US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3836

On May 18 2016 06:30 SK.Testie wrote:
You must buy into the privilege + power meme. That's a meme. Racism is just disliking / hating / fearing people who are another race. No more, no less.

On May 18 2016 06:47 SK.Testie wrote:
No, that's literally all it is. You can say otherwise but that's all it is. Do you think black people can't be racist or something because they are not majority in positions of power? Should 13% of the population be in majority positions of power? Like.. president for.. two terms? That's a meme friend. You hold the highest office in the entire world, yet think racism requires position + power because some university professor said it was so. You were sold a bad meme from universities.

If I dislike you strictly because you are black, I am racist. If you dislike me strictly because I am white, you are racist. It can't get more simple than that. You agree to disagree because while you're eager to get into the thread, your argument will hold no water. It requires great mental gymnastics to work. It doesn't work. There will be logical inconsistencies all across the board. It's a stupid meme. So when one side decides that racism means something different than what it has meant throughout all of history, the discussion starts off unevenly to begin with.

When Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana four years ago, one of the move's chief critics was Gov. John Hickenlooper.

The moderate Democrat said that if he could "wave a magic wand" to reverse the decision, he would. Then he called voters "reckless" for approving it in the first place, a remark he later downgraded to "risky."

“Colorado is known for many great things,” Hickenlooper said. “Marijuana should not be one of them.”

But the governor’s views have softened. During a recent panel discussion at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles, he said that despite opposing the legalization of pot, his job was to “deliver on the will of the people of Colorado.”

“If I had that magic wand now, I don’t know if I would wave it,” he said. “It’s beginning to look like it might work.”

It was the latest in a series of comments Hickenlooper has made signaling what looks like an evolution of his views on marijuana. In April last year, during an interview with Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo, Hickenlooper said legal weed was “not as vexing as we thought it was going to be.”

And during an appearance on "60 Minutes," he predicted that Colorado might “actually create a system that could work” in successfully regulating marijuana.

“The Democratic Party has a choice. It can open its doors and welcome into the party people who are prepared to fight for real economic and social change – people who are willing to take on Wall Street, corporate greed and a fossil fuel industry which is destroying this planet. Or the party can choose to maintain its status quo structure, remain dependent on big-money campaign contributions and be a party with limited participation and limited energy.

“Within the last few days there have been a number of criticisms made against my campaign organization. Party leaders in Nevada, for example, claim that the Sanders campaign has a ‘penchant for violence.’ That is nonsense. Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence. Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals. But, when we speak of violence, I should add here that months ago, during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into my campaign office in Nevada and apartment housing complex my campaign staff lived in was broken into and ransacked.

On May 18 2016 07:41 Sermokala wrote:


source

Sniped you StealthBlue

On May 18 2016 06:24 SK.Testie wrote:


Well judging by this, you're going to put a lot of black people on your racist genocide reality show. No voter block votes more based on skin colour than this.

On May 18 2016 07:45 Toadesstern wrote:
i mean, the pictures you just link shows it yourself, Obama "only" made for a +7 increase from black voters. Considering that we're talking about someone who won the election that's not really that surprising.
Unless you're talking about that 95% figure in front of that which shows that they're clearly voting for Obama because he's a Dem, otherwise the +gain figure would be way more than a +7... are you really assuming black people voted Republican before Obama?!?

On May 18 2016 07:51 SK.Testie wrote:


*Another discussion has started so I'll try to make this brief*
No, but do you think that it's a good thing that one party can always count on a demographic of vote? That democrats have figured out that if you don't have enough voters, you can literally import more from other countries? Isn't that kind of fucked up? Why do you think that after 8 years of Obama where black people have actually done worse that they will still religiously vote D?

On May 18 2016 07:51 SK.Testie wrote:


*Another discussion has started so I'll try to make this brief*
No, but do you think that it's a good thing that one party can always count on a demographic of vote? That democrats have figured out that if you don't have enough voters, you can literally import more from other countries? Isn't that kind of fucked up? Why do you think that after 8 years of Obama where black people have actually done worse that they will still religiously vote D?

On May 18 2016 07:52 Mohdoo wrote:
Are you under the impression that our black population is a result of importing voters?

On May 18 2016 08:05 SK.Testie wrote:


No. But is it remotely acceptable for one block of people to vote in that manner consistently? How many more years will that last and what is the primary cause of it today?

On May 18 2016 08:20 LegalLord wrote:

That's exactly the right way to make people much more polarized and willing to vote for reactionary candidates who promise to reverse that issue. Ignore people and they will push more strongly for their position, and furthermore it's a slippery slope.

If you try to label everything as "racist" and unworthy of being taken seriously, you're going to go down a very shitty road. Worried about economic issues with Syrian immigrants? Racist! Worried about crime from Mexican immigrants? Racist! Argue that BLM has a very shitty element to it that has encouraged lots of petty crime and poorly thought out accusations of "privilege omfgz" that don't hold up to scrutiny? Racist! Keep doing this, and it's no wonder that genuine race-related issues get drowned out in the process. Being a shitty messenger is not a good way to get your message to have any traction, and crying "racism" on every other issue is a great way to make a message that may otherwise seem reasonable to be drowned out.