|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
In an important first step towards fulfilling a commitment made by Kim Jong Un at the June 12 Singapore Summit, new commercial satellite imagery of the Sohae Satellite Launching Station (North Korea’s main satellite launch facility since 2012) indicates that the North has begun dismantling key facilities. Most notably, these include the rail-mounted processing building—where space launch vehicles are assembled before moving them to the launch pad—and the nearby rocket engine test stand used to develop liquid-fuel engines for ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles. Since these facilities are believed to have played an important role in the development of technologies for the North’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, these efforts represent a significant confidence building measure on the part of North Korea.
Read the rest here.
So it looks like Trump is making progress on North Korea after all. Like I said previously, it's too early to draw any real conclusions as to whether Trump's engagement of Kim Jong Un will be successful. This is going to be a multi-year process (as it will be with Russia). But I'll gladly take the dismantling of an ICBM test site even if it means that the return of American soldiers' remains is delayed. I'm pretty sure everyone else would, too.
|
On July 24 2018 08:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 08:00 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also: Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming. Here's a spoiler for you: the Manafort trial isn't going to affect Trump at all. Perhaps, perhaps not. That wasn't my point though. Trump's lunatic rambling has got you by the nose, and you're railing against a retired man for having a clearance he doesn't have. Whether he has it is really besides the point. All that means is that Trump can move on to other things.
It's not really. You're the one that barged in in a huff over the fact that Comey needs to lose his clearance. If you can't process that this clearance nonsense came out of DJT's mouth, and is almost 100% manufactured bullshit, then I have not a whole lot of reason to take you seriously.
|
On July 24 2018 08:09 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 08:00 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also: https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1021485887383851008Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming. Here's a spoiler for you: the Manafort trial isn't going to affect Trump at all. Perhaps, perhaps not. That wasn't my point though. Trump's lunatic rambling has got you by the nose, and you're railing against a retired man for having a clearance he doesn't have. Whether he has it is really besides the point. All that means is that Trump can move on to other things. It's not really. You're the one that barged in in a huff over the fact that Comey needs to lose his clearance. If you can't process that this clearance nonsense came out of DJT's mouth, and is almost 100% manufactured bullshit, then I have not a whole lot of reason to take you seriously.
Frankly, you're not going to be able to take me seriously if you really think that this is an important point that undermines the real argument. And besides, what I said is that Comey is not fit to have a security clearance. I made no presumption as to whether he had one. And again, whether he has one is really besides the point anyway.
|
United States24633 Posts
On July 24 2018 08:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:49 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? No, I do not consider abuse of credentials and position for political purposes to be okay. However, I don't think that revoking security clearances is the correct response, either (for example, I suggested firing that person as one possible response). Similarly, I don't think that the civil servant in question should be forced to attend alcoholics anonymous meetings. In some situations that is an appropriate thing to force someone to do, but not in this case. Same with revoking security clearances. It's what you do in very specific circumstances, and not as a punishment. This is more sensible, but security clearance access encompasses far broader considerations than you're giving credit for. As part of the process of assessing whether security clearance should be given, much focus is placed upon the judgment of the individual to see whether that person is a risk for abusing the security clearance for one purpose or another.
If you want to be more thorough, here are the 13 things investigators look at when adjudicating security clearances:
(1) Guideline A: Allegiance to the United States
(2) Guideline B: Foreign Influence
(3) Guideline C: Foreign Preference
(4) Guideline D: Sexual Behavior
(5) Guideline E: Personal Conduct
(6) Guideline F: Financial Considerations
(7) Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption
(8) Guideline H: Drug Involvement
(9) Guideline I: Psychological Conditions
(10) Guideline J: Criminal Conduct
(11) Guideline K: Handling Protected Information
(12) Guideline L: Outside Activities
(13) Guideline M: Use of Information Technology Systems
Twelve of the above thirteen are not relevant. Guideline E, Personal Conduct, comes the closest to what you are describing, and is a catch-all when there are problems with lots of the other guidelines that don't quite individually merit denying the clearance outright. The ways people get denied clearances for Personal Conduct are:
- Failure to cooperate with investigation
- Pattern of dishonest, unreliable, or rule-breaking behavior
- Vulnerability to coercion
- Association with persons involved in criminal activity
- Violation of a written commitment made as a condition of clearance or employment
I already addressed the first one in an earlier post. Three, four, and five are not relevant. Two requires a pattern, which either occurred before you applied for the clearance to begin with, or will most likely warrant being fired even before you meet the threshold for having your clearance pulled. In contrast, a career civil servant who has a demonstrated ability to keep classified information secure will even have a stronger case that their apparently weak overall character is not disqualifying.
|
On July 24 2018 08:14 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 08:09 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 08:00 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:59 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:48 NewSunshine wrote:On July 24 2018 07:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:41 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:
[quote]
This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes).
Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? It depends on whether or not the conditions I described above are met, or if the person is guilty of actual criminal activity. If not, then they can retain their clearance, even if they are fired from their job. Note that having the clearance won't necessarily grant them access to additional classified information after they are fired. So abuse of credentials and position for political purposes, in a vacuum, is okay in your book then. Are you sure you don't want to revisit this position and perhaps consider that irrational Trump hatred is interfering with your better judgment? I've gotta tell you, it's getting harder by the day for hatred of Trump to be irrational. Also: https://twitter.com/benjaminwittes/status/1021485887383851008Are you just going off Trump's word when you think Comey still has a clearance of any sort? The man is retired. I can only assume this is the pre-programmed smokescreen for the Manafort trial which is incoming. Here's a spoiler for you: the Manafort trial isn't going to affect Trump at all. Perhaps, perhaps not. That wasn't my point though. Trump's lunatic rambling has got you by the nose, and you're railing against a retired man for having a clearance he doesn't have. Whether he has it is really besides the point. All that means is that Trump can move on to other things. It's not really. You're the one that barged in in a huff over the fact that Comey needs to lose his clearance. If you can't process that this clearance nonsense came out of DJT's mouth, and is almost 100% manufactured bullshit, then I have not a whole lot of reason to take you seriously. Frankly, you're not going to be able to take me seriously if you really think that this is an important point that undermines the real argument. And besides, what I said is that Comey is not fit to have a security clearance. I made no presumption as to whether he had one. And again, whether he has one is really besides the point anyway.
Why would whether he has one even be a question, but for the fact that Trump railed against him for the umpteenth time today?
|
On July 24 2018 07:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:39 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2018 07:37 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 07:32 micronesia wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:
If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. This is a very dangerous road to go down, as one or two others have already pointed out. Currently, the reasons for revoking security clearances are because you failed to safeguard classified information, you are susceptible to manipulation by others trying to get unauthorized access to classified information, or you lie to security clearance investigators (sometimes). Revoking clearances because of non-classified things people said on twitter is retribution and not actually related to whether someone's clearance should be valid or not. That particular civil servant's behavior might warrant firing from the executive branch as well as refusal to rehire him later, but I'd withhold judgment for a while in case more facts regarding the Trump Putin meeting surface. If Trump can just revoke the clearance of people who accused him of things on twitter, then the same thing can happen to anyone else. Do you want someone who abuses his position and credentials for political purposes to have a security clearance? One person’s abuse is another persons freedom of speech. Oh, please. It's not a freedom of speech issue. I'm not saying Clapper should be criminally prosecuted for what he said.
You know full well the criminal prosecution is not the only way freedom of speech can be impeded by the government. Removing licenses, government contracts, passports and denial of services can also be a form of retribution for speaking out against the government.
And you not completely clueless as to be unaware that security clearance has economic value for those that hold it. Selectively clueless for sure, but not completely clueless. You know this is Trump going after their wallets as political retribution.
Also relevant to the discussion at hand.
|
On July 24 2018 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:19 hunts wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 24 2018 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
Brennan, Clapper, and Comey have all been way out of line with baseless, hyperbolic political attacks on the president. Brennan has been particularly disgraceful as of late. None of them is fit to have a security clearance. Baseless? Criticism of the president by intelligence officials might be a lot of things, but baseless? It's honestly bloody difficult to make a meritless attack on Cheeto Benito given how superbly he's used his time in office to be terrible in every conceivable way. What have they said which is baseless? Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. I think you have the words "baseless" and "accurate" mixed up, should look into that. In the meantime if you want to be taken even remotel seriously rather than laughed at and shrugged off as usual, explain in detail why that is baseless and not accurate. Until then you are at the usual xDaunt partisan baseless posting. Edit: the thing you just accused him of doing, is a thing almost everyone in the Trump camp has done, and on a much worse level. So if this is your reasoning then yank trumps clearance for making baseless accusations against Hillary, Comey, muller, and many others. Same with Don the con jr for the things he has tweeted, same with cushner, and jesus christ sa me with Sanders for all her baseless attacks on the press. You are completely backwards on this one. Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence?" Do you even understand how utterly insane it is to simply presume that the president is guilty of treason without any evidence supporting it? So no, it is not my burden -- or anyone else's burden -- to prove Trump's innocence.
that's rich. Sorry but when you support the snowflake chief, you don't get to rail against the same things you and your chief do. There is much more reason to believe trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors than there is to believe any of the other criminal things him and his trashcan regime have accused others of. So no, unless you ever stop being partisan you don't get to play that card.
|
On July 24 2018 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 07:19 hunts wrote:On July 24 2018 07:08 xDaunt wrote:On July 24 2018 06:48 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On July 24 2018 06:38 xDaunt wrote:
Brennan, Clapper, and Comey have all been way out of line with baseless, hyperbolic political attacks on the president. Brennan has been particularly disgraceful as of late. None of them is fit to have a security clearance. Baseless? Criticism of the president by intelligence officials might be a lot of things, but baseless? It's honestly bloody difficult to make a meritless attack on Cheeto Benito given how superbly he's used his time in office to be terrible in every conceivable way. What have they said which is baseless? Feel free to explain why the following is not baseless: https://twitter.com/johnbrennan/status/1018885971104985093If a civil servant is going to make that charge against a sitting president, he better lay out some facts to back it up. Brennan didn't do that. And let's not pretend like he wouldn't know if there were facts to back it up. It's all reckless political rhetoric. So yeah, yank his clearance. I think you have the words "baseless" and "accurate" mixed up, should look into that. In the meantime if you want to be taken even remotel seriously rather than laughed at and shrugged off as usual, explain in detail why that is baseless and not accurate. Until then you are at the usual xDaunt partisan baseless posting. Edit: the thing you just accused him of doing, is a thing almost everyone in the Trump camp has done, and on a much worse level. So if this is your reasoning then yank trumps clearance for making baseless accusations against Hillary, Comey, muller, and many others. Same with Don the con jr for the things he has tweeted, same with cushner, and jesus christ sa me with Sanders for all her baseless attacks on the press. You are completely backwards on this one. Have you ever heard of the "presumption of innocence?" Do you even understand how utterly insane it is to simply presume that the president is guilty of treason without any evidence supporting it? So no, it is not my burden -- or anyone else's burden -- to prove Trump's innocence.
The bigliest insanity.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/sMRKtN3.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SYMWcHY.png)
|
On July 23 2018 22:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 21:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
GH, it really does seem like you're trying to dismiss or dodge several good points in bad faith. I'm curious as to why it's so important to not agree with JimmiC's measurable evidences; it's not like a concession here would slippery slope to "...and therefore, blacks are treated perfectly equally to whites and fairly and equitably across our society, we're post-racism, etc." They aren't good points, and I was hoping people recognized them for what they were. Since it appears they didn't I suppose I'll indulge Jimmi's post. On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:21 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Someone help him please?
You claim it's clearly obvious there are many measurable improvements, either you can show them or you're just assuming without having previously done the research. As you've demonstrated, you're pulling that assertion out of your arse. The American south has started allowing black people to vote. That’s not nothing. Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well. Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Here's the title of the article you pulled it from (I know why you didn't link it now) Black Americans mostly left behind by progress since Dr. King’s death Without statistics on white people this point is meaningless for the question asked. But according to the census the percentage gap between white and Black college completion has gone from ~4% less Black graduates to ~20% less Black graduates. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Besides not really being something to be celebrated (as phrased) segregation is on the rise: American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says Hillary ClintonBlack adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. We can see that overall the gap has not significantly changed at all: ![[image loading]](http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/ST_2016.06.27_race-inequality-ch1-03-2.png) In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. It should be very obvious why this is a piss poor metric, and I already hinted at it, but to be more clear this would have Black people celebrating Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Allen West and so on. That's obviously stupid. So no I won't take black people helping white people oppress black people as "a measurable improvement". Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) Go ahead and pull up a statistic so we can understand what it is your specifically saying is the measurable improvement. There's a lot of reasons people don't like discussing things with me, but having their argument challenged instead of swallowed whole without support shouldn't be one of them. \ Yes you got the article right, not a hard find? I would have posted it but it was more fun to have you instantly insult it and me before you realizing that it was actually attempting to prove your (what should be your point) that things have not came as far as they should have but have come forward in some ways. https://theconversation.com/black-americans-mostly-left-behind-by-progress-since-dr-kings-death-89956https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists This way the author does not sound like a crazy person it is no better. This one is particularly good, but in a lot of the reading I did the theme of single parent homes lead by mothers being the poorest kept coming up.And how black families have a disproportionate amount of families lead by single mothers. Which leads to the Gap between men and women. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility/If you make your points less Hyperbolic, people will take more time to listen. Obviously the world is different now then the 60's. It takes watching a few movies, or TV shows or anything to show that. Interracial marriage and sex is now legal and in many districts not even frowned upon. This was not the case. There was no black leads, heck even Blackexplotation films were not in full swing in the 60's. Things have changed for the better in a lot of ways, but not as much as they could have or should have. No one is asking "have things changed"... so did you have measurable improvements you wanted to highlight from any of that or did you want to point to more black people on TV and the tired republican trope of single parent families (as if Democrats support of the war on drugs isn't directly related anyway) and call that "more reasonable". All the while not addressing the refutations of your previous assertions? I already showed measurable change. And linked the article they came from and everyone but you seems to think they are pretty legit. I am pointing out how obvious it is in TV and movies, but I'm sure I could look up the stats for oscars won, or leads by black, or TV shows with Black casts, writers, directors and so on. But then, as you do, you would claim it makes no difference, or was propaganda or whatever. So what would the point be?
You are white... I'd ask it as a question, but it's 100% obvious by your posts.
|
On July 24 2018 10:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2018 22:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 21:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
GH, it really does seem like you're trying to dismiss or dodge several good points in bad faith. I'm curious as to why it's so important to not agree with JimmiC's measurable evidences; it's not like a concession here would slippery slope to "...and therefore, blacks are treated perfectly equally to whites and fairly and equitably across our society, we're post-racism, etc." They aren't good points, and I was hoping people recognized them for what they were. Since it appears they didn't I suppose I'll indulge Jimmi's post. On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:21 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
The American south has started allowing black people to vote. That’s not nothing. Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well. Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Here's the title of the article you pulled it from (I know why you didn't link it now) Black Americans mostly left behind by progress since Dr. King’s death Without statistics on white people this point is meaningless for the question asked. But according to the census the percentage gap between white and Black college completion has gone from ~4% less Black graduates to ~20% less Black graduates. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Besides not really being something to be celebrated (as phrased) segregation is on the rise: American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says Hillary ClintonBlack adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. We can see that overall the gap has not significantly changed at all: In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. It should be very obvious why this is a piss poor metric, and I already hinted at it, but to be more clear this would have Black people celebrating Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Allen West and so on. That's obviously stupid. So no I won't take black people helping white people oppress black people as "a measurable improvement". Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) Go ahead and pull up a statistic so we can understand what it is your specifically saying is the measurable improvement. There's a lot of reasons people don't like discussing things with me, but having their argument challenged instead of swallowed whole without support shouldn't be one of them. \ Yes you got the article right, not a hard find? I would have posted it but it was more fun to have you instantly insult it and me before you realizing that it was actually attempting to prove your (what should be your point) that things have not came as far as they should have but have come forward in some ways. https://theconversation.com/black-americans-mostly-left-behind-by-progress-since-dr-kings-death-89956https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists This way the author does not sound like a crazy person it is no better. This one is particularly good, but in a lot of the reading I did the theme of single parent homes lead by mothers being the poorest kept coming up.And how black families have a disproportionate amount of families lead by single mothers. Which leads to the Gap between men and women. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility/If you make your points less Hyperbolic, people will take more time to listen. Obviously the world is different now then the 60's. It takes watching a few movies, or TV shows or anything to show that. Interracial marriage and sex is now legal and in many districts not even frowned upon. This was not the case. There was no black leads, heck even Blackexplotation films were not in full swing in the 60's. Things have changed for the better in a lot of ways, but not as much as they could have or should have. No one is asking "have things changed"... so did you have measurable improvements you wanted to highlight from any of that or did you want to point to more black people on TV and the tired republican trope of single parent families (as if Democrats support of the war on drugs isn't directly related anyway) and call that "more reasonable". All the while not addressing the refutations of your previous assertions? I already showed measurable change. And linked the article they came from and everyone but you seems to think they are pretty legit. I am pointing out how obvious it is in TV and movies, but I'm sure I could look up the stats for oscars won, or leads by black, or TV shows with Black casts, writers, directors and so on. But then, as you do, you would claim it makes no difference, or was propaganda or whatever. So what would the point be? You are white... I'd ask it as a question, but it's 100% obvious by your posts.
You are not wrong, but you also are not really putting much effort into explaining why that is important.
|
On July 24 2018 00:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 00:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 23:55 xDaunt wrote:On July 23 2018 23:42 Velr wrote:
I wonder why exactly do you think South African policy sais anything about the US... Last i checked a minority of blacks didn't opress the Whites/Others.
And what happens in SA atm is a really nice perfect storm born from total incompetence, corruption and "searching someone to blame/old grudges/reverse racism". Its a shame. Yes, South Africa presents a different case study in that race relations were noticeably worse than in the US, but it presents an interesting situation in which the black oppressed have completely usurped the white oppressors. This change in power dynamics is GH's wet dream. So I want to know what he thinks of what the ANC is doing. No the current power dynamic in South Africa is not my wet dream for a variety of reasons, just so you know. The ANC has many of it's own problems, many linked to the type of corruption that colonialism maintained as common practice. Really? You wouldn't like it if someone waved a magic wand and suddenly blacks were control of the US? User was warned for this post.
Just a warning for this bullshit, you kidding me? I'm not sure how he could have stated it in a more openly racist way.
I guess the mods are good with that here.
User was warned for posting about moderation within the thread.
|
On July 24 2018 10:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 10:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 23 2018 22:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 21:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
GH, it really does seem like you're trying to dismiss or dodge several good points in bad faith. I'm curious as to why it's so important to not agree with JimmiC's measurable evidences; it's not like a concession here would slippery slope to "...and therefore, blacks are treated perfectly equally to whites and fairly and equitably across our society, we're post-racism, etc." They aren't good points, and I was hoping people recognized them for what they were. Since it appears they didn't I suppose I'll indulge Jimmi's post. On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well.
Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Here's the title of the article you pulled it from (I know why you didn't link it now) Black Americans mostly left behind by progress since Dr. King’s death Without statistics on white people this point is meaningless for the question asked. But according to the census the percentage gap between white and Black college completion has gone from ~4% less Black graduates to ~20% less Black graduates. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Besides not really being something to be celebrated (as phrased) segregation is on the rise: American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says Hillary ClintonBlack adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. We can see that overall the gap has not significantly changed at all: In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. It should be very obvious why this is a piss poor metric, and I already hinted at it, but to be more clear this would have Black people celebrating Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Allen West and so on. That's obviously stupid. So no I won't take black people helping white people oppress black people as "a measurable improvement". Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) Go ahead and pull up a statistic so we can understand what it is your specifically saying is the measurable improvement. There's a lot of reasons people don't like discussing things with me, but having their argument challenged instead of swallowed whole without support shouldn't be one of them. \ Yes you got the article right, not a hard find? I would have posted it but it was more fun to have you instantly insult it and me before you realizing that it was actually attempting to prove your (what should be your point) that things have not came as far as they should have but have come forward in some ways. https://theconversation.com/black-americans-mostly-left-behind-by-progress-since-dr-kings-death-89956https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists This way the author does not sound like a crazy person it is no better. This one is particularly good, but in a lot of the reading I did the theme of single parent homes lead by mothers being the poorest kept coming up.And how black families have a disproportionate amount of families lead by single mothers. Which leads to the Gap between men and women. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility/If you make your points less Hyperbolic, people will take more time to listen. Obviously the world is different now then the 60's. It takes watching a few movies, or TV shows or anything to show that. Interracial marriage and sex is now legal and in many districts not even frowned upon. This was not the case. There was no black leads, heck even Blackexplotation films were not in full swing in the 60's. Things have changed for the better in a lot of ways, but not as much as they could have or should have. No one is asking "have things changed"... so did you have measurable improvements you wanted to highlight from any of that or did you want to point to more black people on TV and the tired republican trope of single parent families (as if Democrats support of the war on drugs isn't directly related anyway) and call that "more reasonable". All the while not addressing the refutations of your previous assertions? I already showed measurable change. And linked the article they came from and everyone but you seems to think they are pretty legit. I am pointing out how obvious it is in TV and movies, but I'm sure I could look up the stats for oscars won, or leads by black, or TV shows with Black casts, writers, directors and so on. But then, as you do, you would claim it makes no difference, or was propaganda or whatever. So what would the point be? You are white... I'd ask it as a question, but it's 100% obvious by your posts. You are not wrong, but you also are not really putting much effort into explaining why that is important.
No matter what I explain to him, it will fall on deaf ears.
But for you... I'm white, and I fully understand how ignorant most white men (especially) are to their privilege.
For them to truly acknowledge it means they would also have to bare the burden of trying to do something about it or be complicit in it. Sadly, most people don't want another problem to deal with so they pretend it isn't happening...
Or as some have stated in this thread, "that we have come sooooo far in how we treat women, black Americans, transgendered people, etc..."
Most white people want to be able to say, "Look, they can vote now... that means we're good right? Problem solved?" So they don't have to worry or think about the problem anymore, which is the essence of privilege.
White men don't really have to worry about anything extra. Everybody else... has to worry about all the regular life shit that white men have to worry about, and on top of that... being raped if your a woman, being assaulted or killed for the color of your skin or sexual orientation, or worried about being thrown off the voter rolls because your black and likely won't vote republican (for good reason)... etc... etc...
Most white men are just asleep to what is going on, and many even if they wake up some make a conscious choice to go back to sleep.
|
As the white dude from rural America who has spent an unreasonable amount of time explaining white privilege to folks in this thread over the years, claiming folks won’t listen is a bullshit excuse. And the posting “I know your white without asking” is counter productive any form of good faith discussion.
|
On July 24 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
As the white dude from rural America who has spent an unreasonable amount of time explaining white privilege to folks in this thread over the years, claiming folks won’t listen is a bullshit excuse. And the posting “I know your white without asking” is counter productive any form of good faith discussion.
It's not like you really get it. Shambala sounds like he's got a better grasp on it than you have recently for sure.
I mean if your point is your strategy works better as a sort of "racist things white people do" whisperer I guess, but it's not like Democrats have actually addressed this shit.
Also, people that repeat this nonsense argument, almost always jettison it when it comes to Trump or other issues they actually think are important enough to get angry about.
|
On July 24 2018 11:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
As the white dude from rural America who has spent an unreasonable amount of time explaining white privilege to folks in this thread over the years, claiming folks won’t listen is a bullshit excuse. And the posting “I know your white without asking” is counter productive any form of good faith discussion. It's not like you really get it. Shambala sounds like he's got a better grasp on it than you have recently for sure. I mean if your point is your strategy works better as a sort of "racist things white people do" whisperer I guess, but it's not like Democrats have actually addressed this shit.
Yeah, I was talking communicating and changing minds, as opposed to self gratification through performance. “I can tell your white” is a shit post at the very best.
|
On July 24 2018 11:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 11:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
As the white dude from rural America who has spent an unreasonable amount of time explaining white privilege to folks in this thread over the years, claiming folks won’t listen is a bullshit excuse. And the posting “I know your white without asking” is counter productive any form of good faith discussion. It's not like you really get it. Shambala sounds like he's got a better grasp on it than you have recently for sure. I mean if your point is your strategy works better as a sort of "racist things white people do" whisperer I guess, but it's not like Democrats have actually addressed this shit. Yeah, I was talking communicating and changing minds, as opposed to self gratification through performance. “I can tell your white” is a shit post at the very best.
Really? I don't think you're changing any minds. I think you think being polite about racist things people do and petty/snarky about Trump doesn't come off as a remarkably shallow and empty position on political posturing.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
This podcast episode from like yesterday:ish, was remarkably on topic with GH's recent posts (people overestimating relative progress, psychology of reactions to demographic shifts etc --- interestingly black people have a similar reaction to white people when it comes to the increase in people of hispanic descent).
The most important idea for understanding American politics in 2018 https://art19.com/shows/the-ezra-klein-show/episodes/c7782f5a-92bf-4ab5-8640-215944d0568b
I thought it was a good listen, though I'm far from an expert on the subject.
EDIT: Also if everyone could tone it down a bit so I don't have to waste time writing warnings that'd be wonderful.
|
On July 24 2018 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 11:30 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2018 11:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
As the white dude from rural America who has spent an unreasonable amount of time explaining white privilege to folks in this thread over the years, claiming folks won’t listen is a bullshit excuse. And the posting “I know your white without asking” is counter productive any form of good faith discussion. It's not like you really get it. Shambala sounds like he's got a better grasp on it than you have recently for sure. I mean if your point is your strategy works better as a sort of "racist things white people do" whisperer I guess, but it's not like Democrats have actually addressed this shit. Yeah, I was talking communicating and changing minds, as opposed to self gratification through performance. “I can tell your white” is a shit post at the very best. Really? I don't think you're changing any minds. I think you think being polite about racist things people do and petty/snarky about Trump doesn't come off as a remarkably shallow and empty position on political posturing.
Posting in this thread is empty political posturing. Hell, I’ll go so far as to say posting anything online is too. At best is it a place to refine arguments and approaches to difficult subjects like racism.
|
|
|
On July 24 2018 11:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 11:30 Plansix wrote:On July 24 2018 11:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 24 2018 11:21 Plansix wrote:
As the white dude from rural America who has spent an unreasonable amount of time explaining white privilege to folks in this thread over the years, claiming folks won’t listen is a bullshit excuse. And the posting “I know your white without asking” is counter productive any form of good faith discussion. It's not like you really get it. Shambala sounds like he's got a better grasp on it than you have recently for sure. I mean if your point is your strategy works better as a sort of "racist things white people do" whisperer I guess, but it's not like Democrats have actually addressed this shit. Yeah, I was talking communicating and changing minds, as opposed to self gratification through performance. “I can tell your white” is a shit post at the very best. Really? I don't think you're changing any minds. I think you think being polite about racist things people do and petty/snarky about Trump doesn't come off as a remarkably shallow and empty position on political posturing. Posting in this thread is empty political posturing. Hell, I’ll go so far as to say posting anything online is too. At best is it a place to refine arguments and approaches to difficult subjects like racism.
The admission is helpful but not everyone is merely posturing. Some people are actually trying to spread important information and perspectives and correct (at least for observers) dreadfully misguided ones.
On July 24 2018 12:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2018 10:45 ShambhalaWar wrote:On July 23 2018 22:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 22:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 21:44 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 13:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 11:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
GH, it really does seem like you're trying to dismiss or dodge several good points in bad faith. I'm curious as to why it's so important to not agree with JimmiC's measurable evidences; it's not like a concession here would slippery slope to "...and therefore, blacks are treated perfectly equally to whites and fairly and equitably across our society, we're post-racism, etc." They aren't good points, and I was hoping people recognized them for what they were. Since it appears they didn't I suppose I'll indulge Jimmi's post. On July 23 2018 10:02 JimmiC wrote:On July 23 2018 09:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2018 09:46 KwarK wrote:On July 23 2018 09:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Have they? Last I checked voter rights were going the other direction as well.
Yes, they have. Racially designed felon disenfranchisement is still a problem but they've taken steps to codify what actually causes disenfranchisement, rather than leaving it to the good old boys at the local polling station. And that codification has led to white people losing the vote too, which in turn is building support for reform. granting for the moment this narrative is true. How do we measure that? Ok here are some, feel free to all them Fake news but please for once also back up your own claim. Today, far more African-Americans graduate from college – 38 percent – than they did 50 years ago. Here's the title of the article you pulled it from (I know why you didn't link it now) Black Americans mostly left behind by progress since Dr. King’s death Without statistics on white people this point is meaningless for the question asked. But according to the census the percentage gap between white and Black college completion has gone from ~4% less Black graduates to ~20% less Black graduates. Legally, African-Americans may live in any community they want – and from Beverly Hills to the Upper East Side, they can and do. Besides not really being something to be celebrated (as phrased) segregation is on the rise: American schools are 'more segregated than they were in the 1960s,' says Hillary ClintonBlack adults experienced a more significant income increase from 1980 to 2016 – from $28,667 to $39,490 – than any other U.S. demographic group. This, in part, is why there’s now a significant black middle class. We can see that overall the gap has not significantly changed at all: In 1965, there were no blacks in the U.S. Senate, nor were there any black governors. And only six members of the House of Representatives were black. By 2015, there was greater representation in some areas (44 House members were black) but little change in others (there were two black senators and one black governor). The share of blacks who have served in a presidential Cabinet, however, has been generally high – even above parity with the population – under administrations in the past two decades. It should be very obvious why this is a piss poor metric, and I already hinted at it, but to be more clear this would have Black people celebrating Justice Thomas, Herman Cain, Ben Carson, Allen West and so on. That's obviously stupid. So no I won't take black people helping white people oppress black people as "a measurable improvement". Not to mention the whole lynching not being "that bad" in the 60's the Klan losing much of its power (others have risen of course but not to the overt power that the Klan once had) Go ahead and pull up a statistic so we can understand what it is your specifically saying is the measurable improvement. There's a lot of reasons people don't like discussing things with me, but having their argument challenged instead of swallowed whole without support shouldn't be one of them. \ Yes you got the article right, not a hard find? I would have posted it but it was more fun to have you instantly insult it and me before you realizing that it was actually attempting to prove your (what should be your point) that things have not came as far as they should have but have come forward in some ways. https://theconversation.com/black-americans-mostly-left-behind-by-progress-since-dr-kings-death-89956https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2018/03/19/594993620/forget-wealth-and-neighborhood-the-racial-income-gap-persists This way the author does not sound like a crazy person it is no better. This one is particularly good, but in a lot of the reading I did the theme of single parent homes lead by mothers being the poorest kept coming up.And how black families have a disproportionate amount of families lead by single mothers. Which leads to the Gap between men and women. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2018/04/12/dont-ignore-class-when-addressing-racial-gaps-in-intergenerational-mobility/If you make your points less Hyperbolic, people will take more time to listen. Obviously the world is different now then the 60's. It takes watching a few movies, or TV shows or anything to show that. Interracial marriage and sex is now legal and in many districts not even frowned upon. This was not the case. There was no black leads, heck even Blackexplotation films were not in full swing in the 60's. Things have changed for the better in a lot of ways, but not as much as they could have or should have. No one is asking "have things changed"... so did you have measurable improvements you wanted to highlight from any of that or did you want to point to more black people on TV and the tired republican trope of single parent families (as if Democrats support of the war on drugs isn't directly related anyway) and call that "more reasonable". All the while not addressing the refutations of your previous assertions? I already showed measurable change. And linked the article they came from and everyone but you seems to think they are pretty legit. I am pointing out how obvious it is in TV and movies, but I'm sure I could look up the stats for oscars won, or leads by black, or TV shows with Black casts, writers, directors and so on. But then, as you do, you would claim it makes no difference, or was propaganda or whatever. So what would the point be? You are white... I'd ask it as a question, but it's 100% obvious by your posts. I'm Canadian and of mixed breed if you must know. Not sure why my race matters on a message board. Whats yours sir?
I genuinely mean no malice, but that might have been the whitest thing you could have said. They already said they were white though just so you know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
