BLM/White Privilege/etc

[vogue65]

My reference to LBJ was all the destructive social programs put in. Created a welfare culture that led to the destabilization of our families.

LBJ was a very cynical guy who was extremely corrupt. Had some business dealings with his estate in years past and learned a lot about him and his methods. He definitely got rich off the government.

LBJ was the first and only person to get rich off the government.  Come on, look into shipbuilding, aerospece, explosives, not to mention defense conversion.   

[Lennys Tap]

Reagan always had to deal with a Democratic House of Reps, and for his last two years, a Democratic House and Senate.  Compromising to get things done was more of a thing back then.

100% correct. I don’t long for the “good old days” like you know who, but I love to see the way we govern get somewhat sensible again.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

100% correct. I don’t long for the “good old days” like you know who, but I love to see the way we govern get somewhat sensible again.

Yep. People made reasonable compromises because they weren’t going to get called out on media that caters to either side.

[Lennys Tap]

Do you think Republicans today are fiscal conservatives?

God, no. Until Trump is out of the picture that has zero chance of happening.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

God, no. Until Trump is out of the picture that has zero chance of happening.

I think it is much broader than Trump though, IMO.  Republicans have campaigned on fiscal responsibility for decades now, but I think Nixon was the last one that walked the talk. Well, that's not true, Bush Sr. raised taxes in order to try to close the deficit and was shredded for it.

But Cheney blew the lid off when he admitted "deficits don't matter". Though I suspect deficits will suddenly be of dire consequence once again per McConnell if Biden is elected.

P.S. I didn't like Obama's deficits either. Spending to get us out of the Great Recession made a lot of sense IMO, but I thought his tax cut was inappropriate and unnecessary.

[Hards Alumni]

I think it is much broader than Trump though, IMO.  Republicans have campaigned on fiscal responsibility for decades now, but I think Nixon was the last one that walked the talk. Well, that's not true, Bush Sr. raised taxes in order to try to close the deficit and was shredded for it.

But Cheney blew the lid off when he admitted "deficits don't matter". Though I suspect deficits will suddenly be of dire consequence once again per McConnell if Biden is elected.

P.S. I didn't like Obama's deficits either. Spending to get us out of the Great Recession made a lot of sense IMO, but I thought his tax cut was inappropriate and unnecessary.

IF Mitch wins in 2020

[Billy Hoyle]

IF Mitch wins in 2020

I'm not holding my breath on that. In a Presidential election, there won't be as many split-ticket voters and Kentucky is going to go Trump.

He will be the Minority Leader, however...

[Lennys Tap]

dude, that's laughable.  First, Hillary did not win in a "photo finish" against Bernie. The states were Bernie was winning were open primary states, where the far left could vote despite not being members of the party. In the end, enough of them did not vote for Hillary AND voted for Trump to swing the election. 

“Dude” is what’s laughable. That and the dead wrong assertion that Hillary lost because of socialists who voted for Trump. Hillary lost because because enough Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump.

[Hards Alumni]

“Dude” is what’s laughable. That and the dead wrong assertion that Hillary lost because of socialists who voted for Trump. Hillary lost because because enough Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump.

100%  Held my nose and voted for her.

[Billy Hoyle]

“Dude” is what’s laughable. That and the dead wrong assertion that Hillary lost because of socialists who voted for Trump. Hillary lost because because enough Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump.

Maybe that’s the media narrative but in the end enough Bernie Brats went for Trump and then you had those who went for Stein.  The DSA would rather lose than compromise.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/sanders-voters-helped-trump-win-white-house-could-they-do-n1145306

[muwarrior69]

Black and POC privilege? I thought we wanted to end discrimination.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-the-plays-the-thing-20200207-lsg2r7wbzzb5bfif3skmabyayy-story.html

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Black and POC privilege? I thought we wanted to end discrimination.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-the-plays-the-thing-20200207-lsg2r7wbzzb5bfif3skmabyayy-story.html

That has nothing to do with priviledge.  It's just dumb and illegal.

[dgies9156]

Do you think Republicans today are fiscal conservatives?

Interesting question. Depends on the segment of the GOP you're talking about. Some are "yes," and others clearly not.

There are three wings of the party. They are:

Social Conservatives -- These are the folks that brought you our current President. They're also frequently fundamentalist Christians and they are "values" voters. They tend to want the government -- and taxes -- off their backs until it comes to religion and their way of life. Then they want the government to step in. They are fiscally conservative and tend to be found in rural areas of the south and Midwest. They vote.

Libertarians -- These folks brought us Ronald Reagan. They're true libertarians and believe the government should defend us and otherwise go away. Very fiscally conservative. Basically western Republicans who hate regulation and oversight and think the only good government is NO government.

Big Government Republicans -- These folks can spend money like even the most aggressive spenders in the Democratic party. Fiscal conservatives they are not. The difference between them and Democrats is they spend money locally. Democrats count on the national government. If you don't believe this bird exists, go to County Farm Road in DuPage County, IL and look at the size of that government complex. Or look at the compliant way in which many North Shore Chicago and DuPage County school districts pay property taxes for schools. These folks live in Suburbs. Florida is full of them.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Interesting question. Depends on the segment of the GOP you're talking about. Some are "yes," and others clearly not.

There are three wings of the party. They are:

Social Conservatives -- These are the folks that brought you our current President. They're also frequently fundamentalist Christians and they are "values" voters. They tend to want the government -- and taxes -- off their backs until it comes to religion and their way of life. Then they want the government to step in. They are fiscally conservative and tend to be found in rural areas of the south and Midwest. They vote.

Libertarians -- These folks brought us Ronald Reagan. They're true libertarians and believe the government should defend us and otherwise go away. Very fiscally conservative. Basically western Republicans who hate regulation and oversight and think the only good government is NO government.

Big Government Republicans -- These folks can spend money like even the most aggressive spenders in the Democratic party. Fiscal conservatives they are not. The difference between them and Democrats is they spend money locally. Democrats count on the national government. If you don't believe this bird exists, go to County Farm Road in DuPage County, IL and look at the size of that government complex. Or look at the compliant way in which many North Shore Chicago and DuPage County school districts pay property taxes for schools. These folks live in Suburbs. Florida is full of them.

Where does the Department of Homeland Security fit on this spectrum.

[Hards Alumni]

Interesting question. Depends on the segment of the GOP you're talking about. Some are "yes," and others clearly not.

There are three wings of the party. They are:

Social Conservatives -- These are the folks that brought you our current President. They're also frequently fundamentalist Christians and they are "values" voters. They tend to want the government -- and taxes -- off their backs until it comes to religion and their way of life. Then they want the government to step in. They are fiscally conservative and tend to be found in rural areas of the south and Midwest. They vote.

Libertarians -- These folks brought us Ronald Reagan. They're true libertarians and believe the government should defend us and otherwise go away. Very fiscally conservative. Basically western Republicans who hate regulation and oversight and think the only good government is NO government.

Big Government Republicans -- These folks can spend money like even the most aggressive spenders in the Democratic party. Fiscal conservatives they are not. The difference between them and Democrats is they spend money locally. Democrats count on the national government. If you don't believe this bird exists, go to County Farm Road in DuPage County, IL and look at the size of that government complex. Or look at the compliant way in which many North Shore Chicago and DuPage County school districts pay property taxes for schools. These folks live in Suburbs. Florida is full of them.

Ronald Reagan was a libertarian?  Since when?  He opposed gambling, prostitution, drugs, pornography, keeping the drinking at 18.  And he increased military spending.  These are all libertarian no-nos.

The GOP has gotten where it is today BECAUSE of Ronald Reagan.  He courted the religious right and added a ton of debt.

Ron Paul was a true libertarian, and his son is a FAR cry from his ideals.

I get the feeling that a lot of people who claim to be libertarians say it now because it is easier than saying you're a Republican.  Much like a lot of liberals consider themselves, 'progressives' instead of being Democrats.

https://www.libertarianism.org/everything-wrong-presidents/everything-wrong-reagan-administration

[muwarrior69]

That has nothing to do with priviledge.  It's just dumb and illegal.

When Blacks and People of Color do it, its dumb and illegal; but when whites do it, its racist.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

When Blacks and People of Color do it, its dumb and illegal; but when whites do it, its racist.

It's dumb, stupid and racist.  Is that better?

[muwarrior69]

It's dumb, stupid and racist.  Is that better?

Finally!

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Finally!

[Jockey]

Black and POC privilege? I thought we wanted to end discrimination.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-the-plays-the-thing-20200207-lsg2r7wbzzb5bfif3skmabyayy-story.html

You finally found the Holy Grail. White people have it the worst.

[Elonsmusk]

Weird, this has to be Ners 15th time mentioning black on black crime, but never has brought the very pressing issue of white on white crime...because ya know what, the overwhelming # of white victims of violent crime, the assailant is DRUMROLLLLLL white...

Direct correlation of violent crime is poverty and proximity to ones home...and ya know what, poor white people who commit crimes generally live around other poor white people, poor latino people who commit crimes live in neighborhoods with high concentrations of latino people, and same goes for neighborhoods with %s of black people.

This is not hard.

Guess what?  More whites are killed by police, than blacks.  Population size matters, right?  So when you or BLM posts that white on white killings outnumber black on black what's the point? Why would they not, with whites comprising 60% of population or 4.5x Black population?

Blacks perpetrate 40% of violent crime in U.S., despite comprising only 13% of the population.  So, as a result there are more police interactions/involvements.  Further, given this over-indexing of 3x as it relates to violent crime, why would police NOT have a heightened sense of alarm when dealing with Blacks?

What you don't have happening is white outrage over officer induced killings of white people - so it's not hypocritical to not lament the white on white killings.  There's no freeways shut down, rioting, looting, burning buildings down.   Nor, is there a White Lives Matter movement due to police killing more white people than Blacks.

This is not hard.

[Hards Alumni]

Guess what?  More whites are killed by police, than blacks.  Population size matters, right?  So when you or BLM posts that white on white killings outnumber black on black what's the point? Why would they not, with whites comprising 60% of population or 4.5x Black population?

Blacks perpetrate 40% of violent crime in U.S., despite comprising only 13% of the population.  So, as a result there are more police interactions/involvements.  Further, given this over-indexing of 3x as it relates to violent crime, why would police NOT have a heightened sense of alarm when dealing with Blacks?

What you don't have happening is white outrage over officer induced killings of white people - so it's not hypocritical to not lament the white on white killings.  There's no freeways shut down, rioting, looting, burning buildings down.   Nor, is there a White Lives Matter movement due to police killing more white people than Blacks.

This is not hard.

Sure seems to be for you.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

My reaction on reading another Ners' post on race.

Guess what?  More whites are killed by police, than blacks.  Population size matters, right?  So when you or BLM posts that white on white killings outnumber black on black what's the point? Why would they not, with whites comprising 60% of population or 4.5x Black population?

Black on black violence is a problem.  All violence is a problem.  BLM is about systematic racism by Police against minorities - a similar but different issue.  Introducing different issues into this one only serves to let you ignore the racism that exists in your taxpayer funding police force.  So congrats on being distracted by the squirrel.

Blacks perpetrate 40% of violent crime in U.S., despite comprising only 13% of the population.  So, as a result there are more police interactions/involvements.  Further, given this over-indexing of 3x as it relates to violent crime, why would police NOT have a heightened sense of alarm when dealing with Blacks?

So your response to "Police are racist" is "Well OF COURSE!!! They should be racist!!!"

Good argument.

What you don't have happening is white outrage over officer induced killings of white people - so it's not hypocritical to not lament the white on white killings.  There's no freeways shut down, rioting, looting, burning buildings down.   Nor, is there a White Lives Matter movement due to police killing more white people than Blacks.

So what's stopping you?  Outside of general laziness.

[Pakuni]

Blacks perpetrate 40% of violent crime in U.S., despite comprising only 13% of the population.  So, as a result there are more police interactions/involvements.  Further, given this over-indexing of 3x as it relates to violent crime, why would police NOT have a heightened sense of alarm when dealing with Blacks?

Yale did a study on use of force that accounted for all these factors and found that black Americans were still far more likely to endure some kind of force than white.


"On non-lethal uses of force,  there are racial differences – sometimes quite large – in police use of force,  even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction.  Interestingly, as use of force increases from putting hands on a civilian to striking them with a baton, the overall probability of such an incident occurring decreases dramatically but the racial difference remains roughly constant.  Even when officers report civilians have been compliant and no arrest was made, blacks are 21.3 (0.04) percent more likely to endure some form of force."

Interestingly, the racial disparity lessens only when the use of force becomes lethal.

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/leo16_fryer.pdf


Feel free to start your own White Lives Matter movement.
My guess is, though, you don't care about white people who are killed by police any more than you care about black people killed by police. You just want to defend racism.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

“Dude” is what’s laughable. That and the dead wrong assertion that Hillary lost because of socialists who voted for Trump. Hillary lost because because enough Democrats in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio who voted for Obama twice voted for Trump.

read "Shattered" the inside story on HRC's campaign. Insiders complained that she didn't campaign  and right up until the election was asking staff "What is my message?'