before, fourth in a 2 horse race. I'm amazed he held in there as long as he did despite only winning Ohio, his home state where he is governor. Interesting idea though, him running as Donald's running mate. Could be a way to try and attract the centre vote. Unlikely however given Trump's firm opposition to globalisation and free trade.

eire4

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yeah, I think I was picturing Ohio next door instead.

Fair enough although it has to be said Ohio is very red right now as well. Along with a Republican governor the state house is 65-34 Republican while the state senate is 23-10 Republican so I would have to say Ohio is very red as well in terms who controls and runs the state just as Indiana is.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree, but your last line works both ways as well - there are a lot of problems caused by racism, but let's not ignore those which aren't.

The fundamental fact here is that the cops being racist would matter a lot less if they weren't able to act on that, or any other assholeish or violent impulses. If a cop knew he'd be locked up for twenty years the second he fired a bullet at somebody who demonstrably didn't deserve it, it wouldn't matter whether he was the most progressive ideologue or the most racist secret KKK member - the rules, and more importantly the exceptionally harsh punishment for violating those rules, would ensure that he'd have to grudgingly act like a human being towards such people.

And the beauty of that would be, he'd have to grudgingly act like a human being towards everyone else, as well. So it would simultaneously put racist cops out of business, while also putting hot-headed cops with anger management issues who only joined the police for the power trip (the Eric Cartman "MUH AUTHORITAH" types, of which there seem to be far too many) out of business as well.

It could be argued the systemic problem is still there. The PSNI would be an example of how you can reform a police force, how you transfer that to the US, that's what the experts get paid for!

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I agree, but your last line works both ways as well - there are a lot of problems caused by racism, but let's not ignore those which aren't.

The fundamental fact here is that the cops being racist would matter a lot less if they weren't able to act on that, or any other assholeish or violent impulses. If a cop knew he'd be locked up for twenty years the second he fired a bullet at somebody who demonstrably didn't deserve it, it wouldn't matter whether he was the most progressive ideologue or the most racist secret KKK member - the rules, and more importantly the exceptionally harsh punishment for violating those rules, would ensure that he'd have to grudgingly act like a human being towards such people.

And the beauty of that would be, he'd have to grudgingly act like a human being towards everyone else, as well. So it would simultaneously put racist cops out of business, while also putting hot-headed cops with anger management issues who only joined the police for the power trip (the Eric Cartman "MUH AUTHORITAH" types, of which there seem to be far too many) out of business as well.

...all of which is to say "let's ignore the very real problem of endemic and structural racism, and focus on society's other ills - hopefully racism will be fixed as a happy side effect."

Nobody's suggesting that any problems should be ignored. "Black lives matter" - contrary to what certain voices on this forum are desperately trying to claim - doesn't in any way imply that non-black lives don't matter. It's a phrase that seeks to draw attention to the problem that black lives don't, in fact, appear to matter as much as others.

"All lives matter" as a retort to "black lives matter" is basically a dog-whistle for "black lives matter less". Similarly, your suggestion that we should ignore the ingrained racism in much of policing in order to focus on problems with policing that affect whites as much as they do blacks... well, I hope you can see why that's, at best, unhelpful.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

...all of which is to say "let's ignore the very real problem of endemic and structural racism, and focus on society's other ills - hopefully racism will be fixed as a happy side effect."

Nobody's suggesting that any problems should be ignored. "Black lives matter" - contrary to what certain voices on this forum are desperately trying to claim - doesn't in any way imply that non-black lives don't matter. It's a phrase that seeks to draw attention to the problem that black lives don't, in fact, appear to matter as much as others.

"All lives matter" as a retort to "black lives matter" is basically a dog-whistle for "black lives matter less". Similarly, your suggestion that we should ignore the ingrained racism in much of policing in order to focus on problems with policing that affect whites as much as they do blacks... well, I hope you can see why that's, at best, unhelpful.

And this is why Trump is becoming increasingly popular with ordinary white Americans, and why the pandering by the Dems will be a problem for Hillary IMO.

people have become afraid to engage in race related matters for fear of being branded as racists

A shocking example was in Pittsburgh a few months back.
A news anchor of 18 years was sacked because she posted on Facebook something that her network deemed racially insensitive.

There was a shooting that took the lives of 5 including a pregnant woman and he unborn child.
This is what she posted

"You needn't be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday... They are young black men, likely in their teens or in their early 20s,

"They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs. These boys have been in the system before. They've grown up there. They know the police. They've been arrested."

What she said is what everyone in Pittsburgh thought and probably already knew, but it can't be said in public in 2016
That's just crazy.
And by sweeping it under the carpet and silencing the people who say these things the problems are not being addressed, and ordinary Americans are looking at Trump and thinking that he is not afraid to say these things in public.

By the way why is it 'unhelpful' to focus on problems with policing that affect whites ?

InTheTrees

K-9 wrote: »

It could be argued the systemic problem is still there. The PSNI would be an example of how you can reform a police force, how you transfer that to the US, that's what the experts get paid for!

Police in the USA are organized very differently. Every small town with have its own autonomous police force. There could be many many tens of thousands of police forces in the USA. You'd have a hard time even finding a full list.

Billy86

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

A shocking example was in Pittsburgh a few months back.
A news anchor of 18 years was sacked because she posted on Facebook something that her network deemed racially insensitive.

There was a shooting that took the lives of 5 including a pregnant woman and he unborn child.
This is what she posted




What she said is what everyone in Pittsburgh thought and probably already knew, but it can't be said in public in 2016
That's just crazy.
And by sweeping it under the carpet and silencing the people who say these things the problems are not being addressed, and ordinary Americans are looking at Trump and thinking that he is not afraid to say these things in public.

By the way why is it 'unhelpful' to

Have they found the murderer(s) yet?

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Nice, but that wasnt the thrust of my point, I am pointing out that legislating discrimination against people only seems to be a bad thing in this epoch if it is an Afrikaner doing the legislating.

I'm not surprised you failed to understand what oscarbravo was talking about, in that case. You seem to be under the impression that societal and systemic racism does not occur, never really did, and has had no lasting negative effects.

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

...all of which is to say "let's ignore the very real problem of endemic and structural racism, and focus on society's other ills - hopefully racism will be fixed as a happy side effect."

Except I'm not suggesting that it should be ignored, but what's happening now is the opposite. There's a lot of talk about racism in the American police force, but I've heard relatively little mainstream talk of "why do cops not get charged with murder or battery, even when it's literally on video that they are breaking the law" - and if this issue continues to be ignored, then I don't believe that eliminating racism will be an effective way of trying to fight this issue. The fact is that right now, the police in America are out of control - not to say that all cops are crazy, but to say that nobody is controlling them. They act with near total impunity before the law. The most they ever get is fired from their jobs, but they should be treated like criminals if they behave like criminals, and this is not happening.

I'm not suggesting that Ireland is any different - without wanting to incriminate people not convicted of anything, I can think of several very high profile cases of Gardai being tried for serious assault and either being convicted and receiving no jail time, or being acquitted based not on any evidence relating to the actual incident, but based on the character of the victim. This is an issue throughout the Western World, it would seem - we don't like to put cops in jail when they commit felonies, just as we don't like to put high level political folk and business VIPs in jail either. But it's something which I believe is far more lethal in America, owing to (a) racism, and (b) the fact that unlike most European cops, the cops in America literally have tanks, body armour and God knows what other military grade gear.

I am also not saying don't focus on racism, I'm worried that by focusing entirely on racism, rather than having two parallel discussions, one on racism as a cause of police brutality and another on the fact that police brutality seldom results in jail time or criminal convictions, there's little chance of the problem getting sorted out.

The bottom line is that an asshole will behave like an asshole unless he or she faced unpleasant consequences for behaving like an asshole. So if the cops in the US continue to evade criminal prosecutions for assaulting and killing members of the public, I don't believe it is possible to solve the brutality problem unless you somehow filter out individuals with asshole tendencies before you hire them. It doesn't require a change in attitudes, it required a change in legislation. Legislation needs to spell out, very clearly, that like any other citizen, any instance of killing somebody with a gun will be regarded as wrongful unless you can demonstrate that it was appropriate.

This is a conversation which is not happening in American politics at the moment, and I honestly don't believe anything will change until the fundamental paradigm of "cops can fire guns at people without having to document every shot fired and why it was fired" has been thoroughly stamped out.

oscarBravo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

By the way why is it 'unhelpful' to focus on problems with policing that affect whites ?

I'm only quoting this line, because the way you've ignored what I said in favour of what you read into it pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant, except as an exercise in proving my point.

If you think that it's OK to spout racism on television on the grounds that the hate speech is just a reflection of the racism that's already in people's heads, then you're unlikely to be amenable to reasoned argument, frankly.

Fr Tod Umptious

Billy86 wrote: »

Have they found the murderer(s) yet?

There has been at least one arrest related to the shooting but no one charged with the murders yet.

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/03/25/man-being-questioned-in-connection-with-wilkinsburg-mass-shooting/

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not surprised you failed to understand what oscarbravo was talking about, in that case. You seem to be under the impression that societal and systemic racism does not occur, never really did, and has had no lasting negative effects.

The answer to systemic racism is to legislate for more systemic racism, got it. Social Justice, what an enlightened creed.

Fr Tod Umptious

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm only quoting this line, because the way you've ignored what I said in favour of what you read into it pretty much makes the rest of your post irrelevant, except as an exercise in proving my point.

If you think that it's OK to spout racism on television on the grounds that the hate speech is just a reflection of the racism that's already in people's heads, then you're unlikely to be amenable to reasoned argument, frankly.

Its not a reflection of the racism that's already in people's heads, it a reflection of the reality in poor neighbourhoods in inner city USA.

But what is wrong with what she said, why is it racist, why is it hate speech ?

As they saying goes the dogs in the street know that this was likely carried out by the type of person she described.

Why silence her for saying that ?

When I lived in the US I was offended by the stereotype of Irish people drinking and fighting too much, until I looked around and realised that an awful lot of Irish people drink and fight too much, now I'm no longer offended by it because there is some truth to it.

Trump is appealing to many Americans because he is saying what they would love to say themselves.

InTheTrees

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Why silence her for saying that ?

She was a local tv reporter sent to cover a story. Its not her job to editorialise with (incorrect) speculation on who might have committed the crimes.

Fr Tod Umptious

InTheTrees wrote: »

She was a local tv reporter sent to cover a story. Its not her job to editorialise with (incorrect) speculation on who might have committed the crimes.

She was not "sent to cover the story" she made the comments on Facebook two weeks after the event.

Why is the speculation incorrect, so far the person that had been held in relation to this looks male, black and young, I personally doubt the investigation will find other demographics involved.

I doubt she would have been silenced if she speculated that the person who murdered the folks in the black church last summer was a white, young, low information individual before they were caught.

eire4

InTheTrees wrote: »

Police in the USA are organized very differently. Every small town with have its own autonomous police force. There could be many many tens of thousands of police forces in the USA. You'd have a hard time even finding a full list.

Valid point plus as well as local municipal police then you have the county sherriffs police and then the state police on top of that. Certainly though massive reform is needed and given how serious the problems are in the US with regard to the police be it bigotry, discrimination, overly aggressive disproportionate responses, militarized police, red light camera scams etc etc very serious and very sweeping reforms and changes are needed. Personally I think like any organization how leadership goes is key and that should be where the reform begins. Sadly that is not happening as is clearly shown in how the Chicago police force for instance has responded to the exposing of that police force's disgusting and criminal behaviour.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

The answer to systemic racism is to legislate for more systemic racism, got it. Social Justice, what an enlightened creed.

You really, really don't get it - to the point you seem to go out of your way to 'not get it'. I'm not a huge fan of the ins and outs of affirmative action, but there is a reason the likes of it are there.

Another example is 'The Rooney Rule' in the NFL where teams looking for a new coach/manager (and senior mgmt positions) must interview at least one minority candidate. The NFL introduced this in 2003, and now has minority coaches in 5 of 32 head coaching positions - a little above 15%. The NCAA (for college American football - also massive in the US) does not have any such rule, and by comparison sits at about 6%. Before the NFL brought that rule in, in it's entire 80 year history (to that time) there had been a grand total of... 6 black head coaches ever. In a sport that is typically, and for decades has been, dominated by black players. But of course, it was such a mean and terrible to force those poor teams into something as cruel as having to consider black people as potential coaches. I mean, it's not like the sport had a long history of refusing to even play black people at quarterback (kind of similar to out half at rugby, but much more important again) because they figured black people simply weren't smart enough, or anything like that...

But no, feel free to go ahead and cry racism on that one too.

timmyntc

Billy86 wrote: »

You really, really don't get it - to the point you seem to go out of your way to 'not get it'. I'm not a huge fan of the ins and outs of affirmative action, but there is a reason the likes of it are there.

Another example is 'The Rooney Rule' in the NFL where teams looking for a new coach/manager (and senior mgmt positions) must interview at least one minority candidate. The NFL introduced this in 2003, and now has minority coaches in 5 of 32 head coaching positions - a little above 15%. The NCAA (for college American football - also massive in the US) does not have any such rule, and by comparison sits at about 6%. Before the NFL brought that rule in, in it's entire 80 year history (to that time) there had been a grand total of... 6 black head coaches ever. In a sport that is typically, and for decades has been, dominated by black players. But of course, it was such a mean and terrible to force those poor teams into something as cruel as having to consider black people as potential coaches. I mean, it's not like the sport had a long history of refusing to even play black people at quarterback (kind of similar to out half at rugby, but much more important again) because they figured black people simply weren't smart enough, or anything like that...

But no, feel free to go ahead and cry racism on that one too.

Surely a sports team, an organisation chasing success at almost all costs would moreoften than not, hire the best person for the job?

ancapailldorcha

timmyntc wrote: »

Surely a sports team, an organisation chasing success at almost all costs would moreoften than not, hire the best person for the job?

That's not the point. They were never told they had to hire someone from a BME background. They were simply told that they had to interview one such person, that's all. Far better idea that quotas IMO.

LuckyLloyd

How's Trump going to handle running as an underdog trailing badly in the polls? During the Primary Campaign it seemed he ran a lot on 'I love the poll that has me ahead and what a terrific result we had in State X'. He's been bullying his opponents from a consistent position of strength. How does it work once he's trailing nationally by fiveteen points and doesn't have weekly debates to call Hillary a fussy aul wan to her face and humiliate her directly?

Also how does a Convention acceptance speech from Trump work? That's still expected to be a fourty minute vision of America piece - is he capable of such an offering?

Would love to hear from amazingfun on this

JPNelsforearm

Billy86 wrote: »

You really, really don't get it - to the point you seem to go out of your way to 'not get it'. I'm not a huge fan of the ins and outs of affirmative action, but there is a reason the likes of it are there.

Another example is 'The Rooney Rule' in the NFL where teams looking for a new coach/manager (and senior mgmt positions) must interview at least one minority candidate. The NFL introduced this in 2003, and now has minority coaches in 5 of 32 head coaching positions - a little above 15%. The NCAA (for college American football - also massive in the US) does not have any such rule, and by comparison sits at about 6%. Before the NFL brought that rule in, in it's entire 80 year history (to that time) there had been a grand total of... 6 black head coaches ever. In a sport that is typically, and for decades has been, dominated by black players. But of course, it was such a mean and terrible to force those poor teams into something as cruel as having to consider black people as potential coaches. I mean, it's not like the sport had a long history of refusing to even play black people at quarterback (kind of similar to out half at rugby, but much more important again) because they figured black people simply weren't smart enough, or anything like that...

But no, feel free to go ahead and cry racism on that one too.

Why is the sport dominated by black players(goes unquestioned by you, thats fine), yet coaching dominated by white men(ugh, problematic). One is due to racism, the other is due to....could it be genetic aptitude....... But of course, you need rules to increase diversity at the expense of one race... which is not racist though, because leftism..

Justify racism whatever way you want, thats what it boils down to, hey though, the left has the moral high ground so keep ****ing that chicken.


As I said before, legislating discrimination is fine so long as its not an Afrikaner doing the legislating. The left is the new right.

Dont worry, it will be coming to these shores soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxxKbQBhNU

Billy86

timmyntc wrote: »

Surely a sports team, an organisation chasing success at almost all costs would moreoften than not, hire the best person for the job?

If that were at all true, then black head coaches in a sport dominated by black athletes would have made up more than about 1.5% of all hires in the sports history beforehand, and 24% of it in the 8 years after the rule came into place.

It used to extend to players as well (outside of QB). At one point, Robert F. Kennedy literally had to tell an owner of the Washington Redskins that if he did not sign a black player (NFL teams have 53 man rosters, plus another handful on a reserves team), their 30 year lease on the stadium they used (government build and paid for) would be revoked. The guy who eventually became the Redskins first black player is now in the NFL Hall of Fame due to how good he was, which should answer your question.