Trump protestors

[swansont]

besides, data can be cherry picked and without reading the background white could be non-Hispanic whites, or Hispanic whites or whites other than Hispanic. And all the white drug dealers could be in West Virginia and all the Hispanic dealers could be in Paterson and all the black dealers could be from Newark, but it would not mean I should not be afraid of a black drug dealer selling drugs to the kids in my town

The assumption that the drug dealer would be black is part of the racism equation.

 

No, because I understand that my country isn't like a BINGO game. I understand that I don't have to be the wealthiest for it to be a pretty great life. I understand that I can't really be as happy as I can be if I know the selfish folks are dragging down others in order to win. I understand that if more people start out under even circumstances, and get the same investment in their potential, our society becomes one worth investing pride in as well.

Who are these selfish folks "dragging down others in order to win", though? That's the perception, but not the reality.

But anyway, I never said all drug dealers were black and was trying to make the point that the problems in our society are related to drugs and crime and dependency, not to race.

You're the one who chose to frame it that way in your example.

[Phi for All]

Who are these selfish folks "dragging down others in order to win", though? That's the perception, but not the reality.

 

The ones who've been skewing the benefits of high production their way for the last 60 years, to the detriment of the middle class worker. The selfish folks who profit by corporate welfare while forcing the poor to bootstrap it "the way they did". The people who continue to rig the system to benefit themselves at the expense of those without that capability, because they seem to control all the factors that might reasonably regulate them.

[swansont]

The ones who've been skewing the benefits of high production their way for the last 60 years, to the detriment of the middle class worker. The selfish folks who profit by corporate welfare while forcing the poor to bootstrap it "the way they did". The people who continue to rig the system to benefit themselves at the expense of those without that capability, because they seem to control all the factors that might reasonably regulate them.

I was confused by "drag", since to me that implies pulling from below. This seems like pushing others down — welfare for the rich e.g. all those tax breaks only available if you have a large income, even as you derive more and more benefit from government services.

[Phi for All]

I was confused by "drag", since to me that implies pulling from below. This seems like pushing others down — welfare for the rich e.g. all those tax breaks only available if you have a large income, even as you derive more and more benefit from government services.

 

The physics of unregulated capitalism.

 

You're right, it's not a drag. Is it a push? There's pressure being exerted to draw more benefits upward, out of proportion to the work that's been done to create the benefits. It's siphoning off resources whose allocation to the middle class helps the economy more than sequestering them at the top, and it seems to have gotten to the point where the rise of some wealth is only powered by the fall of the lower classes as they're sucked dry.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I did frame it like the drug and crime was due to blacks moving in to my area in East Orange, because it was, not because I had some sort of illusion. My cousin, who I was living with in a college house she and my future wife rented from the school I was graduating from after returning from the Army, had her purse stolen on the street right on the corner near the admin building of my old school. Daylight with others on the street. As the thief, who was black, ran, she yelled for assistance from another black man walking on the pavement on the other side of the street. The other guy raised his clenched fist and said "right on brother." She moved out of the area shortly afterward and my wife and I continued on. We were broken into twice, once by a white and black team and once by a black man who was confronted on the street by one of my neighbors, a white woman married to a professor of the school, with a pillowcase full of our stuff. He did not stop, nor did we ever catch him, but that professor and his wife moved out of the area also. A little later we moved out too, because I had a baby girl and a wife, and my wife was confronted by a black man on her walk home from the bus stop who suggested she should not be walking by herself in that neighborhood.

 

Now this was 25 or 30 years ago, so things may have changed, but I do not need any data to know that the area where I grew up and my dad taught college at, went downhill as more blacks moved in and whites moved out. Perhaps we were too close at that point to the civil rights act and there was still payback in the hearts of blacks, but there was also a distrust of "the man" and a general feeling that it was OK to "get over on the man". So blame me for racism, or blame me for not keeping up with the times and for holding old grudges or something, but don't blame me for the blackman's plight. They are grownups in a country that makes a point of not discriminating. And you can turn on any channel and see profession blacks in entertainment, news and sports. You can look at the whitehouse and see a half black, half white guy running the free world. I was from NJ and always considered myself a Yankee that fought on the side of the war that freed the slaves. I always thought myself a good guy and had close friends that were black in college, the army and in my professional career.

 

My feelings against crime and drugs and people that cheat and take advantage of people are because I want to see people take care of each other and operate in an ethical and civil manner. That people feel discriminated against because the sins of their brothers reflects upon them, is unfair indeed. And it goes both ways. Unfair that I feel unsafe when I see a black teenager in a hoody. Unfair to all the law abiding good blacks that there are. But when some goofball 16 year old white young man from a state that lost the civil war paints a Nazi symbol on a church wall, it is unfair to conclude that TAR did it.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I did frame it like the drug and crime was due to blacks moving in to my area in East Orange, because it was, not because I had some sort of illusion.

Unless you have identified all of the drug dealers you do not, in fact, know this.

 

 

As for your story, the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence"

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I understand that all drug dealers are not black. Probably more are white, and whites probably bring the drugs to the black dealers that sell to the white teens that sell to their classmates. There is even some talk I have heard that whites supplied drugs to the inner city to on purpose keep blacks weak and dependent. That is why I rail against the drug lords and the gangs, because the whole system tends to keep blacks down in their separate areas, killing each other, and making the area undesirable for shopping and business and economic growth, that would give blacks actual power and capability to run their own lives and make their own decisions. The profiling is self sustaining. The crime related to the drugs gives one reason to put the guy in jail which leaves the mother of the guy's kids to do for herself and she can't rise up out of the low income areas because she has a kid to take care of and the need to work to eat and she becomes dependent on the government and has to follow the government rules and she becomes dependent.

 

Perhaps institutional racism did cause the situation. I traveled through a town in Virginia and saw a group of duplexes all with the same air conditioner and the same screens and bars on the first floor windows and before I even saw anybody walking, I knew it was a place where blacks lived, and I knew it was government housing. Like a prison without walls. I don't think that is helpful to blacks in terms of blacks reaching an equal footing with all other Americans. Not wanting to see blacks in these situations is not, on my part, selfishness or racism. I want the black guy to live next door, and have a job and watch my stuff when I am away.

 

True racism, I think is of two kinds. One, where the person thinks of the other as subhuman and inferior and treats them like animals. The other is where the person thinks of the other as subhuman and inferior and treats them like wards.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

The third is where otherwise well intentioned kind people see and treat others differently for no reason whatsoever beyond skin color and misguided notions...

[tar]

iNow,

 

I give everybody the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

 

Regards, TAR

when they give me a reason to distrust them I then distrust them

iNow,

 

Well tell me honestly where you think you will find bars on the first floor windows of buildings? Is there any reason for people to do this to their building, other than they are protecting from breakin? If you are in an area where you are afraid your neighbor is going to break in and steal your stuff, there is probably a drug addict in the area.

 

In my story from many years ago, bars appeared on the first floor of buildings I passed for years that did not have bars on the windows exactly when the people renting the buildings were black and not white.

 

Why is that happening, me having a misconceived notion and thinking there was drugs and burglaries, for no reason?

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2016 by tar

[iNow]

I give everybody the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

 

when they give me a reason to distrust them I then distrust them

Which is perfect when speaking of individuals and specific actions specific individuals have taken. Not so perfect when speaking of masses made up of millions and based on nothing other than personal bias, anecdote, and textbook usage of the hasty generalization fallacy.

[tar]

iNow,

 

 

I was talking specific areas and specific people. East Orange really happened. West Virginia really happened. There are not so many blacks in West Virginia, and most of the people involved with the Meth and Oxy are white, but I am not speaking of all whites when I speak of West Virginia, why to you blame me for speaking about all blacks when I speak about what happen in East Orange or is currently happening in Chicago?

 

Regards, TAR

 

And this is important to the discussion because Trump was called a racist for saying we have a lot of criminals and drugs coming across the border from Mexico. Does Mexico have a drug and crime problem? Yes. Is Mexican a race? How does wanting to enforce the immigration laws of the country, especially in the case of gang members that are here to deal drugs and kill people, being a racist. Where does love trumps hate apply here. The people afraid of being deported are people that are here illegally.

 

Why is that hate. Obama has deported many, and he was never called a hater for it.

Now I do not defend Bannon or the KKK and I am sick that we have so much racism rising to the surface with Trump's ugly speech, but remember that Hilary fired right back and has been calling Trump a Homophobe, Racist, Xenophobe deplorable person leading, ignorant, unprepared bully. 60 million people took offense and protested against Hilary at the polls.

Even people that don't like Trump voted for Trump because Hilary's smug name calling was so offensive...at least one...me. Remember Hilary said when asked who she was most proud to be the enemy of, she answered The Republicans, the Drug Companies and the Iranians. Why would I vote for someone, to be my president that hates a third of the country?

People have said they want to kill Trump or see him killed. That is not love.

in fact it is going to be a felony in 65 days

[rangerx]

iNow,

 

 

I was talking specific areas and specific people. East Orange really happened. West Virginia really happened. There are not so many blacks in West Virginia, and most of the people involved with the Meth and Oxy are white, but I am not speaking of all whites when I speak of West Virginia, why to you blame me for speaking about all blacks when I speak about what happen in East Orange or is currently happening in Chicago?

 

Regards, TAR

 

And this is important to the discussion because Trump was called a racist for saying we have a lot of criminals and drugs coming across the border from Mexico. Does Mexico have a drug and crime problem? Yes. Is Mexican a race? How does wanting to enforce the immigration laws of the country, especially in the case of gang members that are here to deal drugs and kill people, being a racist. Where does love trumps hate apply here. The people afraid of being deported are people that are here illegally.

 

Why is that hate. Obama has deported many, and he was never called a hater for it.

Now I do not defend Bannon or the KKK and I am sick that we have so much racism rising to the surface with Trump's ugly speech, but remember that Hilary fired right back and has been calling Trump a Homophobe, Racist, Xenophobe deplorable person leading, ignorant, unprepared bully. 60 million people took offense and protested against Hilary at the polls.

 

Trump accused a sitting American born judge of being a Mexican, incapable of doing his job.

 

Obama was demonized for everything and anything he did by the right, even for being tough on immigration.

 

Hillary didn't lose because she was a racist.

 

Fail x3

[tar]

might even be a felony to threaten the life of the president elect

[rangerx]

might even be a felony to threaten the life of the president elect

More imaginary crimes that Hillary needs to be locked up for?

[tar]

rangerx,

 

Somewhere here I am looking for a unifying theme.

 

It is not possible to come to an understanding if you can not recognize the pot is calling the kettle black when the right calls the left haters and the left calls the right haters.

 

Both are hating the hater and therefore not listening to the other side, nor thinking of the other side as being on their team. To be a country with all of us on the same side is what unifying means. That I have one way of coming together, needing certain acknowledgements from you, and you have other ideas of what needs to be acknowledged to make it work is what the division in our country is all about.

 

Harry Reid for instance is telling the country that Trump is not attempting to give the country a signal of reconciliation because he hired Bannon for such a vital role and it is instead a signal that Trump is a racist and will divide our country. Why does Reid not see that what Hilary has been saying about Trump and what Obama has been saying about Trump, and MSNBC has been saying about Trump and what he has been saying about Trump offends the people that agree with some of the stuff that Trump says. And that if we are to love one another and give the other the benefit of the doubt, you can neither assume a black man is criminal, nor assume a white man is a bigot.

 

Regards, TAR

[Delta1212]

Nobody is calling Trump racist because he's white. They've called him racist because some of the things that he has said.

 

It's not like that accusation gets leveled out of nowhere. I think a generalized statement about all Trump supporters being racist is unfair. That's a lot of people with a lot of diverse reasons for voting for him.

 

But Trump is not himself a whole category of people. He's an induvidual with a record of things he has actually said. And I think you should be able to discuss someone's own words and what they mean without having to tiptoe around the fact that they're racist things to say.

[rangerx]

You cannot unify by dividing.

 

Hillary was a failed candidate, but she was NOT a criminal. The right went on ad nauseam as though she was. The epitome of un-American (no less sexist) behavior. Beside that, she done. Gone. She cannot be used in any context moving forward.

 

The whole birther issue was little more than a racist plot to delegitimize a democratically elected leader. Remember who perpetuated it, ad nauseam no less? Trump and Bannon. That can never glossed over, ever.

 

Do you mean to suggest the left should just let Trump run roughshod on the country, without criticism?

 

 

The one blessing in disguise in this past election cycle, the right cannot never use high moral character nor religion as their standard bearer for eligibility to the office.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, Trump isn't even in the office yet, but his popularity rating (for all that's worth) is in the tank.

 

He's already done an about face on pretty much every election promise. No wall, no mass deportation, Obamacare stands, no special prosecutor, a staff chocked full of Washington insiders, no movement to repeal Roe v Wade. Sounds like the antics of a turncoat liberal to me. The left doesn't trust him, the right doesn't either, but they'll never admit it. Therein lies the problem.

 

Trump actually has a few days in court to answer to. Unlike what right wingers do at the drop of a hat, I'll reserve my opinion until there's a verdict.

 

In all honesty, I don't think Trump is a dyed in the wool racist or sexist. He is undoubtedly a lecherous, elitist xenophobe nonetheless though. Liar sure ranks up there too.

 

Given the high level witch hunts directed at both Obama and Clinton initiated and perpetuated by the right (ie) FBI, KKK and KGB as strange bedfellows, it's best to be prepared to hear about Trump's actions and words ad nauseam for the next four years.

 

None of that's going away any time soon.

 

 

It's the reason people are taking to the streets.

rangerx,

 

Somewhere here I am looking for a unifying theme.

 

It is not possible to come to an understanding if you can not recognize the pot is calling the kettle black when the right calls the left haters and the left calls the right haters.

 

Both are hating the hater and therefore not listening to the other side, nor thinking of the other side as being on their team. To be a country with all of us on the same side is what unifying means. That I have one way of coming together, needing certain acknowledgements from you, and you have other ideas of what needs to be acknowledged to make it work is what the division in our country is all about.

 

Harry Reid for instance is telling the country that Trump is not attempting to give the country a signal of reconciliation because he hired Bannon for such a vital role and it is instead a signal that Trump is a racist and will divide our country. Why does Reid not see that what Hilary has been saying about Trump and what Obama has been saying about Trump, and MSNBC has been saying about Trump and what he has been saying about Trump offends the people that agree with some of the stuff that Trump says. And that if we are to love one another and give the other the benefit of the doubt, you can neither assume a black man is criminal, nor assume a white man is a bigot.

 

Regards, TAR

[swansont]

And that if we are to love one another and give the other the benefit of the doubt, you can neither assume a black man is criminal, nor assume a white man is a bigot.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence of action (or inaction). Bannon is a white supremacist. The KKK has endorsed Trump and he has done nothing to repudiate them. Those are facts, not assumptions.

 

There are some issues that have no middle ground, no room for compromise. Bigotry is one of them.

[Ten oz]

As legal forms of discrimination went away so to did our bipartisan support for social programs. Politicians took to sexist and racist wedge issues to divide support. We started creating caricatures of promiscuous women who take advantage of their independence and minorities who were lazy welfare queens that abused social programs. Sadly many rather just see us all do without than have to share with those we deem unworthy. Fear of a single undeserving person receiving assistance has become reason enough for there to be no assistance at all. It is a dangerous and unhealthy approach for a society to have in my opinion. It is akin to a person who suffers from anorexia. They starve themselves to death because they have a mental disorder where by they believe they are/look too fat. Conservatives think the country is too lazy, too selfish, too promiscuous, too whatever and are attempting to starve it (us) to death!

 

 

 

Ten Oz, you say people don't want to help anybody in need because they might help an undeserving person, so they don't help anyone. I do not think you understand why I for instance would object to government housing, or welfare, or taking care of someone's children who has 4 children with three different women because they are interested in spreading their seed, and not taking responsibility for the upbringing of the resulting children. I can not tell people how to live, or patch up broken marriages or keep people from taking drugs, but having the government take responsibility for raising somebody's children, should be a rare occasion where a widow needs help, or someone is ill or crippled. It should not be par for the course spread across huge populations, like in West Virginia where the result of having disability programs, and welfare programs and no jobs, is a population that uses their government check to buy Meth or oxy.

So it is, for me, not that I don't want to help anybody, but that I do not want to foster dependency on government programs, and I will not see children suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents, but I will take offense at them putting me in that situation, and yelling at me when the check does not come.

 

Regards, TAR

Thank you for making my point. You created a caricature and are using it to justify what is ultimately a self destructive position. World wide societies with safety nets are more stable, have higher life expectancies, higher levels of education, and etc.

 

A govt can't not function going 180 degrees every few years. Passing healthcare then repealing it, investing in clean energy and then stripping regulation and defunding clean energy, allowing immigrants to stay and then kicking them out. The caricature of a man who has children with different women and isn't a responsible parent to those children isn't worth the nation being self destructive. It isn't worth all the other baggage that comes with electing someone like Trump simply because you are angry at caricatures you've imagined.

[DrP]

I take reports of rioting with a pinch of salt. I remember being appalled at the 'violence' against the police during the UK poll tax protests years ago. I condemned it and spoke out about it.... until a friend of mine said "Hold on, I was there - that's not what happened at all - it was a peaceful protest until the riot police turned up and started a riot"

 

There was famous footage of a police car being attacked by 'rioters' in a crowd - what my friend said actually happened was that the crowd were hearded by riot police into a large cordon and then the police car drove through the crowd at speed, hurting many.... knocking over the protesters with their car... they then set the cameras rolling as the crowd turned nasty and reported it on national TV as 'Protesters turn violent against the police'....

 

... so... what do you believe these days?, lol. "Hypernormalisation?" Hysteria and truths mixed with untruths everywhere from all sides - no-one knows what is going on or who wants what.

[imatfaal]

I take reports of rioting with a pinch of salt. I remember being appalled at the 'violence' against the police during the UK poll tax protests years ago. I condemned it and spoke out about it.... until a friend of mine said "Hold on, I was there - that's not what happened at all - it was a peaceful protest until the riot police turned up and started a riot"

 

There was famous footage of a police car being attacked by 'rioters' in a crowd - what my friend said actually happened was that the crowd were hearded by riot police into a large cordon and then the police car drove through the crowd at speed, hurting many.... knocking over the protesters with their car... they then set the cameras rolling as the crowd turned nasty and reported it on national TV as 'Protesters turn violent against the police'....

 

... so... what do you believe these days?, lol. "Hypernormalisation?" Hysteria and truths mixed with untruths everywhere from all sides - no-one knows what is going on or who wants what.

 

I was there - my friend had his skull fractured by a long handled baton wielded by a mounted policeman. I didn't see the car attacked (it was a very large march) - but I was there when we were herded and corralled into Trafalgar Square and then charged by mounted cavalry.

 

Would not happen now - "they" have much better control over demonstrations of public dissent

[Phi for All]

I take reports of rioting with a pinch of salt. I remember being appalled at the 'violence' against the police during the UK poll tax protests years ago. I condemned it and spoke out about it.... until a friend of mine said "Hold on, I was there - that's not what happened at all - it was a peaceful protest until the riot police turned up and started a riot"

 

There was famous footage of a police car being attacked by 'rioters' in a crowd - what my friend said actually happened was that the crowd were hearded by riot police into a large cordon and then the police car drove through the crowd at speed, hurting many.... knocking over the protesters with their car... they then set the cameras rolling as the crowd turned nasty and reported it on national TV as 'Protesters turn violent against the police'....

 

... so... what do you believe these days?, lol. "Hypernormalisation?" Hysteria and truths mixed with untruths everywhere from all sides - no-one knows what is going on or who wants what.

 

I've heard a number of stories confirming the "staging" of media events to make them more sensational and viewer-worthy. I was hoping it would be better with a state-run media than it is in the US, where news outlets are free to make up the status of various situations to spice up the news. People change the channel when it's correctly reported that the situation was handled well, but they stay glued when you tell them "It's complete chaos here...".

[tar]

 

 

It's not an assumption. It's a conclusion drawn from the evidence of action (or inaction). Bannon is a white supremacist. The KKK has endorsed Trump and he has done nothing to repudiate them. Those are facts, not assumptions.

 

There are some issues that have no middle ground, no room for compromise. Bigotry is one of them.

 

SwansonT,

 

Well many places in this election, people drew wide sweeping character and thought assumptions based on a few actions and lacks of action. Like the assumption that if Hilary deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER the government asked for government records she had on an ill-advised server, that she obviously had something to hide. Facts, not assumptions, no room to compromise, she was asked for government records and did not turn over everything on her server. Sure it is possible she is innocent and just deleted e-mails as to what to order for lunch, but the equally plausible assumption is that she had something to hide. Like Trump not releasing his Taxes, the assumption is that he has something to hide, and this means he paid no taxes, owes Russia and China millions, has business deals all over the world that will cause conflict of interest between his businesses and the interests of the U.S.

 

Bannon runs an organization that fosters views of the alt right. I myself find this disqualifying, but I make wide sweeping assumptions as to what kind of policy this means he might argue for and against. But it is not a black and white slam dunk that you know what Bannon will advise, why Trump wants him in that position and whether Bannon has any helpful ideas to add to how the office should proceed. Like my conversations with a black co-worker at an apartment building in Newark, where I learned that he had 4 children with 3 different women, was interested in spreading his seed, and knew that government programs would help his women raise the kids, lead me to assume that other black men in Newark, might be taking the same tack.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 16, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

 

I've heard a number of stories confirming the "staging" of media events to make them more sensational and viewer-worthy. I was hoping it would be better with a state-run media than it is in the US, where news outlets are free to make up the status of various situations to spice up the news. People change the channel when it's correctly reported that the situation was handled well, but they stay glued when you tell them "It's complete chaos here...".

Katrina I the biggest example. I remember live reports of babies being raped, roving gangs murdering people, helicopters being shot, and etc, etc. A congressional review after showed it was all exaggerated. More recently we saw the "riots" in Ferguson. Media vans and reports lined the streets. Some night media personnel easily out numbered protesters. Yet the reports were consistently sensational showing police officers with high powered assualt rifles marching through clouds of tear gas as mask wearing protestors ran the streets.

[Delta1212]

 

SwansonT,

 

Well many places in this election, people drew wide sweeping character and thought assumptions based on a few actions and lacks of action. Like the assumption that if Hilary deleted 33,000 e-mails AFTER the government asked for government records she had on an ill-advised server, that she obviously had something to hide. Facts, not assumptions, no room to compromise, she was asked for government records and did not turn over everything on her server. Sure it is possible she is innocent and just deleted e-mails as to what to order for lunch, but the equally plausible assumption is that she had something to hide. Like Trump not releasing his Taxes, the assumption is that he has something to hide, and this means he paid no taxes, owes Russia and China millions, has business deals all over the world that will cause conflict of interest between his businesses and the interests of the U.S.

 

Bannon runs an organization that fosters views of the alt right. I myself find this disqualifying, but I make wide sweeping assumptions as to what kind of policy this means he might argue for and against. But it is not a black and white slam dunk that you know what Bannon will advise, why Trump wants him in that position and whether Bannon has any helpful ideas to add to how the office should proceed. Like my conversations with a black co-worker at an apartment building in Newark, where I learned that he had 4 children with 3 different women, was interested in spreading his seed, and knew that government programs would help his women raise the kids, lead me to assume that other black men in Newark, might be taking the same tack.

 

Regards, TAR

I've got the feeling that you could easily swap out the descriptor "black" for "poor" in that statement. Or you could leave it out entirely and make the generalized group simply become "men."

 

Any single person can be put in a lot of different possible groups. It's important to take a long look at which groups they fall into that one is inclined to extrapolate their behavior for and ask why that group and not the others.