• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which Bolton do you believe? The one who said that Trump was really tough on China and Russia and actually praised the Trump Ukraine call or the Bolton that is a fired disgruntled employee trying to sell books?

My question is this. Is he, as the President says, lying about everything, or is he, once again per the President, releasing information that harms national security? If he’s a liar, who cares what his work of fiction says. If it’s a national security issue, stop it in its tracks.
 
um, they knew he was unarmed except for the taser. He was searched, and when the officer drew his gun he knew the guy had his taser which was also fluorescent yellow and had been discharged before the officer shot him.
And the conclusion that the officer knew it was a taser that had already been shot comes from?
 
And the conclusion that the officer knew it was a taser that had already been shot comes from?
This. A lot of MMQB takes on this issue. But that officer's world was turned upside down during that fight. He might not have a way to know if the suspect stole his partner's gun or maybe has a second taser from the partner in the other hand. There's just too much that can go wrong and when it looks like the suspect turns back to fire the officer has to unfortunately escalate. It's extremely sad and unfortunate, but we can't eliminate someone's personal responsibility to drink & drive, fight the police and put the officer in that position where he had to make the tough call to shoot.

To me, this officer shouldn't be charged with murder under all of the current rules and understandings of law enforcement training and standards. If we want to use this (and other examples) as the reason to discuss how the rules and training need to change then I'm all for that. But by hitting this officer with 11 charges it's like we're trying to change the rules on him in the middle of the game.

Let's have the discussion on if the rules need to change and then we can judge future situations under that new lens. But if we start trying to charge officers with crimes without re-setting the standards, that's the slippery slope where I see a lot more people leaving the force for fear they'll be subjected to mob rule in the future.

Just my opinion. I've appreciated the debate on this site the past few weeks. A lot of passion on both sides, but for the most part I feel like there's been good respectful consideration for varying opinions. At least more civil than Twitter :)
 
You don’t have to like Trump, you just have to not like this. If the republicans ran Condoleeza Rice I would vote for her if that kept this country from going to sh**. Which is where we’re headed already.

 
So is he suspending the 1st amendment and threatening people who peacefully want to protest?

Shameful.

It seems to me he is addressing those who plan on trying to disrupt the rally with violence or in other ways. Basically you might be able to get away with looting and violence in other areas but that won't be permitted here. I don't see a problem with this tweet.
 
It seems to me he is addressing those who plan on trying to disrupt the rally with violence or in other ways. Basically you might be able to get away with looting and violence in other areas but that won't be permitted here. I don't see a problem with this tweet.
Now I want to see them try it for the entertainment value!
 
White privilege is a thing , it’s not saying that because you are white you don’t have to work hard . It doesn’t null your hard work . It is a thing though solely based on the fact white people are the majority in this nation and western aka white nations are the centers of science , wealth, and power. To a degree an Arab in a majority Arab country has Arab privilege . African in African etc.

You grow up white it’s easier to fit in you have more people who look like you and by extent more people to network with. Your name is easy to pronounce , your considered generally safe in this nation. There’s more that goes along with it as well.

What if a black person with dreads and a name like Chaquan applies for a job? Let’s be real because I do it too, imma look at that guy and have my doubts on his character because in this society someone like that has a higher chance of being “ dangerous “ and “ unsafe”. But is that true to every black guy with dreads named Chaquan? Think about all the people named Tyrone, Chaquan, Laquisha etc who seem to fit the mold of a stereotype and as a result miss out . Is it fair to the Chaquans who work hard , have college degrees , and are law abiding citizens?

I will also agree white privilege has become an insult, a word used to take away from the achievements and hard work of white people. That’s the problem , the left wants to point out a problem or symptom of society and demonize somebody , as a result the right which is reactionary by definition resists . We are truly stuck y’all, knee deep in mud.
Good post. My take is that white privilege does indeed exist, alongside a bevy of other privileges. I would argue one also has some level of privilege from growing up in a stable, household (and arguably a two-parent household). Also, kids who are brought up in a wealthier household compared to a poorer one are more privileged. Geography also plays a role in privilege: a person who grows up in the DC area is probably going to be advantaged versus a person who grows up in some backwater town in Appalachia. In certain fields, at least, gender can also play a role in privilege (i.e. there are few women in IT). And there’s other types of privilege, too.

My point being that, all else being equal, whites do tend have it easier than other races in this country, but of course all else is never equal. It’s kind of insulting and hurtful to the cause to tell a poor white guy who grew up in a poor, drug abusing, dysfunctional family in a trailer park in the West Virginia coalfields to check his privilege. That’s a terrible set of cards to be dealt regardless of whether he’s white.

Of course, given the wealth disparities between whites and African Americans in this country, it is not as if race itself is often not related to some of these other disparities.

These posts are a lot more honest (IMO) than the greater portrayal of "white privilege." The truth is, every group and every individual has some aspects about them that are advantages and some that are disadvantages, not matter who they are. Do "white people" as a group have some advantages that other groups don't? Probably, but "white people" is a very broad group to make sweeping generalizations about. However, other groups have advantages that whites don't as well (in general of course). But this is true of whatever aspect we look at. You mentioned money and geography, but virtually everything falls into this. I'm approximating here, but let's say 90% of humans fall between the heights of 4'10" and 6'4" tall. The people who fall in that height bracket are going to have advantages over people who don't. Doorways, beds, cars, etc, are all designed for people in this height bracket. Is it because people are "height prejudiced?" In general, no; it is because things are designed to be useful to the most amount of people. We could look at anything from familiar parameters like education level, race, handicap, income level, age, and language, to less familiar classifications like urban vs rural living situations, diet, generational factors, climate factors; the list could go on and on. Even more superficial aspects like ability levels, hair or eye color, baldness. The point is, every category we "fit into" has it's advantages and disadvantages. We all have characteristics that fit into many, many categories; thus, we all have advantages in some some ways and disadvantages in other ways.

The problem is, this "white privilege" movement has been used to divide the races in this country, to pen virtually all the problems of minorities on the idea that whites have all this stuff given to them (which both of you allude to), and that whites enjoy such privilege and want to prevent minorities from enjoying the same privilege because they are inherently racist. It also picks out the category of skin color (from hundreds of other categories we could come up with) and basically says "this is the only one that matters; this is the source of all the problems." That is total baloney. This is has been the pervasive narrative that I have heard from all walks of culture during the movement, and it is everywhere. Not just in the mainstream media, but in TV shows, movies, classrooms, college courses, Hollywood, message boards, everywhere. It has been bought, hook, line, and sinker. We have people apologizing for being white and expressing "white guilt." Do people not see the problem here? This is race shaming, or whatever you want to call it, but it is just another form of racism. Redirected racism is not the right way to fix racism. We have to stop the blame game. We have to take personal responsibility for the things we can control and work to make positive changes. We also have to accept that not everything is always going to be fair. I am not going to fit into every advantage category and neither is someone else. Other people are going to have some advantages that I'll never have and vice versa. It is called life.
 
It seems to me he is addressing those who plan on trying to disrupt the rally with violence or in other ways. Basically you might be able to get away with looting and violence in other areas but that won't be permitted here. I don't see a problem with this tweet.

If those were his targeted groups he should have left out the word protesters......protesters have largely been non-violent.
 
These posts are a lot more honest (IMO) than the greater portrayal of "white privilege." The truth is, every group and every individual has some aspects about them that are advantages and some that are disadvantages, not matter who they are. Do "white people" as a group have some advantages that other groups don't? Probably, but "white people" is a very broad group to make sweeping generalizations about. However, other groups have advantages that whites don't as well (in general of course). But this is true of whatever aspect we look at. You mentioned money and geography, but virtually everything falls into this. I'm approximating here, but let's say 90% of humans fall between the heights of 4'10" and 6'4" tall. The people who fall in that height bracket are going to have advantages over people who don't. Doorways, beds, cars, etc, are all designed for people in this height bracket. Is it because people are "height prejudiced?" In general, no; it is because things are designed to be useful to the most amount of people. We could look at anything from familiar parameters like education level, race, handicap, income level, age, and language, to less familiar classifications like urban vs rural living situations, diet, generational factors, climate factors; the list could go on and on. Even more superficial aspects like ability levels, hair or eye color, baldness. The point is, every category we "fit into" has it's advantages and disadvantages. We all have characteristics that fit into many, many categories; thus, we all have advantages in some some ways and disadvantages in other ways.

The problem is, this "white privilege" movement has been used to divide the races in this country, to pen virtually all the problems of minorities on the idea that whites have all this stuff given to them (which both of you allude to), and that whites enjoy such privilege and want to prevent minorities from enjoying the same privilege because they are inherently racist. It also picks out the category of skin color (from hundreds of other categories we could come up with) and basically says "this is the only one that matters; this is the source of all the problems." That is total baloney. This is has been the pervasive narrative that I have heard from all walks of culture during the movement, and it is everywhere. Not just in the mainstream media, but in TV shows, movies, classrooms, college courses, Hollywood, message boards, everywhere. It has been bought, hook, line, and sinker. We have people apologizing for being white and expressing "white guilt." Do people not see the problem here? This is race shaming, or whatever you want to call it, but it is just another form of racism. Redirected racism is not the right way to fix racism. We have to stop the blame game. We have to take personal responsibility for the things we can control and work to make positive changes. We also have to accept that not everything is always going to be fair. I am not going to fit into every advantage category and neither is someone else. Other people are going to have some advantages that I'll never have and vice versa. It is called life.

Take it one step further; you have sports where certain leagues have a high percentage of people that make up the majority of athletes. Look at the makeup of the NFL for example; how many white people do you see out there? Not very many. Should we start to "fix" the NFL so instead of getting the best athletes we have better representation of whites in the NFL? If this is all about equality and making sure everyone has a fair chance that would be the natural thing to do; so why is there no push for this? Good points above and it's sad to see so many buying into the Marxist lies that have infiltrated every aspect of society and how few realize it...
 
Last edited:
If those were his targeted groups he should have left out the word protesters......protesters have largely been non-violent.

I think it is clear from the context he is referring to people who would be violent and in general break the law... the contextual use of words like anarchist, lowlife, looters, etc and the reference to cities where these types of people have been running rampant without any consequence.
 
Well not everyone but white supremacists yes.

Why go through life with such hatred for people you disagree with? There are lots of people I strongly disagree with but I don't see it as beneficial for me or anyone else to go around spewing vitriolic statements about them and hating them. It's ironic that people hate Trump for the strong wording he uses for people he disagrees with and attacks but somehow it is justified for these same people to talk about him and others they disagree with in the exact same way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top