If you're Jewish and you vote for Biden you hate your religion and hate Israel

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 08:14 PM)CJD Wrote: If it were new dumb stuff, I'd agree. But he's a song on repeat at this point. If you haven't figured out he's bad for the country yet, no quote will convince you now.

LOL I'm convinced. 

I do think there are people on the fence or who look to various opinion leaders for help in deciding whom to vote for,
and we should be making it easier, not harder, for them to see that he's bad for the country.

[CJD]

(03-19-2024, 08:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Just a historical note:

I trace it back to the Kerner Commission of 1967, the guys tasked by LBJ to explain what caused 150 plus riots in cities
that year, especially Detroit, where some 33 people were killed.  LBJ expected a Black Power conspiracy of some sort,
but the Commission found white racism to be the cause, embodied in control of the city's power structure and police, 
so it went beyond just individuals with different opinions, but fell far short of some BP led conspiracy.

Blacks were responding spontaneously to race-based political and economic limitations. To fix that, the limitations
had to be addressed.  Johnson rejected the findings, though.

https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/s/detroitunderfire/page/kerner-commission

I'm not saying systemic racism doesn't exist. It very much does. I'm just saying the people who took the definition of "racism + power = oppression/systemic racism" and changed it to "prejudice + power = racism" did nothing to help the cause and only created a knee jerk defensive reaction in white people by telling them that "you can't be racist to a white person, only prejudice" when everyone knows the colloquial definition of racism is, "that person did something or said something to me based on my race and their hatred of me for that reason. "

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 08:23 PM)CJD Wrote: I'm not saying systemic racism doesn't exist. It very much does. I'm just saying the people who took the definition of "racism + power = oppression/systemic racism" and changed it to "prejudice + power = racism" did nothing to help the cause and only created a knee jerk defensive reaction in white people by telling them that "you can't be racist to a white person, only prejudice" when everyone knows the colloquial definition of racism is, "that person did something or said something to me based on my race and their hatred of me for that reason. "

The Kerner Commission set off knee jerk defensive reactions for sure as it placed the responsibility for rioting not on blacks but on whites, in the collective
structure of city governments.  Many whites thought that unfair. You blame rioters for riots, not "power structures." Especially when you are part of the power structure.

Since then, civil rights activists have tended to view racism as institutional and subject to policy correctives, and their opponents have characterized it as something individuals choose to practice or not, and so not subject to policy, just something "both sides" do.

The colloquial definition you mention wasn't very useful in analyzing power relations, and the persistence of inequality in housing, education, and incarceration.
Hence the distinction between "prejudice" and "racism," which located the latter not in individuals but in institutions.

But I can understand why the distinction could disconcert some. I don't think it very well understood. Fox and friends have helped in this regard by flipping CRT tenets, like "race is a social construct," into their opposite--whites are racist just by being white. 

It's easy to imagine black and white HS kids arguing about race and white kids getting angry because the black kids could say all manner of disparaging things about whites, then claim they cannot be racist because only whites can.  I had a conversation like that with a young American/Nigerian woman who told me that blacks could not be racist because of the power differential in transactions, which she seemed to think was always operative when a black and a white interacted, but not when blacks and blacks interacted. I asked her how the "racism" designation would work if I were in a market in Lagos and a Nigerian merchant cheated me and the police refused to address the matter.  I.e., would I be the "racist" as a white person facing black power structure. She couldn't answer me directly. Or perhaps she did not yet have the facility to jump it to the global level, Nigeria being an ex-colony. 

But yeah. Lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about on "both sides." And others seeking to ramp up the misunderstanding with disinformation.

[CJD]

(03-19-2024, 09:13 PM)Dill Wrote: The Kerner Commission set off knee jerk defensive reactions for sure as it placed the responsibility for rioting not on blacks but on whites, in the collective
structure of city governments.  Many whites thought that unfair. You blame rioters for riots, not "power structures." Especially when you are part of the power structure.

Since then, civil rights activists have tended to view racism as institutional and subject to policy correctives, and their opponents have characterized it as something individuals choose to practice or not, and so not subject to policy, just something "both sides" do.

The colloquial definition you mention wasn't very useful in analyzing power relations, and the persistence of inequality in housing, education, and incarceration.
Hence the distinction between "prejudice" and "racism," which located the latter not in individuals but in institutions.

But I can understand why the distinction could disconcert some. I don't think it very well understood. Fox and friends have helped in this regard by flipping CRT tenets, like "race is a social construct," into their opposite--whites are racist just by being white. 

It's easy to imagine black and white HS kids arguing about race and white kids getting angry because the black kids could say all manner of disparaging things about whites, then claim they cannot be racist because only whites can.  I had a conversation like that with a young American/Nigerian woman who told me that blacks could not be racist because of the power differential in transactions, which she seemed to think was always operative when a black and a white interacted, but not when blacks and blacks interacted. I asked her how the "racism" designation would work if I were in a market in Lagos and a Nigerian merchant cheated me and the police refused to address the matter.  I.e., would I be the "racist" as a white person facing black power structure. She couldn't answer me directly. Or perhaps she did not yet have the facility to jump it to the global level, Nigeria being an ex-colony. 

But yeah. Lot of people out there who don't know what they're talking about on "both sides." And others seeking to ramp up the misunderstanding with disinformation.

In an academic sense, prejudice +power = racism makes prefect sense. I'm just saying you could make the exact same argument with "racism + power = oppression/ systemic racism". The changing of the words in the equation, one of such has colloquially been used for decades by that point to mean an interpersonal transgression related to race, serves no purpose unless you just want to say, "um, actually, black people can't be racist against white people." Which is a sentence that is only said when you want to piss off a white person that you just said something racist (or "prejudice ") against.

And the right has, predictably, taken the academic definition and went on TV and said, "you hear that white people? Apparently, the left doesn't think saying hateful things to you I'd a bad thing. "

The left, in my opinion, does way too many things like this that give dishonest right wingers free ammunition to fuel the outrage machine that's sole purpose is to convince people to elect people that do not have their best interests at heart. 

[Dill]

(03-19-2024, 09:23 PM)CJD Wrote: In an academic sense, prejudice +power = racism makes prefect sense. I'm just saying you could make the exact same argument with "racism + power = oppression/ systemic racism". The changing of the words in the equation, one of such has colloquially been used for decades by that point to mean an interpersonal transgression related to race, serves no purpose unless you just want to say, "um, actually, black people can't be racist against white people." Which is a sentence that is only said when you want to piss off a white person that you just said something racist (or "prejudice ") against.

I think you make a good point here in the bolded, though I don't think the people working up these distinctions back in the '80s were thinking about how to gain leverage in one-on-one arguments with white people.  They wanted some way of distinguishing people who weren't acting on racist assumptions from people who were in ways that actually affected others' lives. Calling both "racist" just seemed to muddy the waters.

In the case of CRT, the desire was to move away from defining individuals as "racist." So a white employer who didn't like blacks, and said so standing around the water cooler, but was "color blind" when it came to hiring was a better fit for "prejudiced." Same for a homeowner who didn't like that a black family moved in next door, but didn't act on that knowledge. Waste of time denouncing individuals. Changes in law and policy were the goal. But that "structural" target also meant recognizing how unconscious racist assumptions could be built into the everyday normal of all people, black as well as white--or better said, developing already existing notions of that recognized by black writers going back to the 19th century.

In another arena, the public schools, school psychologists were interested addressing school/classroom discrimination. They could hardly do that if no one could define "racism" or measure discrimination. Not sure, but I believe they were the ones primarily responsible for the prejudice/racism/discrimination triad--"prejudice" meaning holding negative attitudes towards other groups which were not acted on, but could easily be with the right incentives.

I know from my own readings that social scientists have complained about shifting definitions from discipline to discipline and across time have made it hard to consistently measure discrimination.

(03-19-2024, 09:23 PM)CJD Wrote: And the right has, predictably, taken the academic definition and went on TV and said, "you hear that white people? Apparently, the left doesn't think saying hateful things to you I'd a bad thing. "

The left, in my opinion, does way too many things like this that give dishonest right wingers free ammunition to fuel the outrage machine that's sole purpose is to convince people to elect people that do not have their best interests at heart. 

I wonder what the alternative to silence is, then.

It is hard to see how anyone could identify and discuss structural racism without giving
right wingers free "whitelash" ammunition, especially if such discussion moves into the public school system.

[CJD]

(03-20-2024, 09:19 AM)Dill Wrote: I think you make a good point here in the bolded, though I don't think the people working up these distinctions back in the '80s were thinking about how to gain leverage in one-on-one arguments with white people.  They wanted some way of distinguishing people who weren't acting on racist assumptions from people who were in ways that actually affected others' lives. Calling both "racist" just seemed to muddy the waters.

In the case of CRT, the desire was to move away from defining individuals as "racist." So a white employer who didn't like blacks, and said so standing around the water cooler, but was "color blind" when it came to hiring was a better fit for "prejudiced." Same for a homeowner who didn't like that a black family moved in next door, but didn't act on that knowledge. Waste of time denouncing individuals. Changes in law and policy were the goal. But that "structural" target also meant recognizing how unconscious racist assumptions could be built into the everyday normal of all people, black as well as white--or better said, developing already existing notions of that recognized by black writers going back to the 19th century.

In another arena, the public schools, school psychologists were interested addressing school/classroom discrimination. They could hardly do that if no one could define "racism" or measure discrimination. Not sure, but I believe they were the ones primarily responsible for the prejudice/racism/discrimination triad--"prejudice" meaning holding negative attitudes towards other groups which were not acted on, but could easily be with the right incentives.

I know from my own readings that social scientists have complained about shifting definitions from discipline to discipline and across time have made it hard to consistently measure discrimination.


I wonder what the alternative to silence is, then.

It is hard to see how anyone could identify and discuss structural racism without giving
right wingers free "whitelash" ammunition, especially if such discussion moves into the public school system.

If it were only used in an academic sense, I would agree with you 100%. The problem is the misuse by people who don't care about that and only use it to offend.

I had a black friend from high school who announced on Facebook that he was planning on unfriending all of his white friends because he can no longer trust that white people are good people following the 2016 election.

His white friends commented that this was racist and that he shouldn't paint with a broad brush.

His response was, "black people can't be racist."

That's a flagrant misuse of that statement, but it doesn't matter. I've seen similar comments in social media posts throughout the years and the response is predictable.

Interestingly enough, I "made the cut" to not be unfriended because I have a black wife. Not really relevant to the story, but I thought it was interesting.

My sister in law (my wife's sister) has a best friend who thinks interracial relationships between white and black people are absurd because white people are bad people. When I ask her how she can be friends with someone who would so blatantly disrespect her sister's (my wife's) marriage, she says, "oh well, she's not racist. Black people can't be racist. She just doesn't like white people."

I understand why some black people don't like white people. I think it's natural (if not unfortunate) to be distrusting of a race of people who, for generations, oppressed you and people that look like you.

What I don't like is when people who do not feel that way defend that thinking with a sentence that has no meaning other than to comfort them that they aren't friends with a racist person.

In our society, a "Racist person" is a smear that is reserved for only the worst people. It evokes images of klansmen and nazis. Pure filth who are irredeemable. 

If a white person were friends with a klansman, but said "ah, they have this one bad quality, but other than that, they are a good person" we'd toss that person aside as a racist person as well for endorsing this racist's viewpoint by ignoring it.

But a prejudice person? That's just a person who has thoughts that differ from the mainstream due to their own personal experiences.

It's used as a cover for the same behavior that would be called racist if a white person did it. 

It's intentionally divisive and, whether it has academic standing or not, does alienate a lot of people. I think it's harmful.

Admittedly, this is a personal issue for me.

And yes, I acknowledge that no matter what you do, a rational thought can be misused by ignorant people, but this particular one is so obvious in its potential for misuse that it would have been better if it never existed in the first place.

[Mike M (the other one)]

New day, new Trump topic. zzzzzzzzzzz

over half the crap he says just simply isn't believable (we all know it), but this Leftist Obsession is just feeeeeeeeeeeding him.
The way to get rid of him is to IGNORE him.

[GMDino]

(03-20-2024, 11:48 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: New day, new Trump topic. zzzzzzzzzzz

over half the crap he says just simply isn't believable (we all know it), but this Leftist Obsession is just feeeeeeeeeeeding him.
The way to get rid of him is to IGNORE him.

Ignore the guy who is the gop presumptive nominee for POTUS? 

That's your answer when he says Jewish people hate Israel if they vote Democrat?  Or when he says he put a 100% tariff on goods coming in?


If it was that simple the gop wouldn't be being run by him and his family...literally.

If only we had ignored all the great tyrants and troublemakers they simply would have gone away.  Like a bully in school...just walk away from them and they'll stop.

Also this was yesterday, no one has talked about the insanc stuff he said since then.

You did have the option to ignore this thread but you can't resist blaming everyone but Trump for his problems.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2024, 09:44 AM)CJD Wrote: If it were only used in an academic sense, I would agree with you 100%. The problem is the misuse by people who don't care about that and only use it to offend.

I had a black friend from high school who announced on Facebook that he was planning on unfriending all of his white friends because he can no longer trust that white people are good people following the 2016 election.

His white friends commented that this was racist and that he shouldn't paint with a broad brush.

His response was, "black people can't be racist."

That's a flagrant misuse of that statement, but it doesn't matter. I've seen similar comments in social media posts throughout the years and the response is predictable.

Interestingly enough, I "made the cut" to not be unfriended because I have a black wife. Not really relevant to the story, but I thought it was interesting.

My sister in law (my wife's sister) has a best friend who thinks interracial relationships between white and black people are absurd because white people are bad people. When I ask her how she can be friends with someone who would so blatantly disrespect her sister's (my wife's) marriage, she says, "oh well, she's not racist. Black people can't be racist. She just doesn't like white people."

I understand why some black people don't like white people. I think it's natural (if not unfortunate) to be distrusting of a race of people who, for generations, oppressed you and people that look like you.

What I don't like is when people who do not feel that way defend that thinking with a sentence that has no meaning other than to comfort them that they aren't friends with a racist person.

In our society, a "Racist person" is a smear that is reserved for only the worst people. It evokes images of klansmen and nazis. Pure filth who are irredeemable. 

If a white person were friends with a klansman, but said "ah, they have this one bad quality, but other than that, they are a good person" we'd toss that person aside as a racist person as well for endorsing this racist's viewpoint by ignoring it.

But a prejudice person? That's just a person who has thoughts that differ from the mainstream due to their own personal experiences.

It's used as a cover for the same behavior that would be called racist if a white person did it. 

It's intentionally divisive and, whether it has academic standing or not, does alienate a lot of people. I think it's harmful.

Admittedly, this is a personal issue for me.

And yes, I acknowledge that no matter what you do, a rational thought can be misused by ignorant people, but this particular one is so obvious in its potential for misuse that it would have been better if it never existed in the first place.

Perfectly stated and explained.  What is sad to me is that anyone would actually need this explained to them.  The "progressive" movement has done more damage to race relations in this country than any group in the past forty plus years.  But they still see themselves as the good guys on this issue.  It does not bode well for the future.

Sorry to hear about your personal situation.  I have a white friend who is married to a Chinese woman (not of Chinese decent, literally moved here from China) and he has received snide comments about white men fetishizing Asian women, almost exclusively from people who are not white.  My last girlfriend was Puerto Rican and got comments about her dating a colonizer.  It's really sick what is going on right now, and it seems intentional.

[CJD]

(03-20-2024, 12:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Perfectly stated and explained.  What is sad to me is that anyone would actually need this explained to them.  The "progressive" movement has done more damage to race relations in this country than any group in the past forty plus years.  But they still see themselves as the good guys on this issue.  It does not bode well for the future.

Sorry to hear about your personal situation.  I have a white friend who is married to a Chinese woman (not of Chinese decent, literally moved here from China) and he has received snide comments about white men fetishizing Asian women, almost exclusively from people who are not white.  My last girlfriend was Puerto Rican and got comments about her dating a colonizer.  It's really sick what is going on right now, and it seems intentional.

What frustrates me is the progressive movement has the right idea, they just use it improperly. The lasting effects of systemic racism are reverberating through our society today, and it's good to address them in a constructive and forward thinking manner. It's just the language surrounding the issue is all out of whack which leads to major problems when it comes to individual interactions between people of different races. A black person may use the phrase, "Black people can't be racist, they can only be prejudice" in what they believe is a good faith evaluation of systemic racism, but all some white people will hear is, "you are trying to make an excuse for acting the way you don't want me to act." And nobody likes a hypocrite.

 And right wing pundits have taken advantage of that fact to really drive the culture war home. It is endlessly frustrating to me that culture war topics are the prevalent topics of discussion in politics today. I wish it weren't that way, but unfortunately that's where pundits on the right (with those on the left happily following their lead) have driven the conversation.

Politics are exhausting.

[Luvnit2]

(03-19-2024, 04:59 PM)Dill Wrote: Just have to say, this analogy captures very well so much current political judgment in the U.S., and the effect of the frequent claim "both sides do it."

Biden accidentally took some documents home and then when he realized he had them, returned them, and cooperated with further investigation.

Trump deliberately took some documents home and refused to return them when asked and tried to hide them and involved
others in that obstruction of justice and still claims he did no wrong and the documents are his. 
His minions in Congress cry "same crime, double standard" when his home is raided, and it works for millions of voters.

"Trump being Trump," as when he uses his office to attack a rival for office or attempts a coup or continues to defame a rape victim,
should have long ago disqualified him as unfit for the presidency. But it has not. How does one "overreact" to such behavior?


Trump claims he will pardon the Jan 6 "political prisoners" as well, and has from the beginning condoned violence among his followers.

By the way, Biden fell all over himself apologizing for the "You ain't black comment."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/22/us/politics/joe-biden-black-breakfast-club.html

Trump apologized, sort of, for the Hollywood Access tape, but nothing since that I'm aware of.  So no, not "the same."

End with a question--which European news outlets or journalists are setting/modeling journalistic standards for you?

This makes everything you post not credible. It is a flat out lie. As a senator, he did not accidentally remove classified documents. They are viewed in a secure room and not permitted to leave the room. They are not permitted to be copied or photos taken. Simply, he stole classified documents. He also did not cooperate IMMEDIATELY. HE TOLD HIS GHOST WRITER YEARS PRIOR HE HAD CLASSIFEID DOCUMENTS, HE SHOWED THE GHOST WRITER AND THE GHOT WRITER DESTROYED THEM. 

Biden had these documents for decades and then added classified documents when he was the VP. Again, a VP is not permitted to remove classified documents. BIDEN HAD AMPLE TIME to have attorneys (not with security clearance) to go through the documents and remove documents. Hur testified there were missing documents never recovered. 

Trump gets months to comply, Biden gets decades. Trump gets raided, Biden gets years to use the documents to get his family rich.

So enough with the Biden complied liberal propaganda, he should have turned the documents over decades ago, but did not. The argument he did not know he had them has no merit. He showed them to the Ghostwriter and allowed him to copy them. That was years before he finally cooperated. 

[Luvnit2]

(03-20-2024, 11:48 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: New day, new Trump topic. zzzzzzzzzzz

over half the crap he says just simply isn't believable (we all know it), but this Leftist Obsession is just feeeeeeeeeeeding him.
The way to get rid of him is to IGNORE him.

Only way to get rid of him is to beat Trump in November.

Democrats are off the rails with TDS. They are over the top attempting to use Biden's DOJ to persecute a former POTUS and the 2024 GOP nominee. Trump is adding to his base as normal people who don't follow politics closely see the war on Trump by fake news and liberals. 

The key to 2024 will be who voters feel will do the best job on:

Economy - Simply Biden's economy has hurt the middle class and lower income voters. He has less than 7 months to fix it as gasoline prices getting ready to rise again under his leadership. People are reminded how a Trump economy was every time they go to the grocery store, pay their mortgage or rent or pump gas. 

Immigration (huge topic as illegal immigrants entering via an open border/loophole of asylum is killing our economy ad hurting lower class get the financial assistance they deserve as citizens of illegal immigrants.

Foreign Affairs - No wars under Trump, under Biden Russia goes to war with Ukraine and Hamas goes to war with Israel. Under Biden, 11 foreign embassies have been forced to close due to instability, 12 is coming soon in Haiti. Trump took out ISIS in. months and restored peace in the middle east. Under Biden, the middle east is a dumpster fire due to Biden's policies. Biden allowed Iran to get rich again and Iran then was able to fund terrorist organizations again. 

Joe Biden and Democrats have no clue how to safely remove our troops. Yesterday 2 generals testified it was Biden, Blinken and the state department that ordered troops to exit out of Afghanistan by September 11. Biden wanted to use the symbolic date to make himself look good. They testified they pushed back, but to no avail. They. testified they had a plan to get Americans out of the embassy and needed more time for a safe removal of not only our troops, but the allies who helped us. They testified many were brutally killed in addition we lost 11 soldiers. 

We also lost billions of dollars of weaponry left behind. It is now in the hands of the Taliban and will be used against us.

Trump is surging because while unorthodox as a politician, he got things done the 4 years he was in office in spite of the efforts of fake news and every Democratic politician to make him fail. Trump is surging because Biden is a crook, and everyone (including Democrats) knows it. Biden can't hide in his basement in 2024, too many people questioning his mental acuity. He has to prove he can handle the most vigorous job in the US this time around. 

Long way to go, but Trump has been attacked and is not only still standing but growing his base at the expense of Biden's base. Joe has a lot of work to do in the coming months. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-20-2024, 12:58 PM)CJD Wrote: What frustrates me is the progressive movement has the right idea, they just use it improperly. The lasting effects of systemic racism are reverberating through our society today, and it's good to address them in a constructive and forward thinking manner.

Here's the thing.  I totally agree with you, and it would have been a much simpler task to approach this properly and it would have been much more successful at achieving its stated goals.  I think most White people are ok with acknowledging the wrongs of the past and the need to correct them.  How to fix them would be a matter of debate, but the need really wouldn't.  There are some, and always will be, who will refuse to acknowledge the problem, but I don't think their numbers are significant.  This begs the question, why wasn't it done that way?

Quote:It's just the language surrounding the issue is all out of whack which leads to major problems when it comes to individual interactions between people of different races. A black person may use the phrase, "Black people can't be racist, they can only be prejudice" in what they believe is a good faith evaluation of systemic racism, but all some white people will hear is, "you are trying to make an excuse for acting the way you don't want me to act." And nobody likes a hypocrite.

Here's where I get into the why, as I see it.  I think this was done with complete intent.  For many in the "progressive" movement reconciliation and a move towards equal treatment was not the end goal, and we can see that by the fruits borne by the movement.  The goal was "it's our turn now".  I've told this story before, so apologies if you've read it.  I have a friend in San Diego who is mixed race, mother white and father black.  We were discussing at another friend's bachelor party weekend about the progressive movement.  This was pre-George Floyd and took place literally a month before the pandemic shutdown.  Our discussion centered around how successful it could be.  I noted that it could be very successful if it avoided going down the "it's our turn now" route.  My example of this is a college called The Citadel.  Hazing freshman is a tradition there, and can get rather out of hand.  The group that conducts the vast majority of the hazing is the sophomore class, who just got done being hazed for a year.  So the people you'd think would have the most empathy for the freshman's situation actually treat them the worst.  Why, because "it's out turn now."

You see the progressive movement as having good intent and going astray.  I see it as a movement with a stated noble intent that was deliberately steered into the current area by people with ill intent.  Look at the people the movement has chosen to elevate, using Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates as examples.  While Kendi is the worst offender of the two both are very much in the "it's out turn" camp and it is clear that actual reconciliation and equal treatment is not on their menu and never was.  The founders of BLM were openly misandrist Marxists whose stated goal was the destruction of the nuclear family.  All the flashing red lights were ignored by most due to fear of being labeled racist, which you correctly point out used to be a very weighty accusation.  So, while I have zero doubt of your good intent and perceptions, I don't think the movement as a whole ever really had a noble end goal in mind.  The proof is in the results.

 

Quote:And right wing pundits have taken advantage of that fact to really drive the culture war home. It is endlessly frustrating to me that culture war topics are the prevalent topics of discussion in politics today. I wish it weren't that way, but unfortunately that's where pundits on the right (with those on the left happily following their lead) have driven the conversation.

Politics are exhausting.

Of course, this is a natural reaction to being attacked.  Also, these culture war issues are a distraction, the question being from what?  I've heard arguments that this is a deliberate distraction after the Occupy Wall Street movement, because it's far better for the ruling class to have the masses arguing about race than arguing about class/wealth.  Maybe there's some truth to that.  But I can state, again from my position and observation, that the progressive movement produced exactly what it set out to produce, and the results have been terrible.

[CJD]

(03-20-2024, 01:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's the thing.  I totally agree with you, and it would have been a much simpler task to approach this properly and it would have been much more successful at achieving its stated goals.  I think most White people are ok with acknowledging the wrongs of the past and the need to correct them.  How to fix them would be a matter of debate, but the need really wouldn't.  There are some, and always will be, who will refuse to acknowledge the problem, but I don't think their numbers are significant.  This begs the question, why wasn't it done that way?



Here's where I get into the why, as I see it.  I think this was done with complete intent.  For many in the "progressive" movement reconciliation and a move towards equal treatment was not the end goal, and we can see that by the fruits borne by the movement.  The goal was "it's our turn now".  I've told this story before, so apologies if you've read it.  I have a friend in San Diego who is mixed race, mother white and father black.  We were discussing at another friend's bachelor party weekend about the progressive movement.  This was pre-George Floyd and took place literally a month before the pandemic shutdown.  Our discussion centered around how successful it could be.  I noted that it could be very successful if it avoided going down the "it's our turn now" route.  My example of this is a college called The Citadel.  Hazing freshman is a tradition there, and can get rather out of hand.  The group that conducts the vast majority of the hazing is the sophomore class, who just got done being hazed for a year.  So the people you'd think would have the most empathy for the freshman's situation actually treat them the worst.  Why, because "it's out turn now."

You see the progressive movement as having good intent and going astray.  I see it as a movement with a stated noble intent that was deliberately steered into the current area by people with ill intent.  Look at the people the movement has chosen to elevate, using Ibram X. Kendi and Ta-Nehisi Coates as examples.  While Kendi is the worst offender of the two both are very much in the "it's out turn" camp and it is clear that actual reconciliation and equal treatment is not on their menu and never was.  The founders of BLM were openly misandrist Marxists whose stated goal was the destruction of the nuclear family.  All the flashing red lights were ignored by most due to fear of being labeled racist, which you correctly point out used to be a very weighty accusation.  So, while I have zero doubt of your good intent and perceptions, I don't think the movement as a whole ever really had a noble end goal in mind.  The proof is in the results.

You may be right. I hope you aren't, because that would be disheartening, but I do not look into the individuals who lead certain groups like BLM, I only note the sentiment/overarching belief. The sentiment is good. It may be the case that the intention of a minority of the loudest voices and influences is the problem.

Quote:Of course, this is a natural reaction to being attacked.  Also, these culture war issues are a distraction, the question being from what?  I've heard arguments that this is a deliberate distraction after the Occupy Wall Street movement, because it's far better for the ruling class to have the masses arguing about race than arguing about class/wealth.  Maybe there's some truth to that.  But I can state, again from my position and observation, that the progressive movement produced exactly what it set out to produce, and the results have been terrible.

Without getting into conspiracy theories about groups of people trying to distract the public from some other issue, I do think the idea is that if you keep talking about social/cultural issues, people won't have time to discuss the financial issues, which are what the wealthiest people in this country want, because they know they have the best deal despite having the most money.

[Dill]

(03-20-2024, 01:06 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: This makes everything you post not credible. It is a flat out lie. As a senator, he did not accidentally remove classified documents. They are viewed in a secure room and not permitted to leave the room. They are not permitted to be copied or photos taken. Simply, he stole classified documents. He also did not cooperate IMMEDIATELY. HE TOLD HIS GHOST WRITER YEARS PRIOR HE HAD CLASSIFEID DOCUMENTS, HE SHOWED THE GHOST WRITER AND THE GHOT WRITER DESTROYED THEM.
Biden had these documents for decades and then added classified documents when he was the VP. Again, a VP is not permitted to remove classified documents. BIDEN HAD AMPLE TIME to have attorneys (not with security clearance) to go through the documents and remove documents. Hur testified there were missing documents never recovered.
Trump gets months to comply, Biden gets decades. Trump gets raided, Biden gets years to use the documents to get his family rich.
So enough with the Biden complied liberal propaganda, he should have turned the documents over decades ago, but did not. The argument he did not know he had them has no merit. He showed them to the Ghostwriter and allowed him to copy them. That was years before he finally cooperated. 

In a nutshell, here is the difference in the two cases:

The FBI approaches Biden, he cooperates.  The FBI approaches Trump, he lies and obstructs, hides documents, claims he has a right to keep them. 

Had Trump simply turned over the documents when first requested, his retention would not have been news.

So far as I know, Biden's interaction with the Ghostwriter involved his own handwritten notes, emphasizing his opposition to a surge in Afghanistan. What documents did he "show" the Ghostwriter?  The documents in his garage were among papers gathered by his staff as he was leaving. No evidence he ever touched those boxes until he discovered some classified documents in them and immediately turned them in.

That the NA wasn't asking for those documents tells you something about their status. 

Trump was raided because he refused to turn over documents asked for by the National Archives. Again and Again. BEFORE the FBI was involved. Then he turned some over and lied about the rest, involving others in obstruction. And then the FBI had credible evidence he was moving/hiding the documents.

That's why he didn't get time to comply--because he refused to comply and was HIDING DOCUMENTS.

That's why he's being charged while Biden is not.  

[Dill]

(03-20-2024, 01:31 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Economy - Simply Biden's economy has hurt the middle class and lower income voters. He has less than 7 months to fix it as gasoline prices getting ready to rise again under his leadership. People are reminded how a Trump economy was every time they go to the grocery store, pay their mortgage or rent or pump gas.

Trump is surging because while unorthodox as a politician, he got things done the 4 years he was in office in spite of the efforts of fake news and every Democratic politician to make him fail. Trump is surging because Biden is a crook, and everyone (including Democrats) knows it. Biden can't hide in his basement in 2024, too many people questioning his mental acuity. He has to prove he can handle the most vigorous job in the US this time around.

No!

First step--free the Patriot Hostages! Persecuted for having a different opinion.



Jail the traitors.  



And expel the poison from our national bloodstream.



Restore law and order. THEN get to the 100% tariffs on Mexican cars--not before!

[*pally*]

And now he has decided to insult the 62 million American Catholic.

In his response, to Joe Biden for recognizing Trans Visibility Day, which due falls on Easter this year ( it is always on Mar 31…it is Easter that changes days), Trump demanded that Biden apologize to Christians and Catholics. Now I realize that for me it’s been a few years but I know I’ve spent enough time in parochial schools, CCD, and attending mass to be pretty damn sure that Catholics are Christians. In fact I’m also pretty sure Catholicism was the first organized Christian religion. But hey gotta pander to those extreme evangelicals who think Catholics are a bunch of Mary worshipers

Will he apologize to Catholic…highly doubtful

[Mike M (the other one)]

(03-31-2024, 03:19 AM)pally Wrote: And now he has decided to insult the 62 million American Catholic.  

In his response, to Joe Biden for recognizing Trans Visibility Day, which due falls on Easter this year ( it is always on Mar 31…it is Easter that changes days), Trump demanded that Biden apologize to Christians and Catholics.  Now I realize that for me it’s been a few years but I know I’ve spent enough time in parochial schools, CCD, and attending mass to be pretty damn sure that Catholics are Christians.  In fact I’m also pretty sure Catholicism was the first organized Christian religion.  But hey gotta pander to those extreme evangelicals who think Catholics are a bunch of Mary worshipers

Will he apologize to Catholic…highly doubtful

Who cares? 
FFS can we go 1 day with out worrying about what Trump thinks or says? I know he says dumb ass stuff frequently but dam. The media and you just can't ignore him.
There is so many more things important that we need address/fix in this country than spending time worrying about this. 

I remember a time when people used to talk about and weigh in on each candidates policies and argue the pros and cons. It's the only effective way to get someone to be open to other views, name calling certainly isn't going to do it.  I know i'm guilty as well, even though i try not to, it just slips out there, and once said, it's hard to take it back.

We used to do that back in the Obama days, it's gone to the shitter since with all the name calling and we have crappy candidates now, Hillary vs Trump was more about who could throw the best zingers at each other. Biden Trump is pretty much the same. 

I think we are all in Media overload on this crap from both sides. No mater what you think, neither side is "honest" they will say/do what ever they think will sway you to their side. Including insulting the other side. 

[GMDino]

(03-31-2024, 04:35 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who cares? 
FFS can we go 1 day with out worrying about what Trump thinks or says? I know he says dumb ass stuff frequently but dam. The media and you just can't ignore him.
There is so many more things important that we need address/fix in this country than spending time worrying about this. 

I remember a time when people used to talk about and weigh in on each candidates policies and argue the pros and cons. It's the only effective way to get someone to be open to other views, name calling certainly isn't going to do it.  I know i'm guilty as well, even though i try not to, it just slips out there, and once said, it's hard to take it back.

We used to do that back in the Obama days, it's gone to the shitter since with all the name calling and we have crappy candidates now, Hillary vs Trump was more about who could throw the best zingers at each other. Biden Trump is pretty much the same. 

I think we are all in Media overload on this crap from both sides. No mater what you think, neither side is "honest" they will say/do what ever they think will sway you to their side. Including insulting the other side. 

1) Trump doesn't have policies.  He has issues he says are bad and that he will fix them.  He never offers a plan.

2) Reporting exactly what he says is the truth.

[*pally*]

(03-31-2024, 04:35 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who cares? 
FFS can we go 1 day with out worrying about what Trump thinks or says? I know he says dumb ass stuff frequently but dam. The media and you just can't ignore him.
There is so many more things important that we need address/fix in this country than spending time worrying about this. 

I remember a time when people used to talk about and weigh in on each candidates policies and argue the pros and cons. It's the only effective way to get someone to be open to other views, name calling certainly isn't going to do it.  I know i'm guilty as well, even though i try not to, it just slips out there, and once said, it's hard to take it back.

We used to do that back in the Obama days, it's gone to the shitter since with all the name calling and we have crappy candidates now, Hillary vs Trump was more about who could throw the best zingers at each other. Biden Trump is pretty much the same. 

I think we are all in Media overload on this crap from both sides. No mater what you think, neither side is "honest" they will say/do what ever they think will sway you to their side. Including insulting the other side. 

I care and so do millions of other people...like the 84 million people who did not vote for him in 2020.

No, we can't ignore him, because despite your tender sensibilities concerning Trump, what he SAYS is germane to who he is as a candidate for President of the United States.  Republicans and MAGA want to ignore his bigotry, his hate speech, his dehumanizing of people who he believes are expendable, don't agree with him, or fail to pay him what he perceives as his proper homage but this is who he is.  This is how he did and will govern. If you find yourself uncomfortable look to the man making those comments not the people discussing them.

Separating Catholics from Christians is an old bigoted trope.  WASPs (white Anglo-Saxon Protestants) especially Evangelicals are the Republican power base.  Many Evangelicals do not consider Catholics to be true Christians.  He is hawking a Protestant bible which equates possessing that item with patriotism. The Christian Nationalist movement echoes those beliefs. Trump either believes the same thing or he is pandering.  Either way, he is being disrespectful, as usual, to a large segment of the population.  We have to take him seriously when he says that because history has shown us he leans into his hate speech as he governs