|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 1, 2016 19:27:53 GMT -5
I can't understand why the black vote is going so heavily for Hillary. Sanders literally got arrested fighting segregation in the 1960s, and they still prefer Hillary?
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Mar 1, 2016 21:11:22 GMT -5
I can't understand why the black vote is going so heavily for Hillary. Sanders literally got arrested fighting segregation in the 1960s, and they still prefer Hillary? It's because the Clintons have always been viewed positively by the black community even though Bill fed the whole "tough on crime" narrative by doing stuff like overseeing the execution of a mentally disabled man. I guess after Regean even a more centrist democrat like Bill would be viewed positively. It also probably doesn't help that there are some very vocal Bernie supporters who both say they would rather vote for Trump than Clinton (which makes absolutely no sense) and seem insistent on telling minorities how they should vote. Obviously the supporters are no fault of Bernie's (unlike Trump who does everything he legally can to feed the racist part of his fanbase) but it still has the effect of making some people less likely to support Bernie over Hillary.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Mar 2, 2016 2:09:26 GMT -5
This is a slightly more entertaining "reality" show than Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Just barely, though.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Mar 2, 2016 5:27:26 GMT -5
I like how right after they are interviewing the black guy they keep the camera rolling while the white guy speaks and the words are muted.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 2, 2016 9:38:57 GMT -5
Lol, that clip is hilarious. That guy is totally reasonable and not supporting their little narrative there. I'm no Trump supporter here but I hate it when Duke gets this kind of attention. He's allowed to vote for whoever he wants, it shouldn't be used against the candidate. Saying you will deny Muslims entry into the US is far more damaging and important than anything Duke says. But that doesn't get attention anymore cuz of 24 hour news cycle.
I'm on vacation in Florida and sat at a BRUTAL table of Trump supporters yesterday. "if that bitch Hillary wins, it's cuz the women and Muslims voted''
"she should be in prison or indicted at the very least. Did u know she forwarded two thousand top secret documents?''
And then everyone started to compare gun collections. The dealer as well.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Mar 2, 2016 17:24:24 GMT -5
To be fair, according to how the law is written, Hillary should be in prison.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 2, 2016 18:44:09 GMT -5
I can't understand why the black vote is going so heavily for Hillary. Sanders literally got arrested fighting segregation in the 1960s, and they still prefer Hillary? Like dunsparce said, Bill is a huge factor. Add in that Obama had her as Secretary and and that she has way more name recognition and traditional media support and it gives Hillary a boost in the black community. Besides with how close the race is, she'll win because of Superdelegates anyway.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 2, 2016 19:10:07 GMT -5
maybe it's cuz they know the GOP won't do dick about Black Lives Matter but the Dems MIGHT do something?
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 3, 2016 9:04:46 GMT -5
I can't understand why the black vote is going so heavily for Hillary. Sanders literally got arrested fighting segregation in the 1960s, and they still prefer Hillary? Like dunsparce said, Bill is a huge factor. Add in that Obama had her as Secretary and and that she has way more name recognition and traditional media support and it gives Hillary a boost in the black community. Besides with how close the race is, she'll win because of Superdelegates anyway. If she wins because of superdelegates, she will lose the general election. If people feel like she stole the nomination she will hemorrhage support.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 3, 2016 18:22:59 GMT -5
To be fair, according to how the law is written, Hillary should be in prison. That's really not how burden of proof, or "innocent until proven guilty" work. maybe it's cuz they know the GOP won't do dick about Black Lives Matter but the Dems MIGHT do something? Doing something about black lives matter means going to war with the police. I honestly can't envision anyone doing anything about it anytime soon. It's a losing issue without a clear goal driving it forward.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 3, 2016 21:41:41 GMT -5
Like dunsparce said, Bill is a huge factor. Add in that Obama had her as Secretary and and that she has way more name recognition and traditional media support and it gives Hillary a boost in the black community. Besides with how close the race is, she'll win because of Superdelegates anyway. If she wins because of superdelegates, she will lose the general election. If people feel like she stole the nomination she will hemorrhage support. I think in this particular case, you're right, but they have gone against the popular vote before. That's the whole reason superdelegates exist, the question is, will they see the writing on the wall if it gets to that point.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 4, 2016 17:03:27 GMT -5
Paciderm, do you think a more representative police force would help?
I think there are solutions short of going to war with the police. The right won't touch it tho cuz they want to interpret any defense of senseless killings as an attack on police.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 4, 2016 18:27:58 GMT -5
Paciderm, do you think a more representative police force would help? I think there are solutions short of going to war with the police. The right won't touch it tho cuz they want to interpret any defense of senseless killings as an attack on police. I don't see how we're going to get a more representative police force without broad spectrum affirmative action, and even that might not do it. This would mean instituting a preference for black officers in areas that are predominately black. There are a few things wrong with this. The first is that it is a form of institutionalized racism against any race that is not black and could likely result in less qualified officers being selected simply because of their race. The second is that there probably aren't enough black officers to fill the ranks for areas that are predominately black (or hispanic officers for areas that are predominately hispanic) as our police force in general is still very white. The third is that there is no guarantee that the the black officers you do find will handle these situations any differently than white officers, and the reason for that is that generally I don't believe these are racially motivated killings. There are probably some racist cops out there and there are definitely a few instances of them killing black men in cold blood, but most police officers would not kill unarmed people on purpose. Most of these are tragic cases of "I thought he had a gun. I feared for my life, so I shot him." A black police officer will go through the same thought processes, and come to the same decision. The real solution to this problem is training. Police officers would need to be trained to examine situations differently. There would need to be less of an "Us vs. Them, You vs. Me, Life vs. Death" attitude, and more of a "Don't fire until fired upon" attitude. Current police training centers around keeping officers alive in dangerous situations, and not preserving the life of the suspect at all costs. Most police departments would prefer not to switch to different training methods because it would likely mean the death of more police officers while they spend precious time trying to figure out whether or not a suspect actually wants to kill them. So, yes, the only real solution to this problem would mean going to war with the police. You could paint this as a gun control issue, and argue that the overall militarization of the police is a response to the ready availability of guns in this country. But there are problems with that argument as well since most law abiding gun owners don't just open fire on the police for no reason. There's also no guarantee that lessening the amount of firearms in private hands would do anything to curb police militarization. You could argue it's the presence of 300 million guns in this country that forces the police to adopt a "shoot first" approach, but then how do you suggest we change that? That's a losing issue as well at this point. There are millions of people who absolutely will not give up their guns under any circumstances. Are we going to actually take their guns from their "cold dead hands"? That seems like a way to create a bigger problem by solving a smaller one.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 4, 2016 19:39:19 GMT -5
i don't think its a gun issue. Police officers should carry guns. They should only pull them out when in mortal danger tho. They are not going to a whole grab-bag of non-lethal options first, and that's the problem. Just really bad training, or really bad equipment (I'm assuming these are the problems and not actual bloodlust, racism or hatred as you eliminated also).
In Northern Ireland, they made the police force more representative (50% catholic, 50% prod) since before it was 95-98% prod in some regions. Things got a little better after that and then a lot better after enough time (this could be due to many other factors tho). I think it would help since it would help the perception of the police which is clearly a major problem right now.
I think the main problem isn't actually the black v white thing but that police officers are using lethal force way too often when it should be absolutely uncalled for. Like a suspect running away and such.
I would argue at this point we're almost getting to an area where a civilian could legally kill a police officer in self defense, even if the civilian acted first. We can't let it get to that. Shoot first works for both sides, not just the cops.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 5, 2016 7:32:24 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Iceland has had 1 fatal shooting by police on record. They also have no right to own a gun, all gun ownership requires government approval with a valid reason to own a gun (self defense doesn't count), and all gun owners have mandatory training.
But it's not a gun issue.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 5, 2016 11:58:46 GMT -5
It's ridiculous to compare other countries, especially radically different countries. Iceland doesn't have a history with guns. Iceland has a low population. Iceland is an island nation way up north with no boarding countries. They don't have huge slums in major cities. There's no black market or gangs or a boarding country which is under influence from huge international drug cartels. Vermont has almost no gun control and has incredibly low gun homicide rate and police shootings. NY has extremely strict gun control and has a higher gun homicide rate and police shootings. It's easy to pick and choose without taking into consideration a whole other mess of factors. The gun control debate, in the US, is extremely complicated.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 5, 2016 12:04:59 GMT -5
Detroit Threat Management Center. Commander Dale Brown came to Detroit and saw, according to him, that the police department / officers, across the board, cared more about getting money from prosecutions than they did actually protecting the public from violence. A perverse incentive structure. This guy then created a system that teaches people how to handle and end confrontations without resorting to violence. Turns out, he made it profitable, and lots of businesses, land owners, and groups of people, now hire his psyops dudes to protect their stuff. He's directly responsible for a decrease in crime in Detroit. The free market, per se, at work, ladies and gents. :D ( where I got me information: )
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 5, 2016 12:46:44 GMT -5
It's ridiculous to compare other countries, especially radically different countries. Iceland doesn't have a history with guns. Iceland has a low population. Iceland is an island nation way up north with no boarding countries. They don't have huge slums in major cities. There's no black market or gangs or a boarding country which is under influence from huge international drug cartels. Vermont has almost no gun control and has incredibly low gun homicide rate and police shootings. NY has extremely strict gun control and has a higher gun homicide rate and police shootings. It's easy to pick and choose without taking into consideration a whole other mess of factors. The gun control debate, in the US, is extremely complicated. To ignore the fact that less guns definitely leads to less gun crimes is absurd. Australia has not had a single mass shooting since they enacted strict gun control laws 20 years ago. Meanwhile we can't go a couple days without having one. Of course there are a bunch of factors, nobody said there weren't. But a major factor is definitely gun control laws. And of course we couldn't have such a sweeping change happen here. But at the very least adding any common sense gun control laws would help. Hell, 90% of Americans are in favor of background checks, so why are they still not mandatory?
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Mar 5, 2016 13:49:12 GMT -5
Meanwhile, Iceland has had 1 fatal shooting by police on record. They also have no right to own a gun, all gun ownership requires government approval with a valid reason to own a gun (self defense doesn't count), and all gun owners have mandatory training. But it's not a gun issue. They also have a population density that's roughly half that of Wyoming. Their population is over 90% Icelandic, and 85% Christian. Welcome to the world of comparing small european countries to the third most populous, and arguably most diverse, country on the planet. Don't make these comparisons anymore. They contribute nothing and still don't answer the question of "are we willing to kill our own citizens to take their guns?"
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 5, 2016 14:12:45 GMT -5
It's ridiculous to compare other countries, especially radically different countries. Iceland doesn't have a history with guns. Iceland has a low population. Iceland is an island nation way up north with no boarding countries. They don't have huge slums in major cities. There's no black market or gangs or a boarding country which is under influence from huge international drug cartels. Vermont has almost no gun control and has incredibly low gun homicide rate and police shootings. NY has extremely strict gun control and has a higher gun homicide rate and police shootings. It's easy to pick and choose without taking into consideration a whole other mess of factors. The gun control debate, in the US, is extremely complicated. To ignore the fact that less guns definitely leads to less gun crimes is absurd. Australia has not had a single mass shooting since they enacted strict gun control laws 20 years ago. Meanwhile we can't go a couple days without having one. Of course there are a bunch of factors, nobody said there weren't. But a major factor is definitely gun control laws. And of course we couldn't have such a sweeping change happen here. But at the very least adding any common sense gun control laws would help. Hell, 90% of Americans are in favor of background checks, so why are they still not mandatory? Background checks are mandatory. What people are talking about with background checks is having private sales require background checks, which is near impossible to properly enforce. And again Australia is an island nation, without a history of guns, lower population density, lower poverty rate etc... Mass Shootings weren't common in Australia before the ban, and the reason there hasn't been a mass shooting since is because 1 less person died in shootings than is required to be considered a mass shooting.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 5, 2016 20:47:11 GMT -5
Even killings with knifes are killings. I'd rather go by violent crime / killing stats per capita than specifically gun violence per capita. But, the general sentiment that "this is a complicated issue" I agree with. There's tons of demographic and ideological stuff that goes into statistical violence, and it's very difficult to methodologically isolate any one factor. I think this is a generally good study with decent methodology and variable isolation, though: www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdfAs for my personal bias, I live near-ish Chicago, where the air is 10% lead. I'd like to have a weapon, many weapons, many powerful weapons, just in case some of that lead floats over here in the event of a Golden Horde migration in the event of catastrophic societal collapse. Filthy thieves not gettin' their hands on my farm-fresh chicken eggs. Another way I like to think of it--easy legal firearms makes the job for police tougher, yes, (and in my fantasy of fantasies it reduces the viability of a police state,) but it also makes the job for criminals tougher since they have to deal with an armed populace to aggress against.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Mar 5, 2016 20:55:15 GMT -5
Nobody has argued that it wasn't a complicated issue. Likewise nobody is arguing to take guns from the hands of the lunatics in this country who would sooner die than have them taken. The fact still remains that we lead the developed world in gun violence. And doing nothing isn't going to solve the issue. The worst thing is people suggesting we need even more guns. Also jaedrik the fact that you live so close to me scares me.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Mar 5, 2016 21:56:43 GMT -5
i'm on a few websites and this one has the most adult and logical conversation on this I've seen yet. Good for you guys. I'm loving these posts. Aphoristic's last one there is great and really says it all.
More guns isn't going to do it.
It's not JUST a gun issue but guns is a huge part of it. The knife argument is so weak. It takes a seriously deranged person to put a knife into another person. Anyone can shoot another person. Heck, I think I could probably do it if I had a gun. I don't think it would be hard to do. I wouldn't be able to stab someone unless they were attacking my daughter or me, and even then I think I'd try other things first. Like going peepee in his Coke.
...no i'm not Asian
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 5, 2016 22:17:04 GMT -5
Also jaedrik the fact that you live so close to me scares me. lol! Don't worry, I subscribe to the non-aggression principle <3
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 5, 2016 22:18:14 GMT -5
Nobody has argued that it wasn't a complicated issue. Likewise nobody is arguing to take guns from the hands of the lunatics in this country who would sooner die than have them taken. The fact still remains that we lead the developed world in gun violence. And doing nothing isn't going to solve the issue. The worst thing is people suggesting we need even more guns. Also jaedrik the fact that you live so close to me scares me. And doing things that won't do anything won't help either. The problem with most "Common sense" gun control laws is that they won't do Foxtrot all to address the problem. Address the cause of the violence to begin with and you solve the gun violence. NYC had the exact same gun control laws as every other state during the assault weapons ban of 93. Yet NYC's violent crime rate went down double what the national average did. It wasn't the gun laws that cleaned up NYC, it was how the police acted and how unemployment went down. Go after the dealers, leave the users alone. Be active participants in the community, not run the police like the army. Crack down on the illegal gun deals, not the legal ones. And create jobs to get people a better economic standing so the feel of desperation doesn't drive people to violence. Universal background checks won't address the black market or the under the table cash transactions from people who don't ask questions. Banning "Assault weapons" doesn't address that pistols are used in the vast majority of gun homicides. I'm all for actual common sense gun control laws, those are not them.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 6, 2016 0:16:10 GMT -5
I particularly adhere to the subscription of passive aggression through the use of sarcasm principle.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Mar 6, 2016 0:19:29 GMT -5
dude this is what im talking about he just turns one word into five for no reason Seldom affirm, never deny, always distinguish. I can't JUST say "pacifist," because I'm not opposed to violence or the use of force. The non-aggression principle is a specific moral principle, espoused by Aquinas through Rothbard (my heroes), which implies stuff that can't be summed up in one word. Defending one's rights from those who forfeit theirs by aggressing is not aggression in and of itself. In this sense, rights are negative and not positive.
|
|
Dumien
True Bro
Black Market Trader
No engrams. Only disappointment.
Posts: 3,292
|
Post by Dumien on Mar 6, 2016 2:19:31 GMT -5
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Mar 6, 2016 2:26:02 GMT -5
How has this topic not yet turned into a discussion about Trump's penis size?
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Mar 6, 2016 7:54:30 GMT -5
Because the lady doth protest too much, methinks.
|
|