Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pixelman said: Besides a tax reform bill... what did the Republicans even pass in the time frame where they had all three branches of government under their control I'm pretty astounded Trump didn't get funding for a border wall in the first two years. That was one of his major goals... right? It was pretty much spent on the Tax cuts for the rich and trying to completely destroy ObamaCare in the first year and then there was that effort spent on trying to discredit the Mueller investigation and having more hearings and investigation into Hillary's e-mails to keep their base buying into the "Deep State" conspiracy theory and that must vote for the Trump loyalists to protect him from the FBI until after the midterms were done. The Tax cuts for the rich were rather unpopular and they had to spend a lot of time convincing their base that it's great with many of those politicians were originally going to point to them for their Re-Election but they jumped ship on that idea as the midterms approached. 29 minutes ago, Slumber said: It's because The Wall is a fucking stupid idea, and he knows that even the republicans wouldn't pass it. So he waited until the democrats had some power in the government so that it didn't become immediately transparent that not even republicans are on board. Being fair to Trump here (I know, unbelievable), it was more like those that are extremely loyal to him in the House pushed for that drama because if he couldn't get it under a fully Republican controlled government, "there's no way Democrats would allow it if they controlled the house". Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich then egged him on to doing the shutdown for the wall. The House GOP weren't wrong in their thinking but the final nail in the coffin became McConnell. Congress has no obligation to submit to this whiny turd of a manchild because as the video says, they can override vetos from the President but they won't do it because opposing Trump as a Republican has proven to be poisonous among their base and there's argument to be made that Trump vetoing bills to Re-open the government is an easy "impeachable offense" the Democrats could latch on to. Off-topic from the wall: Police shoot down the hoax theories regarding the Jussie Smollett's attack. Guess there were enough snowflakes peddling this conspiracy theory that the Police had to make a statement on it. Edited February 15, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 9 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said: So it seems that Trump is declaring a state of emergency despite there not being an emergency. Does this means the Democrats can declare a state of emergency to get some actual healthcare when they are in power? Can the next Republican declare a state of emergency to arrange another tax cut? A president falsely declaring a state of emergency to get his pet project passed could start a pretty nasty trend. There's actually a lot of states of emergency going on at any given time. I'm not sure how it works exactly, but AFAIK the president can't just up and just delete the ACA through it, or expand on it the other way around. Edit: this podcast deals rather extensively with what a state of emergency is, the legal framework for it, etc. https://openargs.com/oa243-build-that-wall-2/ Edited February 15, 2019 by Excellen Browning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRay Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) Just saw this on YouTube today about Ocasio-Cortez and other politicians like her kicked Amazon's head quarters plan out of New York. I am not really sure what to think of it. On one hand, it does sound kind of bad since she basically killed potential jobs there. However, she and her protesting constituents have a point about gentrification and pushing people out of their neighborhood and they seem to be happy to have Amazon leave, although I am not really sure what the actual percentage of voters there actually agree with her stance. Personally, if Amazon has plans to establish a second head quarters in Sacramento, I would welcome it and I would prefer that my local politicians do not kick Amazon out. However, I can understand that not everyone would be happy with it since it prices the poor and those with lower education further and further out since they cannot take advantage of the gentrification of their neighborhoods as they often do not own their own homes. Edited February 15, 2019 by XRay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47258754 Quote But Mr Trump accepted that he would be sued for the move, and predicted that the emergency order would lead to legal action which was likely to end up in the Supreme Court. Edit: In addition, here's a tweet from the man himself JUST ONE YEAR AGO. Edited February 15, 2019 by Tryhard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRay Posted February 16, 2019 Share Posted February 16, 2019 21 hours ago, Tryhard said: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47258754 Yeah, it is not a fucking emergency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, XRay said: Yeah, it is not a fucking emergency. He even said "I didn't need to do this". He should've fired this pathetic asshole long ago Lindsey Graham is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar gone. Edited February 17, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 21, 2019 Share Posted February 21, 2019 (edited) @PixelmanYou may be interested in reading this interview Then there's the Jussie Smollett story that actually turned out to be a hoax. It's a loss all around, specially this point from the Police Superintendent: “I’m also concerned about what this means moving forward for hate crimes,” he said. ‘My concern is that hate crimes will now publicly be met with a level of skepticism that previously didn’t happen.” I'm ashamed to say I jumped the gun on the initial reporting. Edited February 22, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRay Posted February 22, 2019 Share Posted February 22, 2019 22 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: You may be interested in reading this interview Since they seem so paranoid about other people taking their resources, I think it would be better if we just leave them be. I like the idea of restricting how much the Federal government can redistribute our tax dollars between the states. It is fine if conservative states do not want social spending, but liberal states should not pay much more than they receive back from the Federal government either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 On 2/14/2019 at 11:23 PM, Pixelman said: Besides a tax reform bill... what did the Republicans even pass in the time frame where they had all three branches of government under their control A blank check for using tear gas on central americans migrants + putting their kids in cages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 Don't forget the muslim ban, the trans ban, putting a rapist and a crazy person in the supreme court, and making it ok to use asbestos again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 lol is anyone surprised?https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/431542-cohen-to-accuse-trump-of-criminal-conduct-in-office-report ^^^ Never forget. Republicans once believed lying about getting a B.J. was enough to trigger impeachment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 4 hours ago, Shoblongoo said: lol is anyone surprised?https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/431542-cohen-to-accuse-trump-of-criminal-conduct-in-office-report ^^^ Never forget. Republicans once believed lying about getting a B.J. was enough to trigger impeachment. Because MORALS, that's why it was worth impeachment. Oh, and because it was a Democrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 It's because he's a democrat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 26, 2019 Share Posted February 26, 2019 McConnell tries to spin the NC voter fraud caused by Republicans as fault of the Democrats and tries to suggest that making it easier for people vote is being done to make voter fraud easier. Reminder that it is the Republicans that have been caught with voter fraud and suppression during the midterms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 According to Fox News, McConnell has been caught lying, and will probably go to jail. Also according to Fox News, the scheduled date of the hearing was done while Trump was overseas, which is something that shouldn't have happened (and was implied to be malicious). No, I didn't listen to this voluntarily. My stepfather was watching it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 Wait, was Fox attacking or defending McConnell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 2 hours ago, Excellen Browning said: Wait, was Fox attacking or defending McConnell? Attacking. They didn't seem happy about the inquiry, and I can't figure out why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edelgard for Smash Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 On 2/13/2019 at 7:40 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said: Fox News thought this ad might show Hannity fans how close they are to being actual Nazis. Couldn't have that so they prevented the ad from being shown. 18 hours ago, Excellen Browning said: Don't forget the muslim ban, the trans ban, putting a rapist and a crazy person in the supreme court, and making it ok to use asbestos again. I am sorry guys, I really didn’t want to do this, but considering this thread reads exactly like the DNC talking points memo I am going to have to knock some people off their pedestals. On 2/12/2019 at 12:52 PM, Shoblongoo said: The future is now It is kinda hilarious listening to all the old fogies freak out about how "radical" her positions are and wondering how someone like that can get elected. ...not yet realizing that she's representing the majority politics of voters-under-30 + what the mainstream body-politic is probably going to look like in ~20 years... ________ There is something to be said for he who masters the newest form of communication before his opponents controls the messaging. The first politicians to master getting their message out on radio had an inordinate advantage over politicians still stuck on newspaper. (that was the magic behind FDR) The first politicians to master getting their message out on television had an inordinate advantage over politicians still stuck on radio. (that was the magic behind JFK) Neither JFK nor FDR are anywhere near as crazy as Cortez, nor were they totally reliant on defenseless and weak opposition. The looney toon far left has controlled social media since it’s inception, Cortez is just a last gasp before the center left(i.e the walk away movement) and the younger right(i.e the alt-right coalition) control social media forever. On 2/21/2019 at 6:49 PM, Dr. Tarrasque said: @PixelmanYou may be interested in reading this interview Then there's the Jussie Smollett story that actually turned out to be a hoax. It's a loss all around, specially this point from the Police Superintendent: “I’m also concerned about what this means moving forward for hate crimes,” he said. ‘My concern is that hate crimes will now publicly be met with a level of skepticism that previously didn’t happen.” I'm ashamed to say I jumped the gun on the initial reporting. Did you ever think that most of what you have heard from the media is just as or even more fake than this story? And why is it a terrible thing that hate crime accusations are met with scepticism? The only loss in this case is finding out that a police superintendent wants to believe that hate crimes always happen despite the ample amount of cases in which some piece of trash sprays a swastika on their own property and then claims a “Nazi” did it or something. Instead of believing anyone and everyone who claims they were a victim of bigotry just because they come from the right background the people who are found to be lying should spend years locked away for using taxpayer funds to try to indict innocent people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 46 minutes ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Did you ever think that most of what you have heard from the media is just as or even more fake than this story? And why is it a terrible thing that hate crime accusations are met with scepticism? The only loss in this case is finding out that a police superintendent wants to believe that hate crimes always happen despite the ample amount of cases in which some piece of trash sprays a swastika on their own property and then claims a “Nazi” did it or something. The media reported the information that's been made public and following You're missing the bigger picture: hate crime accusations being met with skepticism isn't what's terrible, that's standard as mentioned in the quote, what is terrible is that "hate crimes will now publicly be met with a level of skepticism that previously didn’t happen". When it comes to injustices done to blacks you've already got cases where people tend to lean on judging them it as if they're "guilty until proven innocent". Remember the Botham Jean case? They tried to protect a cop that came in to his apartment and the police tried to cover it up with changing statements to the public and portraying the dude as a bad guy for possession of weed and when there's a white person involved on the other end of the crime, you'll have always folks doing mental gymnastics to try and defend them (White nationalists' reaction to finding out the Las Vegas shooter was white for example). Blacks have it bad enough as is with law enforcement typically being against them or the cause of their deaths as well public opinion being muddied via media report and right-wing folks. Take for example how they were profiling Trayvon Martin as the one at fault in the case because he was wearing a hoodie. Now, generally speaking, you've got MAGA hat wearers are being profiled as racist and they're crying foul for this profiling. Now, is the profiling in these cases both bad? Yes but there's a distinct difference: one's just a clothing article that has no general consensus or established meaning behind it, the other's a hat meant to exhibit support for a lying racist asshole that has been embraced by other racists and white supremacists. 1 hour ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Instead of believing anyone and everyone who claims they were a victim of bigotry just because they come from the right background the people who are found to be lying should spend years locked away for using taxpayer funds to try to indict innocent people. I agree. As it turns out though, false crime reports and false rape accusations are rare but when the accused happens to be white, smear campaigns and cover-ups to defend the accused are done while attacks on the accuser come up and are funded with private donations and taxpayer funds. It's also been the right-wing's way, specially as of late, to use these few examples to go as far as to suggest that there's no police brutality against blacks and Kaepernick is just disrespecting the flag, there's no racism in the US except against whites, there's no men in power taking advantage of women and raping them and the #metoo movement is just an attack on men. Literally, they treat these few instances popularized by the media as "get-out-of thinking free" cards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edelgard for Smash Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 6 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: The media reported the information that's been made public and following You're missing the bigger picture: hate crime accusations being met with skepticism isn't what's terrible, that's standard as mentioned in the quote, what is terrible is that "hate crimes will now publicly be met with a level of skepticism that previously didn’t happen". When it comes to injustices done to blacks you've already got cases where people tend to lean on judging them it as if they're "guilty until proven innocent". Remember the Botham Jean case? They tried to protect a cop that came in to his apartment and the police tried to cover it up with changing statements to the public and portraying the dude as a bad guy for possession of weed and when there's a white person involved on the other end of the crime, you'll have always folks doing mental gymnastics to try and defend them (White nationalists' reaction to finding out the Las Vegas shooter was white for example). Blacks have it bad enough as is with law enforcement typically being against them or the cause of their deaths as well public opinion being muddied via media report and right-wing folks. Take for example how they were profiling Trayvon Martin as the one at fault in the case because he was wearing a hoodie. Now, generally speaking, you've got MAGA hat wearers are being profiled as racist and they're crying foul for this profiling. Now, is the profiling in these cases both bad? Yes but there's a distinct difference: one's just a clothing article that has no general consensus or established meaning behind it, the other's a hat meant to exhibit support for a lying racist asshole that has been embraced by other racists and white supremacists. I agree. As it turns out though, false crime reports and false rape accusations are rare but when the accused happens to be white, smear campaigns and cover-ups to defend the accused are done while attacks on the accuser come up and are funded with private donations and taxpayer funds. It's also been the right-wing's way, specially as of late, to use these few examples to go as far as to suggest that there's no police brutality against blacks and Kaepernick is just disrespecting the flag, there's no racism in the US except against whites, there's no men in power taking advantage of women and raping them and the #metoo movement is just an attack on men. Literally, they treat these few instances popularized by the media as "get-out-of thinking free" cards. No, the media lied like they usually do when they are not omitting stories that completely contradict their narrative that would have easily been headline news 30 years ago(like the hundreds of hate crime hoaxes(including the one at the military complex that higher ups actually issued a national statement on) that happened right after Trump won the election, some of which they actually covered as hate crimes despite no evidence). Hate crime accusations are scrutinized to ridiculous levels already when the victims are white or Christian or male(remember that Australian tourist who was killed by black people who made racist tweets but it wasn’t ruled a hate crime and the left was actually attacking people who dared to suggest it actually was?), so if anything this is just a step toward actual equality for once(sort of like when Facebook decided to punish women for making death threats against men, which of course caused supposed “egalitarian” women to whine). On the contrary, black people have it easier with the police because they are a “protected class”. A white kid is far more likely to be killed by the police for not kissing a pissed off or emotionally damaged cop’s butt at the wrong time than an actual confrontational black suspect who is armed and threatening to use their gun. Turn off the MSNBC(or any media) and look up the FBI statistics. Most cops know that if they shoot a black person for any reason other than the most obvious they will lose their jobs and their reputation at the very least via the media, the NAACP, BLM or what have you, but if they accidentally kill a white person the most they have to worry about is the family suing them or rarely being charged with reckless endangerment. Where do you get off comparing profiling of the support of an elected US President via a cap and the profiling of wearing a hoodie in Florida(anyone wearing a hoodie in Florida is at least an idiot)? “Make America Great Again” is a totally non-partisan and ambiguous statement. Should I hate people who are for “Hope and Change” too? Should I associate people who supported Obama simply because he was the president at the time as people who also support Farrakhan and the racism he espouses just because Obama hung out with Farrakhan and because Obama was publicly endorsed by the NOI on top of Obama’s DOJ defending the New Black Panther party? Kaepernick is just a terrible former NFL quarterback who wanted attention. He wasn’t so much disrespecting the flag, he was making a mockery of the national anthem and what it stands for as the anthem of this country. The “Me Too” movement started out as people(predominantly women) who were legitimately afraid to speak out about sexual assault finding their voice, but they ruined it by going after Trump for no reason when he supported them and then it morphed into the disgraceful attack on the presumption of innocence entitled “believe her” as well as the typical “progressive” racism and sexism that gives life to the modern left wing. Your view of the world(which was predominately created by the media) and what is actually happening are 2 very different things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 are you getting your news from conservative radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) Dude, where the hell do you get your information? A lot of your post sounds like you pulled it out of your ass or conspiracy theory sites and you present no evidence on any of the things you're saying while assuming I just follow whatever mainstream media says when that is not the case. The paragraph that starts with "On the contrary, black people have it easier with the police because they are a “protected class”." is the most egregious example of bullshit I've ever heard and I've been browsing Stormfront and Breitbart comments these days to see how stupid the people on the right can be. I have white friends who have admitted to not going to jail and receiving really light punishment after being caught with weed because they're white and here you have an example of someone using that to avoid a DUI. You say my view of the world was created by the media but how about yours? What is your evidence for believing the things that you believe? 34 minutes ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Where do you get off comparing profiling of the support of an elected US President via a cap and the profiling of wearing a hoodie in Florida(anyone wearing a hoodie in Florida is at least an idiot)? “Make America Great Again” is a totally non-partisan and ambiguous statement I make that claim because the actions of Trump demonstrate what he truly means by it and the foundation for its use. A border wall with mexico despite the data showing that there's more illegal crossings happening on the Canadian side. The Muslim ban targeting every country that isn't one he has business with. Cutting off funds used to fight right-wing violence because that's his base. During his campaign he talked about making American back to how it was before the 60s. You know what else was part of the 50s? High taxes on the rich and yet that's not something he pushes under the MAGA brand, it's something he's making worse and instead is being pushed by the "radical left" actors like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. White Supremacists see the racism behind the use of MAGA and that's why they support him. If "MAGA" was as non-partisan as you suggest, White Supremacists wouldn't support Trump. 34 minutes ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Should I hate people who are for “Hope and Change” too? Should I associate people who supported Obama simply because he was the president at the time as people who also support Farrakhan and the racism he espouses just because Obama hung out with Farrakhan and because Obama was publicly endorsed by the NOI on top of Obama’s DOJ defending the New Black Panther party? Who you should associate with or avoid depends on the situation and it is ultimately up to you. The problem comes when you say "I support X because Y" but there's plenty of examples of "X has done -Y" and you ignore it. Voting for Obama because he's black is bad. Voting against Obama because he's black is bad. Supporting the New Black Panther Party's racist deeds and attacks on whites is bad Any black nationalist organization that says blacks must have more power over whites and other people in the country are bad Any white nationalist organization that says whites must have more power over blacks and other people in the country are bad A lot of these things are trying to push the idea that one group has greater merit over others because of trivial things like place of birth or skin color. Ideologies that follow this kind of horseshit are just bad. Edited February 27, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edelgard for Smash Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said: Dude, where the hell do you get your information? A lot of your post sounds like you pulled it out of your ass or conspiracy theory sites and you present no evidence on any of the things you're saying while assuming I just follow whatever mainstream media says when that is not the case. The paragraph that starts with "On the contrary, black people have it easier with the police because they are a “protected class”." is the most egregious example of bullshit I've ever heard and I've been browsing Stormfront and Breitbart comments these days to see how stupid the people on the right can be. I have white friends who have admitted to not going to jail and receiving really light punishment after being caught with weed because they're white and here you have an example of someone using that to avoid a DUI. You say my view of the world was created by the media but how about yours? What is your evidence for believing the things that you believe? From the FBI database. I am sorry but “hands up don’t shoot” isn’t a counter argument to that. White people are significantly more likely to be killed by cops, even when they are less likely to be armed or confrontational when a cop stops them. The woman you used as an example was arrested. She was trying to seduce the cop with her female privilege(which is a very real thing) but she was too drunk to be successful despite her mythical “white privilege”. How often do honestly believe anyone is arrested for possession of weed without a previous offense? I would much prefer that all of your friends were arrested. Having all these drug addicts on the loose isn’t exactly helping the white community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Edelgard for Smash said: How often do honestly believe anyone is arrested for possession of weed without a previous offense? Every single day. Come shadow me in municipal court for a morning if you don't believe it. 4 hours ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Neither JFK nor FDR are anywhere near as crazy as Cortez There wasn't an economic item on FDR's agenda that his critics on the right didn't pan as "radical socialism," before he injected them into the mainstream. Go look up top marginal tax rates under JFK. I'll wait. 2 hours ago, Edelgard for Smash said: >>>>>>black people have it easier with the police. >>>>>>white kid is far more likely to be killed by the police for not kissing a pissed off or emotionally damaged cop’s butt at the wrong time than an actual confrontational black suspect who is armed and threatening to use their gun. >>>>>>>>mythical “white privilege”. >>>>>>>>>female privilege(which is a very real thing) You're wrong, and this is coming from someone who litigates sexual harassment + unlawful discrimination + police misconduct cases. For a living. As my primary area of practice in civil law. I'll see your "I'm woke enough to know when the MSM is trying to push an agenda and where to find the real story" and raise you one Firsthand personal knowledge: I see and deal with this stuff every. single. day. You don't know what you're talking about. 4 hours ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Did you ever think that most of what you have heard from the media is just as or even more fake Not as often as I think; boy, people sure do say some goofy stuff on the internet. Do I critically assess claims to try and determine their truth or falsity? Yes. I'd be terrible at my job if I didn't. Does the mainstream media use sensationalism and over-saturation of particularly juicy headlines to attract viewership? Yes. absolutely. Is it "fake?" No. And the people who go through the thought process of convincing themselves that it is generally do so out of some need to mentally insulate themselves from what the news is reporting. Because the reporting, if true, would be deeply upsetting to them. ...like...[NEWS]: Michael Cohen is going to testify before Congress today that he has firsthand personal knowledge of Donald J. Trump engaging in criminal misconduct. Edited February 27, 2019 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Tarrasque Posted February 27, 2019 Share Posted February 27, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Edelgard for Smash said: How often do honestly believe anyone is arrested for possession of weed without a previous offense? Well my guess was: Frequently enough that it probably averages to at LEAST 2 cases a week but Shob suggests it's even more frequent than that. 1 hour ago, Edelgard for Smash said: I would much prefer that all of your friends were arrested. Over weed? Do you know why weed is criminalized? 1 hour ago, Edelgard for Smash said: Having all these drug addicts on the loose isn’t exactly helping the white community. If law enforcement tends to punish non-whites more than whites for the same crime, then yes it is. Let's say you have Provider A, a white father and Provider B, a black father and the 2 families are in different neighborhoods and homes with equal opportunity and housing value and assets. Both Provider A and B are caught with weed that they were using for recreational purposes which is currently illegal in that state. The cop locks up Provider B (no previous offense) but lets Provider A (no previous offense) off the hook due to no previous offense. So here's a rhetorical question: Which family is better off in this situation? Now let's say this situation extends to 100k families with the exact same thing happened (the provider being caught with weed) and pretend that half of them are black and the other half are white with again, equal opportunity and housing value and assets for the sake of the example). The data shows that blacks are 4 times more likely to be incarcerated for weed busts. Here's another rhetorical question: which neighborhoods are most likely to see a negative effect in property values? 1 hour ago, Edelgard for Smash said: From the FBI database. I am sorry but “hands up don’t shoot” isn’t a counter argument to that. White people are significantly more likely to be killed by cops, even when they are less likely to be armed or confrontational when a cop stops them. Then you should have no problem providing these sources right? Links please. Edited February 27, 2019 by Dr. Tarrasque Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.