EPTHow is firing over your shoulder at people in a dark alley not "reckless", anyway?
I wonder what the reaction to this would be if the cop was white.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1870
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
How is firing over your shoulder at people in a dark alley not "reckless", anyway? I wonder what the reaction to this would be if the cop was white. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23933 Posts
On April 22 2015 15:17 DannyJ wrote: Well, when it comes to Chicago's criminal justice there has never been much of a doubt... How is firing over your shoulder at people in a dark alley not "reckless", anyway? I wonder what the reaction to this would be if the cop was white. Is that a yes or a no to doubting the system as a whole and or spread across the nation? Also I don't know the guys Ancestry.com profile or anything (apparently he is Hispanic) but I'm pretty sure he passes for white on a regular basis... ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8DUeMqI.jpg) | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 22 2015 14:03 zlefin wrote: Question: who was wondering why there is doubt in the criminal justice system? multiple people in this thread. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22352 Posts
On April 22 2015 12:34 GreenHorizons wrote: Source The guy has been on paid vacation the whole time and will likely get back to active duty... That is beyond fucked up... This is why in a lot of other countries the prosecution can actually change the charges during court. Just another fucked up fault in the US Justice system. | ||
|
always_winter
United States195 Posts
The fact we elected Obama twice is awesome. There's a lot of other things our country does right, and things we do really well. There's also a lot of fucked up shit within our country right now. None is more pressing or more obvious than law enforcement and the judicial system. Unfortunately I don't believe it can be resolved under the current administration, meaning we've years to go before we see actual change. Couple that with the gross ineptitude of Congress, more concerned with childish partisan politics than meaningful reform, and we likely won't see meaningful change for a decade or more. Don't even get me started on lobbying. I've long considered myself a realist. Lately I've been overcome with pessimism. The more I try to make myself a medium of change, the more I realize my efforts are largely in vein. The blogs, the forums, the social media and even the letters to state representatives: What are they really accomplishing? One man's voice is so easily drowned by the masses. This nation needs a youth movement, something akin to Occupy but much, much larger. Something willing to challenge the establishment, willing to take the reins of its own future and to stand up to this blatant fucking corruption. Who will lead it? This nation has often had the right person step up at the right time- Washington, Lincoln, MLK, FDR, etc.- who will step up now? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 23 2015 00:24 always_winter wrote: Obama won't touch this because he'd instantly polarize the issue around race. Not because of what he says; I'm sure he'd say all the right things because he's incredibly intelligent, and he knows how to play this fucked up system. It's because of his fucking skin color, which is so goddamned depressing considering it's 20 mother fucking 15. It's due to his intelligence, his understanding of his surroundings, that he won't touch the issue because he knows a depressingly large population of Americans, the same people who questioned his birth certificate for years and claim he's the worst president we've ever had despite not offering any palpable proof (i.e., racists), will immediately claim he's pandering to his black homies and promoting racial division (the hypocrisy of which is remarkable). The fact we elected Obama twice is awesome. There's a lot of other things our country does right, and things we do really well. There's also a lot of fucked up shit within our country right now. None is more pressing or more obvious than law enforcement and the judicial system. Unfortunately I don't believe it can be resolved under the current administration, meaning we've years to go before we see actual change. Couple that with the gross ineptitude of Congress, more concerned with childish partisan politics than meaningful reform, and we likely won't see meaningful change for a decade or more. Don't even get me started on lobbying. I've long considered myself a realist. Lately I've been overcome with pessimism. The more I try to make myself a medium of change, the more I realize my efforts are largely in vein. The blogs, the forums, the social media and even the letters to state representatives: What are they really accomplishing? One man's voice is so easily drowned by the masses. This nation needs a youth movement, something akin to Occupy but much, much larger. Something willing to challenge the establishment, willing to take the reins of its own future and to stand up to this blatant fucking corruption. Who will lead it? This nation has often had the right person step up at the right time- Washington, Lincoln, MLK, FDR, etc.- who will step up now? First of all, is it really that great that we've elected Obama twice? Did he do anything he said he would in either campaign? He didn't close Gitmo, we're back in Iraq, we're still in Afghanistan, we're bombing Syria now, he's ordered hundreds of drone strikes, he's done nothing about the NSA. For all his talk about how Bush was a warmonger, he hasn't been very peaceful. I think the only reason you say its "awesome" that we've elected him twice is that he's black. I agree that there are people who don't like him just because he's black, but likewise, there are people on the other side who only like him because he's black. Because really, he hasn't done much else that the left wants. I'm also not so sure he'd try not to polarize people about race. Remember during the George Zimmerman case he totally picked sides. He said that if he had had a son, he would've looked like Trayvon Martin. That seems pretty polarizing to me. The president shouldn't pick sides in a court case, he should support the rule of law. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
After President Obama said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was "wrong" to oppose the trade deal the U.S. is negotiating with 11 Pacific countries, Warren hit back with a tweet and email to supporters on Wednesday questioning why the Obama administration won't let the public see the the trade deal. Warren has criticized the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), arguing that it could undermine financial regulations in the U.S. On Tuesday, Obama defended the potential trade deal from Warren's attacks. "I love Elizabeth. We're allies on a whole host of issues, but she's wrong on this," he said. But Warren would not back down. On Wednesday, she sent an email to supporters calling out the Obama administration for keeping the TPP out of the public eye. "The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret," Warren wrote in the email. "Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: 'We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.'" The senator also criticized the administration for allegedly allowing corporations to view the trade deal, but not the American public. Source | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23933 Posts
On April 23 2015 01:36 Millitron wrote: I'm also not so sure he'd try not to polarize people about race. Remember during the George Zimmerman case he totally picked sides. He said that if he had had a son, he would've looked like Trayvon Martin. That seems pretty polarizing to me. The president shouldn't pick sides in a court case, he should support the rule of law. I've realized people who say that have no idea what that even means. It's not picking sides... EDIT: Really that's a perfect example of what winter said. He said something that shouldn't have been offensive or polarizing but here we are years later and people still bring it up as evidence of him polarizing. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 23 2015 01:36 Millitron wrote: I'm also not so sure he'd try not to polarize people about race. Remember during the George Zimmerman case he totally picked sides. He said that if he had had a son, he would've looked like Trayvon Martin. That seems pretty polarizing to me. The president shouldn't pick sides in a court case, he should support the rule of law. He supported the ruling and outcome of the case publicly and attempted to explain the outrage of the black community, even if that outrage was totally off the mark. If those actions are taking sides, you really have to want it. On April 23 2015 02:42 xDaunt wrote: Good for her. I wonder if she's going to suffer Chris Christie's fate by sitting out an election when she may be at the apex of her popularity. She has said several times she does not want to run. I don't think being president is the best place for her to achieve what she wants, really. Plus I like her as my Senator. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On April 23 2015 02:45 Plansix wrote: He supported the ruling and outcome of the case publicly and attempted to explain the outrage of the black community, even if that outrage was totally off the mark. If those actions are taking sides, you really have to want it. She has said several times she does not want to run. I don't think being president is the best place for her to achieve what she wants, really. Plus I like her as my Senator. Why would you try to explain outrage that's totally off the mark though? If you know it's unfounded, you shouldn't give them anything. Supporting the rule of law doesn't include sympathizing with one side before the trial has even happened. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18857 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 23 2015 02:53 Millitron wrote: Why would you try to explain outrage that's totally off the mark though? If you know it's unfounded, you shouldn't give them anything. Supporting the rule of law doesn't include sympathizing with one side before the trial has even happened. Attempting to explain the outrage of the black community through examples of their shared experience is not bad. He did not say he felt that Zimmerman was guilty and supported the outcome of the case. Your reasoning suffers from a server case of 20/20 high sight and having all the facts after the trial. There is only so many ways Obama can say "I support the ruling" while also saying "I understand why people are angry". | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
It's fascinating to see Obama fighting his own party on the TPP, especially since it puts Clinton and other Democratic presidential hopefuls in an awkward spot of whether they should side with the party or with the president. Clinton's name is awkward because it brings up all the bitter memories of NAFTA. I would note that this is rising to a fever pitch because the Japanese say they're close to a deal and it's pretty clear PM Abe wants to wrap it up before his big speech to Congress next week. Abe will also show off some huge diplomatic chops if he can sway some resisting Democrats to see the light. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but the thing with this type of resistance is that it's pretty futile, because obama could count on some republican votes. whatever abe does he's not going to convince democrats who see the deal in terms of corporations vs people and exploited asian nations.but he also doesn't have to do this. he can just talk about strengthening japan us partnership blah blah. obama has the votes without abe's help. the actual contention is over fast track or not, and the passage of this thing is a foregone conclusion. it is also a broad u.s. strategic objective to compete for economic ties with asian pacific region nations against china. there's just no way some congressional democrats will get in the way of this inertia i don't think congressional democrats are all that united against this deal and they just want to insert their pet provisions. most of these are basically inconsequential or perfunctory, and the substantial situation is that a lot of democrats are from agricultural states and rely on pharma etc donations. they are not going to fight this all that hard. i'll say this though if this group of democrats manage to fuck things up it would be monumentally and incomprehensibly stupid. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Republicans: Pro Foreign Goods, Anti Foreign People Democrats: Anti Foreign Goods, Pro Foreign People Both have similar effects of suppressing wages of Americans, while lowering prices for consumers. When you break it down like that, you see that the immigration debate is really only about the party's perception of who they expect immigrants to vote for. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
| ||
| ||
