Poor reference; NRA and the GOP. Funny how when posted, the facts evaporate into thin air. The GOP wasn't the party that had black people restrained. The first black was elected to the GOP, not the Democrats. Let us not forget LBJ's nasty reference to blacks. The problem isn't the guns, it is the attitude that gets people, of any color in hot water. Being a cop is a difficult job as it is.

wingman wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

wingman wrote:

The flip side is this story. It happens a lot, You Tube is rife with videos of Karens and Bobbys talking back to police and acting just like black people that get the shit beat out of them, choked to death or shot..but the same doesn't happen to them at anywhere near the rate. I guess you could say that what color you are means you might not get killed by the police.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... donut-boy/

The big difference is that the Karens and Bobbys are MUCH less likely to brandish a firearm.

It's a piss poor excuse for shooting black people that aren't brandishing firearms. I think there are a number that qualify on Seb's list. Maybe this is why the NRA and Republicans are aiming for a billion weapons in circulation, it makes the perfect excuse for shooting anyone that doesn't fit the Nativist profile. "Well Judge, based on the odds I shot Rufus eight times before I noticed it was a Galaxy Flip. And he did not respond when I asked him for his license, he just kept reaching for all all the holes I'd just poked into 'im, so I closed the deal."

'...much less LIKELY to brandish a firearm.' You are overreaching. Of course there is no excuse for shooting anyone not brandishing firearms or a knife.

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Okay, Daunte Wright was an accident and the officer resigned and was charged. Next.

One resignation and charged does not excuse all the others. Next.

I meant next, as in pick a case, lets look at the fact and talk about them. Pick one and i will go ready up on it. I will only do that if you are willing to read up on it too and we discuss the facts, not emotion or talking points.

We know the facts of those cases. Philando Castillo was legally carrying a firearm and told police. Atatiana Jefferson and Brionna Taylor were sitting in their homes being when cops opened fire. Daunte Wright had his hands up and was unarmed but oops, oh, well. George Floyd was subdued.

We all know the facts of these cases.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

One resignation and charged does not excuse all the others. Next.

I meant next, as in pick a case, lets look at the fact and talk about them. Pick one and i will go ready up on it. I will only do that if you are willing to read up on it too and we discuss the facts, not emotion or talking points.

We know the facts of those cases. Philando Castillo was legally carrying a firearm and told police. Atatiana Jefferson and Brionna Taylor were sitting in their homes being when cops opened fire. Daunte Wright had his hands up and was unarmed but oops, oh, well. George Floyd was subdued.

We all know the facts of these cases.

You are cherry picking facts. None of those cases are as simple as you are making them out to be.

Castillo matched the description of a robbery suspect. That is important so we get some insight into the officers mindset. He told the officer he had a gun, the officer told him not to reach for it Castillo said he wasn’t but continued to do whatever he was doing. I do not believe it was a good shoot, but the officer was acquitted at trial. The officer was fired. My opinion is that he was reaching for his wallet since the officer asked for ID. I think the officer over reacted, but no matter what happened, it wasn’t just another “black person gunned down”.

Jefferson-You neglected to mention that her nephew, who was there, admitted that she had a gun in her hand and was pointing it at the window (officer was outside the window). The police were responding to a call of an open door (welfare check) at 2 am. The door was opened so the police were securing the perimeter of the house. The officer shined his light in the window and saw Jefferson pointing a gun at him, he fired. I think she didn’t know he was the police, and the police should probably have made their presence more known, but a call like that can be tricky as far as how loud they announce themselves. Again, not a simple case of the officer gunning down a lady just sitting in her house. BTW, the officer was fired and is awaiting trial for murder.

The Briona Taylor case is pretty complex, but you also neglected two material facts, the police were executing a warrant signed by a judge and that Taylors boyfriend shot one of the officers before they opened fire. Again, this wasn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Taylor was not just shot while in her apartment.

We already discussed Wright and Floyd (to a certain extent). The officer in the Wright shooting resigned and is facing criminal charges and DC was convicted of murder.

I can see that you don’t want to have an open and honest conversation about this topic. You can have the last word.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I thought his sandwich was a gun
I thought his phone was a gun
He refused to comply
He said he legally had a gun and told me where it was
She was playing video games
She was unwinding from work
I thought I was grabbing a taser

Cops continue to use every excuse to kill unarmed people and we are just supposed to be okay with it.

Where are the actual facts of what you are claiming? Lets bring up the cases and discuss each one individually. Until you do that, you are just throwing unsubstantiated opinion out. Mistakes happen, and some unarmed people have been killed. Not all shootings are justified and those police generally get held accountable (just like the cop that shot Mr. Wright). Of course that is not an absolute, but nothing is. So again, lets see the real examples of what you are claiming and lets honestly examine what happened and what the follow up was. In 2020 55 "unarmed" people were killed by the police, of which 18 were black. Again, unarmed does not equal unjustified. I am sure that almost all of the unjustified shootings were dealt with, but until you stop speaking in hyperbole we cant have a serious discussion about the issue.

In order:

Casey Goodson, Jr.
Stephon Clark
George Floyd
Philando Castile
Atatiana Jefferson
Brionna Taylor
Daunte Wright

Those are the most visible ones. There are many, many other unarmed people killed by cops.

Throwing numbers around does not make it right. All lives matter, restrictions apply.

So where is Justine Diamond, Tony Timpa.............or any of the other unarmed white people killed by police?

Breonna Taylor shouldn't be on that list, her boyfriend opened fire on the police and she was killed in the crossfire, I don't understand why people are trying to turn her into an example of racially biased police killing??

Kiwirob wrote:

Breonna Taylor shouldn't be on that list, her boyfriend opened fire on the police and she was killed in the crossfire, I don't understand why people are trying to turn her into an example of racially biased police killing??

Having discussed it last year the impression I got from the Taylor killing was mainly just really incompetent police work. If you're serving a warrant in a way that makes it almost indistinguishable from an armed burglary... But why did they choose to make the raid in that fashion? Do we know if there's a racial bias component to that decision? America has a tendency to portray black criminals as more dangerous and threatening than white ones, and the police escalate their response accordingly. Just compare the police presence in Washington during the summer after the George Floyd killing, with the police presence that let rioters into the Capitol on January 6th - notice a difference?

Kiwirob wrote:

So where is Justine Diamond, Tony Timpa.............or any of the other unarmed white people killed by police?

A more professional and accountable police force that kills fewer unarmed black people, is also less likely to kill unarmed white people.

In this thread, i've noticed talk of police shooting fleeing suspects and that being a risk they take when fleeing. What justifies shooting people running away? As far as i'm aware, people flee police all around the world for all sorts of reasons, some being because they've commited a crime, some because of anxiety and fear.

If i was speaking to someone in the street and suddenly they bolted, i wouldn't think 'well i guess i'll have to put a few hollowpoints in his direction', but for some reason US police do. Perhaps i'm naively missing something but it just seems incredibly aggressive and illogical.

Phenom89 wrote:

What justifies shooting people running away?

There are protocols for using deadly force. You can see in plenty of videos the foot chases. They don't just start blasting. Some are even chased with a weapon in their hand, I have seen that they are told to drop it. But if you insist on playing stupid games, you will win stupid prizes.

I’m not saying this to settle any scores, because it’s not a topic that I spend significant time on. I am interested in airlines and other business stuff.

Anyway.. About half as many black men as white men are shot by police each year. As a proportion of population, that seems high (black men are over-represented among police shooting deaths). But as a proportion of murder suspects, it appears low. So… wait a second. Per murder suspect (or other rates of violent crime), black men appear to be under-represented in police shooting deaths. I apologize for even saying that. My point is certainly not that more of any group should be shot. My point is the underlying claim being made by this whole popular movement appears to be either a mistake or intentionally misleading.

Elkadad313 wrote:

wingman wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

The big difference is that the Karens and Bobbys are MUCH less likely to brandish a firearm.

It's a piss poor excuse for shooting black people that aren't brandishing firearms. I think there are a number that qualify on Seb's list. Maybe this is why the NRA and Republicans are aiming for a billion weapons in circulation, it makes the perfect excuse for shooting anyone that doesn't fit the Nativist profile. "Well Judge, based on the odds I shot Rufus eight times before I noticed it was a Galaxy Flip. And he did not respond when I asked him for his license, he just kept reaching for all all the holes I'd just poked into 'im, so I closed the deal."

'...much less LIKELY to brandish a firearm.' You are overreaching. Of course there is no excuse for shooting anyone not brandishing firearms or a knife.

Isn't there a constitutional right to "bear arms" in the US&A? seems to me that there is no basis for shooting someone even if they do have a gun.

Fred

Aaron747 wrote:

bigGAplane wrote:

art wrote:

If it is your opinion that improvements in education and living conditions are not reflected in a drop in crime rates, I think you are mistaken.

The biggest contributor to crime is poverty. I think we can all agree on that? I hope...

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that there's 3 simple things you need to do in order to not live in poverty.

1. Graduate High School

2. Have a full-time job

3. Don't have a child until you're married

So let's be realistic here. The neighborhoods with the highest crime rates in nearly every large city are predominantly black neighborhoods. This isn't opinion, this is just a fact.

How about instead of blaming the police for everything we start making sure black kids actually graduate high school? How about we make sure that black women stop having kids out of wedlock? How about we stop indoctrinating black kids into believing they're victims and the "system" is racist against them? That right there will go a LONG way in improving the crime rates and living conditions in these neighborhoods.

Oh, we're trying to get serious now, I see. Finally....

So how do you propose to ensure populations in specific areas are able to do 1-2-3 reliably? Hint: poverty is one big part, as you suggest, but 'indoctrination' per se is mostly irrelevant. Evidence? 1-2-3 are rare in poverty-stricken areas of every ethnicity.

Are you really prepared to pay and support the kind of structural reforms necessary to make 1-2-3 a reality in low income places?

As someone who works with the population effected I can weigh in on this. What I do is provide case management and supervision to homeless teens in a major city in the USA. We are a non profit with the goal of supporting teens to graduate HS and hopefully college. We are not the only program as there are many around the country attempting to affect change.

For everyone kid we accept into the program we reject 16-20 who meet the criteria.

For many of these young people in poverty their family is broken, they have little to no support at home. They attend school's, that are poorly funded, with teacher and counselors who are poorly paid and overwhelmed. The cycle of Poverty is not going to be fixed with a good old "pull your self up and stop being a victim pep talk. That type of thinking is what causes the us v them mentality imho.

Yes it is possible to work hard and succeed....however the fact is that most do work hard, and do not. They face hopeless outcomes in there minds. They are surrounded by low income, teen pregnancy's, broken families, and crime.

On the other hand we have cops, who show up every day and interact with the same people, and honestly probably get worn down and become jaded. The inner city is a tough tough place. Take it from someone who grew up wealthy, came from a good home, and had access to great role models, and parents. That picture isn't found in the places I work.


Empathy and Kindness is needed....that is what creates hope- which fuels change.

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

We know the facts of those cases. Philando Castillo was legally carrying a firearm and told police. Atatiana Jefferson and Brionna Taylor were sitting in their homes being when cops opened fire. Daunte Wright had his hands up and was unarmed but oops, oh, well. George Floyd was subdued.

We all know the facts of these cases.

You are cherry picking facts. None of those cases are as simple as you are making them out to be.

Castillo matched the description of a robbery suspect. That is important so we get some insight into the officers mindset. He told the officer he had a gun, the officer told him not to reach for it Castillo said he wasn’t but continued to do whatever he was doing. I do not believe it was a good shoot, but the officer was acquitted at trial. The officer was fired. My opinion is that he was reaching for his wallet since the officer asked for ID. I think the officer over reacted, but no matter what happened, it wasn’t just another “black person gunned down”.

Jefferson-You neglected to mention that her nephew, who was there, admitted that she had a gun in her hand and was pointing it at the window (officer was outside the window). The police were responding to a call of an open door (welfare check) at 2 am. The door was opened so the police were securing the perimeter of the house. The officer shined his light in the window and saw Jefferson pointing a gun at him, he fired. I think she didn’t know he was the police, and the police should probably have made their presence more known, but a call like that can be tricky as far as how loud they announce themselves. Again, not a simple case of the officer gunning down a lady just sitting in her house. BTW, the officer was fired and is awaiting trial for murder.

The Briona Taylor case is pretty complex, but you also neglected two material facts, the police were executing a warrant signed by a judge and that Taylors boyfriend shot one of the officers before they opened fire. Again, this wasn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Taylor was not just shot while in her apartment.

We already discussed Wright and Floyd (to a certain extent). The officer in the Wright shooting resigned and is facing criminal charges and DC was convicted of murder.

I can see that you don’t want to have an open and honest conversation about this topic. You can have the last word.

So why is it that white people are not murdered at the same rate as minorities? Let's compare that to the gun toting white people who are taken alive and even still roaming free in society. A 17 year old white man gunned down two people after crossing state lines with guns and was taken to the bar after and was allowed to be free. A 21 year old white man was taken alive and even given Burger King after he murdered 9 people.

I guess I do not understand why cops get to decide that minorities can be killed.

Justine Damon ring a bell?

acecrackshot wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You are cherry picking facts. None of those cases are as simple as you are making them out to be.

Castillo matched the description of a robbery suspect. That is important so we get some insight into the officers mindset. He told the officer he had a gun, the officer told him not to reach for it Castillo said he wasn’t but continued to do whatever he was doing. I do not believe it was a good shoot, but the officer was acquitted at trial. The officer was fired. My opinion is that he was reaching for his wallet since the officer asked for ID. I think the officer over reacted, but no matter what happened, it wasn’t just another “black person gunned down”.

Jefferson-You neglected to mention that her nephew, who was there, admitted that she had a gun in her hand and was pointing it at the window (officer was outside the window). The police were responding to a call of an open door (welfare check) at 2 am. The door was opened so the police were securing the perimeter of the house. The officer shined his light in the window and saw Jefferson pointing a gun at him, he fired. I think she didn’t know he was the police, and the police should probably have made their presence more known, but a call like that can be tricky as far as how loud they announce themselves. Again, not a simple case of the officer gunning down a lady just sitting in her house. BTW, the officer was fired and is awaiting trial for murder.

The Briona Taylor case is pretty complex, but you also neglected two material facts, the police were executing a warrant signed by a judge and that Taylors boyfriend shot one of the officers before they opened fire. Again, this wasn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Taylor was not just shot while in her apartment.

We already discussed Wright and Floyd (to a certain extent). The officer in the Wright shooting resigned and is facing criminal charges and DC was convicted of murder.

I can see that you don’t want to have an open and honest conversation about this topic. You can have the last word.

So why is it that white people are not murdered at the same rate as minorities? Let's compare that to the gun toting white people who are taken alive and even still roaming free in society. A 17 year old white man gunned down two people after crossing state lines with guns and was taken to the bar after and was allowed to be free. A 21 year old white man was taken alive and even given Burger King after he murdered 9 people.

I guess I do not understand why cops get to decide that minorities can be killed.

Justine Damon ring a bell?

At least spell the victim’s name right if you claim to care.

aaden wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bigGAplane wrote:

The biggest contributor to crime is poverty. I think we can all agree on that? I hope...

The Southern Poverty Law Center says that there's 3 simple things you need to do in order to not live in poverty.

1. Graduate High School

2. Have a full-time job

3. Don't have a child until you're married

So let's be realistic here. The neighborhoods with the highest crime rates in nearly every large city are predominantly black neighborhoods. This isn't opinion, this is just a fact.

How about instead of blaming the police for everything we start making sure black kids actually graduate high school? How about we make sure that black women stop having kids out of wedlock? How about we stop indoctrinating black kids into believing they're victims and the "system" is racist against them? That right there will go a LONG way in improving the crime rates and living conditions in these neighborhoods.

Oh, we're trying to get serious now, I see. Finally....

So how do you propose to ensure populations in specific areas are able to do 1-2-3 reliably? Hint: poverty is one big part, as you suggest, but 'indoctrination' per se is mostly irrelevant. Evidence? 1-2-3 are rare in poverty-stricken areas of every ethnicity.

Are you really prepared to pay and support the kind of structural reforms necessary to make 1-2-3 a reality in low income places?

As someone who works with the population effected I can weigh in on this. What I do is provide case management and supervision to homeless teens in a major city in the USA. We are a non profit with the goal of supporting teens to graduate HS and hopefully college. We are not the only program as there are many around the country attempting to affect change.

For everyone kid we accept into the program we reject 16-20 who meet the criteria.

For many of these young people in poverty their family is broken, they have little to no support at home. They attend school's, that are poorly funded, with teacher and counselors who are poorly paid and overwhelmed. The cycle of Poverty is not going to be fixed with a good old "pull your self up and stop being a victim pep talk. That type of thinking is what causes the us v them mentality imho.

Yes it is possible to work hard and succeed....however the fact is that most do work hard, and do not. They face hopeless outcomes in there minds. They are surrounded by low income, teen pregnancy's, broken families, and crime.

On the other hand we have cops, who show up every day and interact with the same people, and honestly probably get worn down and become jaded. The inner city is a tough tough place. Take it from someone who grew up wealthy, came from a good home, and had access to great role models, and parents. That picture isn't found in the places I work.


Empathy and Kindness is needed....that is what creates hope- which fuels change.

Yes, precisely. I so tire of the arrogance in ‘let’s be realistic here’ proclamations from people who are actually being counterproductive to fighting poverty.

acecrackshot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

Justine Damon ring a bell?

At least spell the victim’s name right if you claim to care.

I guess the point being made sailed over your head?

Nah, the point is if you’re going to bring up a victim, spell their name right. It shows a modicum of respect.

Aaron747 wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

At least spell the victim’s name right if you claim to care.

I guess the point being made sailed over your head?

Nah, the point is if you’re going to bring up a victim, spell their name right. It shows a modicum of respect.

Ah, the retreat to feelings when one’s argument is less than complete.

I note the misspelling. Continue to bray about feelings to your content.

Again, if we only had data on the actual number of unarmed people killed by police in the US, along with racial data of the participants. This would take much of the feelings invested out of it.

Elkadad313 wrote:

wingman wrote:

It's a piss poor excuse for shooting black people that aren't brandishing firearms. I think there are a number that qualify on Seb's list. Maybe this is why the NRA and Republicans are aiming for a billion weapons in circulation, it makes the perfect excuse for shooting anyone that doesn't fit the Nativist profile. "Well Judge, based on the odds I shot Rufus eight times before I noticed it was a Galaxy Flip. And he did not respond when I asked him for his license, he just kept reaching for all all the holes I'd just poked into 'im, so I closed the deal."

'...much less LIKELY to brandish a firearm.' You are overreaching. Of course there is no excuse for shooting anyone not brandishing firearms or a knife.

Isn't there a constitutional right to "bear arms" in the US&A? seems to me that there is no basis for shooting someone even if they do have a gun.

Fred[/quote]

Elkadad313 wrote:

I wrote brandishing, not possessing. The difference between the two is not subtle.

acecrackshot wrote:

seb146 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You are cherry picking facts. None of those cases are as simple as you are making them out to be.

Castillo matched the description of a robbery suspect. That is important so we get some insight into the officers mindset. He told the officer he had a gun, the officer told him not to reach for it Castillo said he wasn’t but continued to do whatever he was doing. I do not believe it was a good shoot, but the officer was acquitted at trial. The officer was fired. My opinion is that he was reaching for his wallet since the officer asked for ID. I think the officer over reacted, but no matter what happened, it wasn’t just another “black person gunned down”.

Jefferson-You neglected to mention that her nephew, who was there, admitted that she had a gun in her hand and was pointing it at the window (officer was outside the window). The police were responding to a call of an open door (welfare check) at 2 am. The door was opened so the police were securing the perimeter of the house. The officer shined his light in the window and saw Jefferson pointing a gun at him, he fired. I think she didn’t know he was the police, and the police should probably have made their presence more known, but a call like that can be tricky as far as how loud they announce themselves. Again, not a simple case of the officer gunning down a lady just sitting in her house. BTW, the officer was fired and is awaiting trial for murder.

The Briona Taylor case is pretty complex, but you also neglected two material facts, the police were executing a warrant signed by a judge and that Taylors boyfriend shot one of the officers before they opened fire. Again, this wasn’t as simple as you make it out to be. Taylor was not just shot while in her apartment.

We already discussed Wright and Floyd (to a certain extent). The officer in the Wright shooting resigned and is facing criminal charges and DC was convicted of murder.

I can see that you don’t want to have an open and honest conversation about this topic. You can have the last word.

So why is it that white people are not murdered at the same rate as minorities? Let's compare that to the gun toting white people who are taken alive and even still roaming free in society. A 17 year old white man gunned down two people after crossing state lines with guns and was taken to the bar after and was allowed to be free. A 21 year old white man was taken alive and even given Burger King after he murdered 9 people.

I guess I do not understand why cops get to decide that minorities can be killed.

Justine Damon ring a bell?

One blonde white woman proves nothing.

seb146 wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So why is it that white people are not murdered at the same rate as minorities? Let's compare that to the gun toting white people who are taken alive and even still roaming free in society. A 17 year old white man gunned down two people after crossing state lines with guns and was taken to the bar after and was allowed to be free. A 21 year old white man was taken alive and even given Burger King after he murdered 9 people.

I guess I do not understand why cops get to decide that minorities can be killed.

Justine Damon ring a bell?

One blonde white woman proves nothing.

What is your standard of proof? One, one hundred?

Read the initial point, namely the slanderous assertion that

“I guess I do not understand why cops get to decide that minorities can be killed.”

I guess I missed in the terms and conditions of the site that such comments are suitable debate when directed at Americans.

Reading some of the replies here makes me realise just how bad race relations are in the US, and I suspect we have this coming down the tracks in Europe. It really makes you wonder if multiculturalism is ever going to work. There will always be people who are racist, no matter how much you try to "educate" people, and there will always be people who are primed to see racism where it doesn't exist.

The bad eggs spoil it for everyone.

Race relations were getting better up until Obama decided to throw the spanner into the werks. Starting with getting involved and with the Trayvon Martin and Mike Brown shootings. Talking bad about the police when his pal Louis Gates was arrested. Making racist statements which included his "Typical, white, grandmother..." Letting the Black Panthers get away with racial intimidation in Philadelphia. The hypocrisy is what burns my ass. If America is so racist, how did it elect a black man to two successive terms?

extender wrote:

The hypocrisy is what burns my ass. If America is so racist, how did it elect a black man to two successive terms?

Because the "angry old white man" demographic is in decline?

scbriml wrote:

extender wrote:

The hypocrisy is what burns my ass. If America is so racist, how did it elect a black man to two successive terms?

Because the "angry old white man" demographic is in decline?

Carefully chosen bits& pieces = your generalization. Most of my 'angry old white men' friends, and those in my golf, tennis and poker groups, voted Obama in 2008 based on politics, obviously not race. Not so much in 2012 when BHO's racist-in-reverse agenda was apparent.

Elkadad313 wrote:

:(

scbriml wrote:

extender wrote:

The hypocrisy is what burns my ass. If America is so racist, how did it elect a black man to two successive terms?

Because the "angry old white man" demographic is in decline?

Carefully chosen bits& pieces = your generalization. Most of my 'angry old white men' friends, and those in my golf, tennis and poker groups, voted Obama in 2008 based on politics, obviously not race. Not so much in 2012 when BHO's racist-in-reverse agenda was apparent.

That’s odd - independents like me and my circle voted to re-elect. Maybe the difference is not being easily triggered, and capable of seeing nuance? Perhaps the 30-50 crowd isn’t as sensitive as those younger and older, and can see both sides.

Like the obvious realization that 44 was walking a tightrope - trying to weigh in on things that were upsetting but not seeking policy change in a transformational vein to respect local/state differences. That’s what his SJW critics say he was doing too much of, anyway.

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

:(

scbriml wrote:

Because the "angry old white man" demographic is in decline?

Carefully chosen bits& pieces = your generalization. Most of my 'angry old white men' friends, and those in my golf, tennis and poker groups, voted Obama in 2008 based on politics, obviously not race. Not so much in 2012 when BHO's racist-in-reverse agenda was apparent.

That’s odd - independents like me and my circle voted to re-elect. Maybe the difference is not being easily triggered, and capable of seeing nuance? Perhaps the 30-50 crowd isn’t as sensitive as those younger and older, and can see both sides.

Like the obvious realization that 44 was walking a tightrope - trying to weigh in on things that were upsetting but not seeking policy change in a transformational vein to respect local/state differences. That’s what his SJW critics say he was doing too much of, anyway.

You are an independent voter? Most of my friends and I are independent voters. This room must have closets of which I am unaware.

44 didn't have to actively seek policy changes in a transformational vein. The dog whistle was heard and acted on pretty much with impunity.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Elkadad313 wrote:

:(
Carefully chosen bits& pieces = your generalization. Most of my 'angry old white men' friends, and those in my golf, tennis and poker groups, voted Obama in 2008 based on politics, obviously not race. Not so much in 2012 when BHO's racist-in-reverse agenda was apparent.

That’s odd - independents like me and my circle voted to re-elect. Maybe the difference is not being easily triggered, and capable of seeing nuance? Perhaps the 30-50 crowd isn’t as sensitive as those younger and older, and can see both sides.

Like the obvious realization that 44 was walking a tightrope - trying to weigh in on things that were upsetting but not seeking policy change in a transformational vein to respect local/state differences. That’s what his SJW critics say he was doing too much of, anyway.

You are an independent voter? Most of my friends and I are independent voters. This room must have closets of which I am unaware.

44 didn't have to actively seek policy changes in a transformational vein. The dog whistle was heard and acted on pretty much with impunity.

Yeah nah, talk to SJWs about that. They still call him and AG Holder sellouts for capitulating to Wall Street.

As for me, of course I'm registered independent. The Dems lost me in 2002 when they voted for Iraq. I have voted for GOP candidates in local elections as well, but nothing state or national because that's pure garbage.

Aaron747 wrote:

Yeah nah, talk to SJWs about that. They still call him and AG Holder sellouts for capitulating to Wall Street.

The street Obama and Holder really capitulated to was Canfield Drive.

Elkadad313 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yeah nah, talk to SJWs about that. They still call him and AG Holder sellouts for capitulating to Wall Street.

The street Obama and Holder really capitulated to was Canfield Drive.

Hate to agree with SJWs on anything, but not really. AG Holder represented big banks before his stint in the WH, and he's back at it since. You won't find him working pro bono at the NAAPC or SPLC anytime soon. Try again. Perhaps your lot is easily snowed over by someone making a few controversial comments here and there, but where I'm from actions speak louder than words.

Aaron747 wrote:

Maybe the difference is not being easily triggered, and capable of seeing nuance?

That's rich.

Aaron747 wrote:

Like the obvious realization that 44 was walking a tightrope - trying to weigh in on things that were upsetting but not seeking policy change in a transformational vein to respect local/state differences. That’s what his SJW critics say he was doing too much of, anyway.

There was nothing subtle about Obama's presidency. "I've got a pen and a phone."

But he did wreck race relations. Much of the attitude on the streets today is courtesy of him and his pal Val. Which gave to a rise in confrontations with police, which gets everybody amped up and then bad things happen.

extender wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Maybe the difference is not being easily triggered, and capable of seeing nuance?

That's rich.

True. If people say whatever about my 'kind', it doesn't really bother me. Why should it? We're not eight years old permanently.

extender wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Like the obvious realization that 44 was walking a tightrope - trying to weigh in on things that were upsetting but not seeking policy change in a transformational vein to respect local/state differences. That’s what his SJW critics say he was doing too much of, anyway.

There was nothing subtle about Obama's presidency. "I've got a pen and a phone."

But he did wreck race relations. Much of the attitude on the streets today is courtesy of him and his pal Val. Which gave to a rise in confrontations with police, which gets everybody amped up and then bad things happen.

Mmhmm, whatever makes ya feel better. Just as silly as the SJWs still angry at 44.

seb146 wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So why is it that white people are not murdered at the same rate as minorities? Let's compare that to the gun toting white people who are taken alive and even still roaming free in society. A 17 year old white man gunned down two people after crossing state lines with guns and was taken to the bar after and was allowed to be free. A 21 year old white man was taken alive and even given Burger King after he murdered 9 people.

I guess I do not understand why cops get to decide that minorities can be killed.

Justine Damon ring a bell?

One blonde white woman proves nothing.

It is funny how anecdotes are allowed for one side but not the other.

N583JB wrote:

seb146 wrote:

acecrackshot wrote:

Justine Damon ring a bell?

One blonde white woman proves nothing.

It is funny how anecdotes are allowed for one side but not the other.

It's more likely that it went unreported.