Brad, read your post last night, working through some of what you are saying.. will try and respond later today...
CNN, PPP Shock Polls: Bernie vs Trump
- Thread starter CowboyUp
- Start date
Well said, Brad (your whole post). The part I quoted above was exactly my reaction when Obama was elected as well. And I posted so at the time.
Reread your post Brad and here are some fairly quick responses:
You are absolutely correct, Obama ran the most technically sophisticated campaign in history. I have worked off and on with some of those folks the past year and half around the Hunch startup. I think your interpretation of how Obama has governed can be characterized (and is) by those who worked for him as "greater insights into what Americans value and want from their government". I have no desire to argue that point as I don't think we disagree very much in our assessment.
Having said that, you are going to have to explain some things because I am just not grokking some of your points:
Simple and powerful? A counter point in what possible way? Seriously, it was an easy joke. "Hah - see that the Brown man is taking a picture with the Girl Scout Brownies" --- man that is clever. Tell me I am not listening if you must, what I would much rather have you do is explain to me how such a comment is "Simple and powerful".
As to the nuggets in this thread:
What else did I miss - and how does any of this counter my original point?
You are absolutely correct, Obama ran the most technically sophisticated campaign in history. I have worked off and on with some of those folks the past year and half around the Hunch startup. I think your interpretation of how Obama has governed can be characterized (and is) by those who worked for him as "greater insights into what Americans value and want from their government". I have no desire to argue that point as I don't think we disagree very much in our assessment.
Having said that, you are going to have to explain some things because I am just not grokking some of your points:
Simple and powerful? A counter point in what possible way? Seriously, it was an easy joke. "Hah - see that the Brown man is taking a picture with the Girl Scout Brownies" --- man that is clever. Tell me I am not listening if you must, what I would much rather have you do is explain to me how such a comment is "Simple and powerful".
As to the nuggets in this thread:
- Very impressed with JV - don't agree with him all the time but he has put forth some very thoughtful content here.
- Glove - agree on the assessment of racism in the Oval Office.
- Mega - from "horse shit" reply to an erudite explanation of his frustrations. I countered on a couple of points but generally agree with much of what he posted.
- Wyoming has pretty much validated all my examples as he has taken issue with the broadness of the characterizations. That seems fair but the intent was never to comprehensively document every sketch comment - rather I was going off the top of my head with things that have stuck over the past 6 years.
What else did I miss - and how does any of this counter my original point?
David,
Ill have more to say tomorrow, too tired tonight. For now, this. ..
Why don't you ask Dong what the meaning of his "Ahhh Brownies" statement is. You (appear to) jump to allusions of racial undertones, in essence accusing Dong of making a racist joke. Why don't you go ahead and clarify that with him before the accusations come flying. THIS is where YOU are part of the problem, maintaining a walk-on-eggshells pseudo world where people have to be aware of any and all ways a statement or opinion could conceivably be perceived.
If Dong confirms the Brownie statement was said in jest bc Brownies and the President's skin color created the opportunity for such a joke, then I'll apologize to you and eat a big shit sandwich. Otherwise, I will maintain, you are part of the problem....your hyper sensitivity sees things where none exist.
I can speak to cultural division and paintimg with broad strokes tomorrow.
Ill have more to say tomorrow, too tired tonight. For now, this. ..
Why don't you ask Dong what the meaning of his "Ahhh Brownies" statement is. You (appear to) jump to allusions of racial undertones, in essence accusing Dong of making a racist joke. Why don't you go ahead and clarify that with him before the accusations come flying. THIS is where YOU are part of the problem, maintaining a walk-on-eggshells pseudo world where people have to be aware of any and all ways a statement or opinion could conceivably be perceived.
If Dong confirms the Brownie statement was said in jest bc Brownies and the President's skin color created the opportunity for such a joke, then I'll apologize to you and eat a big shit sandwich. Otherwise, I will maintain, you are part of the problem....your hyper sensitivity sees things where none exist.
I can speak to cultural division and paintimg with broad strokes tomorrow.
What specifically has Obama done that's racially divisive?
For the record, I am going to try and take this allegation seriously that OBama is racially divisive. I intuitively think it's insane Rovian tactics where you accuse your enemy of your deficiency, but I'm gonna have an open mind. Now, here's some examples of racially divisive politics that I never hear conservatives talk about while criticiinzng OBama's racial divisiveness:
For the record, I am going to try and take this allegation seriously that OBama is racially divisive. I intuitively think it's insane Rovian tactics where you accuse your enemy of your deficiency, but I'm gonna have an open mind. Now, here's some examples of racially divisive politics that I never hear conservatives talk about while criticiinzng OBama's racial divisiveness:
- when Bush campaign robocalled in the South Carolina primary that McCain had a mixed race, illegitimate child.
- Willie Horton,
- welfare queens (Reagan's apocryphal story avout the Chicago welfare queen)...
I will give you one example. Do you not find it even potentially racially divisive for Obama to send a cabinet member to the funeral of someone (Mike Brown) who was caught on video violently robbing a store? And then have the cabinet member make racial remarks and start a federal investigation into the police department of a very small city.
But back to my original reply to you the statement made that Obama has reduced racism.
During Obama's Presidency, poll after poll shows Americans believe race relations are worse now that before Obama was President. According to a CBS/NY TImes poll, 66% of Americans felt race relations were generally good. Now only 37% feel that way. That is the lowest in decades.
I contend Obama's words and reactions play a large part in this. Certainly also social media and the antagonist actions of the racist blacklivesmatter organization also have lowered race relations perceptions. But Obama is also in a unique setting to reduce this, but he has actually done the opposite.
During Obama's Presidency, poll after poll shows Americans believe race relations are worse now that before Obama was President. According to a CBS/NY TImes poll, 66% of Americans felt race relations were generally good. Now only 37% feel that way. That is the lowest in decades.
I contend Obama's words and reactions play a large part in this. Certainly also social media and the antagonist actions of the racist blacklivesmatter organization also have lowered race relations perceptions. But Obama is also in a unique setting to reduce this, but he has actually done the opposite.
You said three different specific things:
1. Having a cabinet member attend a funeral of Mike Brown. Why isn't that an act of diplomacy to reassure an angry populace that someone is listening? Given what occurred in that area, wasn't it a good idea for some serious government presence?
2. Cabinet member making racial remarks - what was specifically said and by whom?
3. Starting a federal investigation in to a police department of a very small city. This is what I'm talking about -- investigating racist law enforcement is being racially divisive, huh? Whereas, I guess if he did NOT investigate or take a stand, that would be non-divisive? That's about what I thought - "divisive" is code for "he doesn't just look the other way."
Read the New yorker piece that talks about the racism in that police force, and the insane fines and beat downs they gave people. It sounds like any time racism is confronted, that's deemed "divisive." Unless he takes a hands off approach, he's going to be deemed divisive by white people that apparently expect a racist plice department to not be investigated or corrected.
No offense, but expecting the federal government to just look the other way is divisive, as it further alienates a subfroup with legitimate questions about racism. Now, if the federal government enforces the law, that's racially "divisive." Got it.
Perhaps the nearly-weekly videotapes and stories of white police officers executing black detainees/arrestees has something to do with it? Can you see how blacks might not think that racial issues are as rosy as others believe?
Amazingly, there is apparently no national database that tracks police shootings.
There is, however, a database for the other side of the coin. 92% of the officers murdered were white in 2013 (the most recent year available) and 40% of the murder suspects were black.
Typical liberal hysteria. Nearly weekly? You must have been a drama major.
Regarding your request for examples, I'll sum up the problem with it. You want people to post examples so you can tell them they are wrong. What you fail to realize or at least acknowledge is that what someone sees as divisive is exactly that, what they see. Just because you don't see it the same doesn't mean their observation is without merit. Your liberal shaded eyes see things from your liberal perspective and nothing more.
Be honest. You aren't really interested in what someone may see as divisive. You just want fodder to climb upon your soap box and give us all some liberal lecturing. I'm sure it will be entertaining.
I have been told that a subjective definition of racism is unacceptable. Does the same not hold true for divisive?
"Nearly-weekly videotapes"?? I have seen two videos that show that. Are there more?
I suspect that you believe you have seen more, since the race-agaitators make claims on police execution when no evidence is shown to support their claims (Sandra Bland is a great example).
Last edited:
Interesting statistic. Does it give overall numbers. i.e. how many white cops vs. black suspects? Do you have a source?
1. Why is it good to attend the funeral who just committed a felony. A person that was caught clearly on video assaulting a store owner during a robbery? His actions attacking a police officer in his car were supported by evidence and autopsy. Claims of hands-up don't shoot were not supported by evidence.
2. AG Eric Holder
3. First, why would they start investigating Ferguson Police Dept in the first place?? The incident between Wilson and Brown has been shown by any sane look at the evidence to have nothing to do with race. Please tell me what evidence has been shown that Wilson stopped Brown because he was black .. or shot Brown because he was black.
I can remember a few: The fat guy running from the cop, where the cop shot him in the back and planted a gun. The one where the fat guy was choked out in NYC, the recent one where a cop is charged with murder for shooting the guy in the car. THere's the gal in Texas. THere was one I think in South Carolina that was so egregious the guy is being charged, too. There are three in Oklahoma I can think of -- the Moore theater deal, the one in Tulsa, and another one I've heard about but haven't seen video. That's off the top of my head, and I haven't searched for them. That's where there's video evidence surrounding the homicide. There was one around St. Louis after the Ferguson deal where a kid looked to be mentally ill or showing off, and the police killed him on when they had other options.
I hope those specifics answer your inquiry. I now welcome someone to address the specifics of Obama's racial divisiveness. So far we have that a cabinet official attended a funeral, a federal investigation into what appears to be a racist police department, and unkown statements by some unknown cabinet member. Is that it?
Can you elaborate "there's a gal in Texas"? Are you referring to Sandra Bland that all evidence points to a suicide??? Are you trying to claim the police killed her?
So with two videos this year ... and considering we are more than 1/2 through the year ... Would you agree to amend your statement from "nearly-weekly" to "nearly-quarterly"?
1. Lol, I'm still waiting on an answer to my qeustion. Who attended and what was said, and why is it racially divisive to attend the funeral of a horrible person?
2. But what did he say that was racially divisive?
3. Because they have a history of racism - did that bounce off you? They charged a guy with assault for bleeding on a cop when they beat him up, as I recall. The fines system they had was insane. Even Brown admitted there was racism issues at Ferguson, as I recall. It sounds like unless the federal goverment just turns a blind eye, they're race baiting.
I haven't followed it, and I don't know that much about it. I think the $64,000 question is whether she killed herself? Take it out of the equation if you want - there's plenty of other examples that would increase black suspicion of law enforcement. Why are you cherry picking that one, anyhow? Is your point that there aren't enough exmaples of blacks being killed by white cops to create mistrust? I can't figure out where you're coming from --- just taking the courageous position that we should support white cops?
Yes. It's from the FBI. It only covers those officers who were feloniously murdered (not killed in traffic collisions, accidents, etc.).
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...feloniously-killed/felonious_topic_page_-2013
I'd contend that subjectivity is unavoidable due to individual uniqueness. In that way, we really are like snowflakes. However, the reaction to one's own personal perception and the understanding that others may interact with the world differently than me puts the obligation on me to understand the meaning in another's remarks or actions before I inform them of their wrongness....if doing such a thing (informing them) is any of my business at all.
I'd further contend it is applicable in both situations you reference.
The President is divisive. That's where he equips himself with leverage, a necessity in politics.
I don't believe the President is racist.
I do believe a by-product of his divisiveness is to create a public atmosphere that is hyper-sensitive, mobilizing those already inclined to act, and tipping the scales of those at the margin, those who aren't necessarily inclined to act (or see racism, injustice, a War on Women, the 1 percenters, etc) to begin doing so.
The problem lies in the fact that VERY rarely do people who are mobilized seek to understand that which they attack or forcefully edify. In doing so they create ample collateral damage...namely, a bunch of impuned people who express themselves (or even an opinion/belief) in a way not "satisfactory" to the mobilized.
The existence of this hyper-sensitive environment makes lazy thought and lack of effort an easy thing to do. There is no accountability for people like SYS (and others... on both sides) when they make assinign assertions.
Even in the environment lacking accountability, there is further nuance that must be recognized: 1. those that label, forcefully edify, attack, etc (basically forcing their way into another's life) for their own enjoyment or bc politically it gives them leverage, and 2. Those that aren't even aware of their lazy effort in drilling down to what a person means in a statement or action. I'd contend David is evidence of this in this very thread. He's no Sys or Cup (on his bad days), but he impuned Dong and anybody who "sniggered" at Dongs "ah Brownies" remark. He didn't do so boldly, but in passing allusion. Again, if David seeks clarification from Dong and Dong admits it was intended as a racially sensitive joke, then I'll apologize to David for calling him out on it.
However, within the context of that exchange between Cup and Dong where Cup was, I assume, providing evidence of the President as a great uniter, then the "ah Brownies" remark becomes absolutely hilarious in its very simple way of shining a flashlight on what a great achievement it is to have a photo taken with a troop of Brownies, surely evidence of the President's superior prowess in mending fences and reaching middle ground. David sees hints of racism and ALLUDES to it (again impuning Dong and the snickerers), and I see Dong poking fun at Cups citation of the President's prowess as a uniter.
I'm in the camp (which I hope is growing) that intends to start making an effort to hld people accountable for lazy thinking. In my estimation Sys and Cup are gonna do their thing; any effort spent on them is wasted. However, David has demonstrated thoughtfulness in the past. If I care about him, and he cares about me, I'll put in the effort to provide a different perspective.
(Written from phone, will revisit later)
First, you referred to her as an example to back up your statement of "nearly-weekly videotapes". I was pointing out there is nothing with videotaping showing how she died. Now a couple of police officers said she hung herself, the medical examiner ruled her death a suicide and she herself admitted thinking about suicide in the past, but because some Twitter antagonist disagree ... it is a $64K question as to how she died?
I am not cherry-picking her case -- you yourself brought it up to back -up your claim that cannot be supported by any evidence that I am aware.
Where I am coming from?: Perhaps not attacking our police. Certainly we should stop police abuse ... no argument here ... but the Twitter antagonist are anti-police and you appear to be parroting their views.
That said, my original post was in response to the incredible statement that Obama has reduced racism. The fact of the matter he has not. And in fact, multiple polls show otherwise. And yes, I contend that he and his administration definitely stoked the fires. Do you NOT think that the sitting AG saying things like he "might dismantle the Ferguson police department" or the Ferguson is "under assault and siege" by FPD or that Ferguson is "deeply personal" to him (why would it be personal to him??)
Remember Holder's very first quote about Ferguson was not about how a felony act had been committed or even directly about the police shooting. His first statement was to compare the situation "as a black man" to when he was pulled over for a routine traffic stop. Basically he INJECTED racism to the Ferguson situation that did not appear ... and through months of investigation did not show ... that racism played any part at all to Brown's death. Brown's death had to do with that he just committed a violent felony and charged an officer minutes later. But to Holder and Obama the facts did not matter because there was an agenda to be started.
I took the time to look it up. So far in 2014, police have killed 693 people. In 2013, it was 768. http://killedbypolice.net/
So, if 92% of the officers murdered in 2013 were white, that's.... 25 dead white cops. 27 total.
Perhaps an objective analysis should include the fact that police killed 768 people agasint the 27 that were killed. If there's a war, law enforcement is winning hands down.
Also, be careful about using law enforcement data: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/04/police-killed-people-fbi-data-justifiable-homicides
FIrst, the "violent felony".....-- wasn't it taking some cigars and pushing a guy? Not at all alarmist or exaggerating...
For whatever reason, although I've mentioned it twice, nobody wants to address the big pink elephant in the middle of the room: The Ferguson PD has a long history of racism. It is the DOJ's job to make sure citizens get equal application of the law. You think that addressing racism is racially divisive, and imho you've illuminated the Hoboson's choice you try to set up: allow local racist police departments to continue their practices at will, or else whoever stops them is racist.
The problem isn't Obama, it's people like you that trivialize race and look for an opportunity, no matter how bad, to turn the table and call him a racist. It's transparent and clumsy. Ferguson is the example? LOL. The dept. should be disbanded.
Sys - Don't think we are going to agree here. Need to do some work so won't be following this thread for awhile. But I hope you re-think which side is trivilizing race. That is actually what the race-baiters do daily. I would not say Obama trivilized race, but his administration's actions definitely were made to push a political agenda and most definitely worsened the race relations.
So..... Weekly, if you round to the nearest 50?
I guess the family of the white preacher who got shot while being a dumb asshole have no racial recourse. That must suck to have nothing but over aggressive (but not racist) cops and your family member's own idiotic behavior to blame his death on.
The side that is better equipped and trained would likely win such a contest, if that's the way you want to look at it. Not surprising.
My reference to the "no national database" was to the federal government. It's shocking to me that they don't keep complete stats on this.
Well, you make a great point except for "racial recourse." If they wanted to sue, I guess they'd just have to proceed under the 4th and14th Amendments..... kinda like black people do. And they would lose, like Michael Brown will.
Yes, it is. I wish I had a nickel for every drunk preacher that gets shot charging a cop. It gets so old.
If I told a cancer joke or a rape joke, and you have been touched by either of those circumstances, should you not register your offense? Or should you consider that in my interactions with the world I haven't been touched by cancer or rape which means I can be a careless asshole with no regard for other people. Being considerate of other people's feelings and perception is just being polite.
But how can you say he is divisive without having a dialogue with Mr. Obama to understand fully where he is coming from? Your jump to conclusion is truly the type of thing that causes collateral damage.
The sarcasm here isn't meant be mean spirited, but it is the best way I can think of to get the poit across.
I think the burden is on you to provide evidence anyone is more culpable for this hypersensitivity than the actual conditions.
Example? Again I would blame the perpetrators of injustice for any collateral damage.
Impugning some one is merely an expression of opinion or belief.
Or Dong could reply with a "Oh I didn't mean that in racist way, but I can now see how others may see it that way. I'll be more careful in the future." I guarantee that no one would see him as racist. Again imagine if it was a cancer joke.
How is it that the speaker has no responsibility to consider those who hear him and those that hear him have complete responsibility to understand the speaker.
Racist or not, it wasn't half as clever as you make it out to be.
It's true. Racism (segregation, murder) did in the Neanderthals. Nothing to see here--it's been in our (Cro-Magnon) DNA since Cain stabbed Abel in the back. BTW who did Cain procreate with? I read somewhere that incest was the original sin...
