|
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. |
On June 01 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 00:01 zlefin wrote:On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 31 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad. This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly. So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand? - "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk" - "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it" Cool logic bro. . the way I read it; daunt was just saying that the extent of damage (large or small) won't be revealed; as a matter of policy you just don't reveal details like that, as that gives more info to enemies. Aren't specifics somewhat necessary in assessing damage? From what we know now, Clinton's behavior was typical of her role. We know that many people in the position intended to check stuff like this, didn't do their job. From there, it becomes a matter of defining what is unique to Clinton. If her practices were non-unique, what about consequences? Can it be shown that information leaks occurred? If not, what is the blade? What is the method of attack? The whole point is that there needs to be Clinton-specific damage.
I haven't looked recently, but I don't recall a showing of actual harm being a necessary element of the criminal charge.
|
On June 01 2016 00:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +NEW YORK — Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and an income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by overvaluing properties and ignoring his expenses.
POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen financial experts and Trump’s fellow multimillionaires about the presumptive Republican nominee’s financial statement. Their conclusion: The real estate magnate’s bottom line — what he actually puts in his own pocket — could be much lower than he suggests. Some financial analysts said this, and a very low tax rate, is why Trump won’t release his tax returns.
“I know Donald, I’ve known him a long time, and it gets under his skin if you start writing about the reasons he won’t disclose his returns,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who declined to be identified by name so as not to draw Trump’s ire. “You would see that he doesn’t have the money that he claims to have and he’s not paying much of anything in taxes.”
Trump is certainly wealthy. But in a campaign where the New Yorker has portrayed himself as the biggest, the richest, the classiest and the best at everything, disclosing that he is less rich than he lets on could be damaging. And it is a line of attack Democrats are already using and hope to pound away on until November.
The case against Trump’s accounting of his wealth: His businesses apparently generate a lot of revenue but may not put much cash in his pocket; he assigns himself a net worth that is impossible to verify and may be based in part on fantasy; and he is selling assets and increasing debt in ways that suggest a man scrambling for ready cash.
In response to a list of questions for this story, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks emailed: “The report speaks for itself.” If it does, the report does not speak clearly.
The financial disclosure form showed Trump adding fresh debt of at least $50 million, though a campaign news release said Trump is using increased revenue to reduce his debt, which is now at least $315 million and possibly more than $500 million. The disclosure also suggests that Trump sold fund assets to raise as much as $7 million in cash and individual securities to raise up to $9 million more. Source
Speaking of lies.....
|
On June 01 2016 00:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +NEW YORK — Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and an income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by overvaluing properties and ignoring his expenses.
POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen financial experts and Trump’s fellow multimillionaires about the presumptive Republican nominee’s financial statement. Their conclusion: The real estate magnate’s bottom line — what he actually puts in his own pocket — could be much lower than he suggests. Some financial analysts said this, and a very low tax rate, is why Trump won’t release his tax returns.
“I know Donald, I’ve known him a long time, and it gets under his skin if you start writing about the reasons he won’t disclose his returns,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who declined to be identified by name so as not to draw Trump’s ire. “You would see that he doesn’t have the money that he claims to have and he’s not paying much of anything in taxes.”
Trump is certainly wealthy. But in a campaign where the New Yorker has portrayed himself as the biggest, the richest, the classiest and the best at everything, disclosing that he is less rich than he lets on could be damaging. And it is a line of attack Democrats are already using and hope to pound away on until November.
The case against Trump’s accounting of his wealth: His businesses apparently generate a lot of revenue but may not put much cash in his pocket; he assigns himself a net worth that is impossible to verify and may be based in part on fantasy; and he is selling assets and increasing debt in ways that suggest a man scrambling for ready cash.
In response to a list of questions for this story, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks emailed: “The report speaks for itself.” If it does, the report does not speak clearly.
The financial disclosure form showed Trump adding fresh debt of at least $50 million, though a campaign news release said Trump is using increased revenue to reduce his debt, which is now at least $315 million and possibly more than $500 million. The disclosure also suggests that Trump sold fund assets to raise as much as $7 million in cash and individual securities to raise up to $9 million more. Source
I feel like this is Trump's ticking time bomb and one of the only things that can deflate him: Taxes. I don't think he's going to be able to avoid releasing his taxes. I wonder if he'll actually just flat out refuse the entire election.
On June 01 2016 00:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 00:20 Mohdoo wrote:On June 01 2016 00:01 zlefin wrote:On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 31 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad. This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly. So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand? - "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk" - "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it" Cool logic bro. . the way I read it; daunt was just saying that the extent of damage (large or small) won't be revealed; as a matter of policy you just don't reveal details like that, as that gives more info to enemies. Aren't specifics somewhat necessary in assessing damage? From what we know now, Clinton's behavior was typical of her role. We know that many people in the position intended to check stuff like this, didn't do their job. From there, it becomes a matter of defining what is unique to Clinton. If her practices were non-unique, what about consequences? Can it be shown that information leaks occurred? If not, what is the blade? What is the method of attack? The whole point is that there needs to be Clinton-specific damage. I haven't looked recently, but I don't recall a showing of actual harm being a necessary element of the criminal charge.
I don't think this is a remotely normal circumstance, though. If it was a simple matter of using a private server, checkmate. She'd be in prison right now. I have not seen anything demonstrating why she, and only she, should be thrown in prison.
|
On June 01 2016 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 31 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad. This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly. So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand? - "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk" - "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it" Cool logic bro. It's not like we don't have a fairly well-developed record that she has lied repeatedly in response to inquiries over the email practices. And let's not forget about her decades of history in public life that have been plagued by one kind of scandal or another. Yeah, let's just ignore the facts and chalk up the popular perception that Hillary is a liar to the vast right wing conspiracy. It certainly has nothing to do with her own conduct (or that of her husband).... Hillary has earned her reputation. And the lengths to which y'all go out of your way to ignore her history is nothing short of hysterical.
I still really don't understand how is that hugely relevant to the choice at hand. Again, if there were a plethora of candidates to choose from, I would see why people don't want Hillary for those reasons. But there is not. Do you seriously believe that she is more prone to lie in office than Trump? If not, what does it matter that she is a "liar"?
|
On June 01 2016 00:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 31 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad. This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly. So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand? - "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk" - "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it" Cool logic bro. It's not like we don't have a fairly well-developed record that she has lied repeatedly in response to inquiries over the email practices. And let's not forget about her decades of history in public life that have been plagued by one kind of scandal or another. Yeah, let's just ignore the facts and chalk up the popular perception that Hillary is a liar to the vast right wing conspiracy. It certainly has nothing to do with her own conduct (or that of her husband).... Hillary has earned her reputation. And the lengths to which y'all go out of your way to ignore her history is nothing short of hysterical.
hey, not all of us ignore it entirely. But we have a different perspective on it. It is also abundantly clear that there is in fact a large amount of people actively involved in attacking hillary; though I wouldn't call it a conspiracy as it's pretty open that they're doing it.
|
On June 01 2016 00:25 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 00:15 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2016 23:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 31 2016 23:38 xDaunt wrote:On May 31 2016 22:21 farvacola wrote:
Besides, the extent to which Clinton's email practices actually put national security at risk has yet to be substantiated by anyone outside the conservative hit-piece squad. This isn't the type of information that I would expect to see the light of day. The impact of security breaches concerning intelligence matters and espionage aren't the type of dirty laundry that countries air publicly. So Hillary is crooked based on information you don't have or I misunderstand? - "No valid info that Clinton put national security at risk" - "Yes but we don't know everything therefore she has to have done it" Cool logic bro. It's not like we don't have a fairly well-developed record that she has lied repeatedly in response to inquiries over the email practices. And let's not forget about her decades of history in public life that have been plagued by one kind of scandal or another. Yeah, let's just ignore the facts and chalk up the popular perception that Hillary is a liar to the vast right wing conspiracy. It certainly has nothing to do with her own conduct (or that of her husband).... Hillary has earned her reputation. And the lengths to which y'all go out of your way to ignore her history is nothing short of hysterical. I still really don't understand how is that hugely relevant to the choice at hand. Again, if there were a plethora of candidates to choose from, I would see why people don't want Hillary for those reasons. But there is not. Do you seriously believe that she is more prone to lie in office than Trump? If not, what does it matter that she is a "liar"?
I've never argued that Trump is a saint, and most of his supporters will readily concede that he has plenty of faults and failings. But what we're talking about at present is the veracity of the "crooked Hillary" line of attack. I'm merely pointing out that there's plenty of history to support it. And the larger point that I have made previously is that Hillary is uniquely vulnerable to Trump because of her history. I think democrats are just now starting to catch on to that fact.
|
On June 01 2016 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't think this is a remotely normal circumstance, though. If it was a simple matter of using a private server, checkmate. She'd be in prison right now. I have not seen anything demonstrating why she, and only she, should be thrown in prison.
My recollection of the criminal statute is that we're dealing with a negligence standard. Whenever negligence is involved, what we're really asking is whether someone exercised "reasonable care," which can be a really complicated inquiry. Does the fact that Hillary used a private email server constitute breach of the duty of reasonable care? Maybe not. Does the answer change if the private email server that Hillary used was not properly fortified against cyberattacks? Almost certainly, yes. I'm also curious as to whether Hillary passed along classified information to unauthorized third parties with her private email server.
Beyond security issues, the other big issue lurking out there is whether Hillary used her private email server to skirt FOIA laws and other federal record keeping requirements.
|
On June 01 2016 00:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't think this is a remotely normal circumstance, though. If it was a simple matter of using a private server, checkmate. She'd be in prison right now. I have not seen anything demonstrating why she, and only she, should be thrown in prison.
My recollection of the criminal statute is that we're dealing with a negligence standard. Whenever negligence is involved, what we're really asking is whether someone exercised "reasonable care," which can be a really complicated inquiry. Does the fact that Hillary used a private email server constitute breach of the duty of reasonable care? Maybe not. Does the answer change if the private email server that Hillary used was not properly fortified against cyberattacks? Almost certainly, yes. I'm also curious as to whether Hillary passed along classified information to unauthorized third parties with her private email server. Beyond security issues, the other big issue lurking out there is whether Hillary used her private email server to skirt FOIA laws and other federal record keeping requirements.
The answer to every single one of those things could be yes and I would still pick her over Trump for the presidency.
|
I can foresee the whole internet turning into a collective intervention where Europeans are trying to talk Americans into not voting for Trump during the coming months 
|
On June 01 2016 00:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't think this is a remotely normal circumstance, though. If it was a simple matter of using a private server, checkmate. She'd be in prison right now. I have not seen anything demonstrating why she, and only she, should be thrown in prison.
My recollection of the criminal statute is that we're dealing with a negligence standard. Whenever negligence is involved, what we're really asking is whether someone exercised "reasonable care," which can be a really complicated inquiry. Does the fact that Hillary used a private email server constitute breach of the duty of reasonable care? Maybe not. Does the answer change if the private email server that Hillary used was not properly fortified against cyberattacks? Almost certainly, yes. I'm also curious as to whether Hillary passed along classified information to unauthorized third parties with her private email server. Beyond security issues, the other big issue lurking out there is whether Hillary used her private email server to skirt FOIA laws and other federal record keeping requirements.
Do you think there will be a need to distinguish Clinton from other SoC's? Or do you think they might even just go after everyone who did this for the sake of getting her? I really get the feeling that the golden ticket right now is to find some way to say Clinton uniquely did bad things. Do you agree?
|
If somebody has the code section of the statute Clinton supposedly violated at hand, please share it
|
On June 01 2016 00:52 opisska wrote:I can foresee the whole internet turning into a collective intervention where Europeans are trying to talk Americans into not voting for Trump during the coming months
No point in trying. If all the bad shit about Trump (most from his own mouth) isn't enough to turn you off him then no amount of reasoning will help I feel.
|
That is the big problem in the US. You really don't have a choice in your elections. You can either elect Hillary or the republican guy. And at least to me it is completely unimaginable why anyone would ever vote for a republican, they all sounds completely insane to me.
Trump specifically just doesn't seem like a person i would elect as chairman of a local football club, much less to an actual political office. He is loud, obnoxious, his most common argument appears to be ad hominem, his positions are insane, nonsensical, and pretty scary if he is actually serious about them. And if he is not, that just leaves a loudmouth who is good at shouting down opposition without any policy whatsoever attached to him.
I at least would rather elect a donkey than Donald Trump.
|
United States43584 Posts
On June 01 2016 00:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +NEW YORK — Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and an income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by overvaluing properties and ignoring his expenses.
POLITICO spoke with more than a dozen financial experts and Trump’s fellow multimillionaires about the presumptive Republican nominee’s financial statement. Their conclusion: The real estate magnate’s bottom line — what he actually puts in his own pocket — could be much lower than he suggests. Some financial analysts said this, and a very low tax rate, is why Trump won’t release his tax returns.
“I know Donald, I’ve known him a long time, and it gets under his skin if you start writing about the reasons he won’t disclose his returns,” said one prominent hedge fund manager who declined to be identified by name so as not to draw Trump’s ire. “You would see that he doesn’t have the money that he claims to have and he’s not paying much of anything in taxes.”
Trump is certainly wealthy. But in a campaign where the New Yorker has portrayed himself as the biggest, the richest, the classiest and the best at everything, disclosing that he is less rich than he lets on could be damaging. And it is a line of attack Democrats are already using and hope to pound away on until November.
The case against Trump’s accounting of his wealth: His businesses apparently generate a lot of revenue but may not put much cash in his pocket; he assigns himself a net worth that is impossible to verify and may be based in part on fantasy; and he is selling assets and increasing debt in ways that suggest a man scrambling for ready cash.
In response to a list of questions for this story, Trump campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks emailed: “The report speaks for itself.” If it does, the report does not speak clearly.
The financial disclosure form showed Trump adding fresh debt of at least $50 million, though a campaign news release said Trump is using increased revenue to reduce his debt, which is now at least $315 million and possibly more than $500 million. The disclosure also suggests that Trump sold fund assets to raise as much as $7 million in cash and individual securities to raise up to $9 million more. Source
It is long established that he is far poorer than he claims. A journalist called him poorer than he claimed, Trump naturally sued and then subsequently testified that a big part of his fortune is his ownership of his brand which has no concrete value or actual physical existence but which he himself deems to be extremely valuable.
|
|
|
On June 01 2016 00:53 farvacola wrote:If somebody has the code section of the statute Clinton supposedly violated at hand, please share it
The three big felony statutes are 18 USC SS 793, 798, and 1001. There's also a misdemeanor statute at 18 USC S 1924.
|
On May 31 2016 15:53 KwarK wrote:
Two ignorant points. Firstly, yes, blacks kill blacks in gang violence etc, nobody is saying they don't or that those deaths don't matter. But equally nobody is defending criminal thugs who murder black people. Nobody is saying that's okay. It's a tragedy but everyone universally understands that it is a tragedy that we need to try and fight. It's a problem but it's not an argument, we're all on the same side. Systematic oppression and racism by the police is a completely different animal. For every traffic stop that turns into an execution because the police profiled the victim based on their skin colour you have a large section of the American population justifying the use of force as appropriate in a way they would not if the victim had looked like they do. And police violence matters more than civilian violence. Murderers murder people, it sucks but that's more or less what they're supposed to do. We wish they wouldn't but when they do it just sucks for everyone involved. When police fuck up they don't just kill someone, they do irrevocable damage to the entire social contract, to society as a whole. How are we meant to tell black communities that they need to respect police officers, the law, the institutions we put in place to protect them and society as a whole, democracy, the justice system, all of it, if the most visible part of that system is abusing its power over them. That is why police violence matters, a murderer murdering someone doesn't completely undermine the social contract and destroy all faith in the institutions we rely upon to have a functioning society, a police officer displaying racial prejudice, lying to cover up abuse and so forth does.
I agree with most of your point, but I do have one objection to it: the bolded part doesn't really tell the full story, and it's interesting that you talk only about criminal thugs who murder (or attempt to murder) black people. The problem is that the "black community" (if you can call it that - it is by all means a diverse population) has an unfortunate habit of not being able or willing to differentiate its good members from its bad, and in a way that makes the entire group go down with the ship. I have seen it far too often, that blacks who are themselves not particularly objectionable support other blacks who are (who are criminals, druggies, etc., and are very much so would be objectionable people regardless of their race). That tends to drag the whole group down, whether it is in law enforcement or in other matters (I've seen that play out in business hiring, house rental, etc., with people who are not what I would call racist but are afraid of inviting friends of a black person who are criminals because they have been burned in the past).
If a black person (or a white person, or any other person for that matter) assaults a police officer and gets shot, when you cry police abuse, you undermine your cause. Being able to separate your good people from your bad is important.
|
On May 31 2016 20:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 12:07 oBlade wrote:On May 31 2016 11:15 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 31 2016 08:39 oBlade wrote:
I haven't said anything about any Tiahrt Amendment, what are you talking about? You said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment in 2008? He did want to repeal the Tiahrt amendment back in 2008 which has to do with guns so I just assumed that was what you were talking about. On May 31 2016 08:01 oBlade wrote:On May 31 2016 07:17 Gorsameth wrote:On May 31 2016 07:13 SK.Testie wrote:
Donald is electable if you trust the USA's system of checks and balances. The US could do without another 8 years of complete political inaction. Also if your preferred candidate is only electable because you trust in the checks build into the system then your candidate is shit. I don't get it, if this were 2008 and someone said Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment, and you said not to worry, that's not in the president's power, and they said "if that's your only defense he's a shit candidate," are they not just as correct? My point here is Obama never said he wanted to repeal the second amendment so your example is stupid. If you weren't actually talking about the Tiahrt amendment then I don't know what to tell you. Why are you repeatedly calling the example "stupid" when you admit to having not understood it? The point is that defending a candidate from spurious attacks isn't a form of proof that a candidate is trash. If someone told me in 2008 that Obama wanted to repeal the second amendment (based on actual statements he'd made as regards guns), and I explained to them that them the president can't do that, and then they told me if that was my only defense then it was just more proof he was a "shit" candidate, I would consider their head was on backwards. It's circular nonsense. Likewise, saying we have a government with bounds that Trump will have to work in before he can put people in camps (or whatever taxingly obnoxious fearmongering it is this week) does not somehow prove that Trump is "shit." Are you up to speed now? I'm saying your example is stupid because Obama doesn't want to repeal the second amendment and if somebody told me he did then I'd say it doesn't make sense.
Yes, a person in 2008 saying Obama would repeal the second amendment would be making as much sense as someone now saying Trump will repeal the first.
On May 31 2016 20:53 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Trump on the other hand is an absolute wildcard. He changes policy more often than he changes underwear so him being bound by checks and balances is an actual argument and not just because he isn't my preferred candidate. The idea that these examples are somehow equivalent is stupid.
What are you worried about him flip flopping on?
|
On June 01 2016 00:52 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2016 00:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 01 2016 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I don't think this is a remotely normal circumstance, though. If it was a simple matter of using a private server, checkmate. She'd be in prison right now. I have not seen anything demonstrating why she, and only she, should be thrown in prison.
My recollection of the criminal statute is that we're dealing with a negligence standard. Whenever negligence is involved, what we're really asking is whether someone exercised "reasonable care," which can be a really complicated inquiry. Does the fact that Hillary used a private email server constitute breach of the duty of reasonable care? Maybe not. Does the answer change if the private email server that Hillary used was not properly fortified against cyberattacks? Almost certainly, yes. I'm also curious as to whether Hillary passed along classified information to unauthorized third parties with her private email server. Beyond security issues, the other big issue lurking out there is whether Hillary used her private email server to skirt FOIA laws and other federal record keeping requirements. Do you think there will be a need to distinguish Clinton from other SoC's? Or do you think they might even just go after everyone who did this for the sake of getting her? I really get the feeling that the golden ticket right now is to find some way to say Clinton uniquely did bad things. Do you agree?
It might matter. Two of the big differences with Hillary is that she kept the private email server on her own private property (the government controlled her predecessors' private email) and it seems like she did not turn everything over like her predecessors did.
|
United States43584 Posts
On June 01 2016 01:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2016 15:53 KwarK wrote:
Two ignorant points. Firstly, yes, blacks kill blacks in gang violence etc, nobody is saying they don't or that those deaths don't matter. But equally nobody is defending criminal thugs who murder black people. Nobody is saying that's okay. It's a tragedy but everyone universally understands that it is a tragedy that we need to try and fight. It's a problem but it's not an argument, we're all on the same side. Systematic oppression and racism by the police is a completely different animal. For every traffic stop that turns into an execution because the police profiled the victim based on their skin colour you have a large section of the American population justifying the use of force as appropriate in a way they would not if the victim had looked like they do. And police violence matters more than civilian violence. Murderers murder people, it sucks but that's more or less what they're supposed to do. We wish they wouldn't but when they do it just sucks for everyone involved. When police fuck up they don't just kill someone, they do irrevocable damage to the entire social contract, to society as a whole. How are we meant to tell black communities that they need to respect police officers, the law, the institutions we put in place to protect them and society as a whole, democracy, the justice system, all of it, if the most visible part of that system is abusing its power over them. That is why police violence matters, a murderer murdering someone doesn't completely undermine the social contract and destroy all faith in the institutions we rely upon to have a functioning society, a police officer displaying racial prejudice, lying to cover up abuse and so forth does. I agree with most of your point, but I do have one objection to it: the bolded part doesn't really tell the full story, and it's interesting that you talk only about criminal thugs who murder (or attempt to murder) black people. The problem is that the "black community" (if you can call it that - it is by all means a diverse population) has an unfortunate habit of not being able or willing to differentiate its good members from its bad, and in a way that makes the entire group go down with the ship. I have seen it far too often, that blacks who are themselves not particularly objectionable support other blacks who are (who are criminals, druggies, etc., and are very much so would be objectionable people regardless of their race). That tends to drag the whole group down, whether it is in law enforcement or in other matters (I've seen that play out in business hiring, house rental, etc., with people who are not what I would call racist but are afraid of inviting friends of a black person who are criminals because they have been burned in the past). If a black person (or a white person, or any other person for that matter) assaults a police officer and gets shot, when you cry police abuse, you undermine your cause. Being able to separate your good people from your bad is important.
The reason I wouldn't fight back against a police officer who violated my constitutional rights is because I'm a rich, educated white guy who has sufficient faith in the system working, or at least working for the likes of me, that I would fight back with the tools within the system. But I understand that my experience of the world is not universal and while I can disagree with the choices of others I hesitate to fall into the "why don't the poor just buy more money?" chasm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
