For those who defend Trump

[Peace]

2 hours ago, Socrates said:

Unless the voting laws in question made different requirements of persons of different races, or unless blacks or other minorities were being denied IDs or access to voting booths, I still call BS on the "racism" or "discrimination" charges.

Again, I fail to see anything intrinsic to being black, or any other race, that would prevent one from either obtaining IDs or voting on voting day.  If there is, please enlighten me.

And if this is the best example the bleeding hearts can come up with illustrating the supposedly horrific racism supposedly endemic to the Republican Party and conservatives (which is apparently the main reason we're all supposed to vote Dem, along with, of course, "a woman's right to choose"), their case is pathetic indeed.

Congratulations.

[CatherineM]

It's been my experience here that lack of ID has more to do with poverty than skin colour. I've paid for over a dozen ID's for kids in the last year or so. We require an ID to vote here. It hasn't ended society so far. 

[truthfinder]

32 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

It's been my experience here that lack of ID has more to do with poverty than skin colour. I've paid for over a dozen ID's for kids in the last year or so. We require an ID to vote here. It hasn't ended society so far. 

Id certainly isn't cheap - at least here. I'm not sure about Alberta, but my province has allowed people to vouch for another's identity, as well as other types of ID that are not pictorial. 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, CatherineM said:

It's been my experience here that lack of ID has more to do with poverty than skin colour. I've paid for over a dozen ID's for kids in the last year or so. We require an ID to vote here. It hasn't ended society so far. 

Well in the US race and poverty are tied to a certain extent for historical reasons...

[Peace]

51 minutes ago, truthfinder said:

Id certainly isn't cheap - at least here. I'm not sure about Alberta, but my province has allowed people to vouch for another's identity, as well as other types of ID that are not pictorial. 

I do not think the price of it in the US is so high, but for some people I think it can be burdensome for other reasons. If you live 100 miles from the DMV and don't have a friend with a car. If you don't have the documents you need to get the ID. It is plenty easy for me to get one but I am not gonna sit here and say that people who find it burdensome are just a bunch of whiners.

At least in the US we kind of have a sad history of using facially neutral laws as a means of disenfranchising specific ethnic groups. You could legitimately have a literacy test or other type of test in order to vote, but if you enact the literacy requirement because you know that almost all blacks are illiterate and that the vast majority of whites can read (as was the case after the Civil War) and want to make it hard for blacks to vote, it's racist. If a state legislature today enacts a facially neutral law with the intent to discriminate against certain ethnic group, it would also be racist. You are using the facially neutral law as a pretense to discriminate, while trying to avoid the constitutional problems with laws that are discriminatory on their face.

[Quasar]

Obama placed a target on the backs of police officers when he and his administration treated police officers as murderers in the public arena, without any due process.  He and his administration promoted a false narrative that police officers shoot black men who pose no threat, even though the data and research show that this is an anomaly.   We know from the statements of some of the murderers that they were motivated by this false narrative promoted by Obama and his admin.  After officer involved shootings, he and his administration jumped to the conclusion that the officer was in the wrong,  disregarding fairness and due process for the officer and LEO community, and they did this in a climate of destructive and violent rioters and frequent threats on the lives of police officers.   It was incredibly irresponsible, but politically expedient, because anti-police rhetoric seemed like a good way to mobilize black voters.  Hillary tried to cash in on this as well.  On my way to work, I sometimes listen to a morning talk show with a primarily Afro-American target audience and black hosts , and I had the pleasure of listening to Hillary try to court votes with this rhetoric.  It certainly helped me decide how to case my vote. 

As Holder commented, when his DOJ exonerated Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown:  "I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired.  I want to emphasize that the strength and integrity of America’s justice system has always rested on its ability to deliver impartial results in precisely these types of difficult circumstances – adhering strictly to the facts and the law, regardless of assumptions.  Yet it remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily."

It's unfortunate for some dead cops and the families they left behind, that this administration didn't take its own advice. 

Edited December 3, 2016 by Quasar

[Peace]

31 minutes ago, Quasar said:

Obama placed a target on the backs of police officers when he and his administration treated police officers as murderers in the public arena, without any due process.  He and his administration promoted a false narrative that police officers shoot black men who pose no threat, even though the data and research show that this is an anomaly.   We know from the statements of some of the murderers that they were motivated by this false narrative promoted by Obama and his admin.  After officer involved shootings, he and his administration jumped to the conclusion that the officer was in the wrong,  disregarding fairness and due process for the officer and LEO community, and they did this in a climate of destructive and violent rioters and frequent threats on the lives of police officers.   It was incredibly irresponsible, but politically expedient, because anti-police rhetoric seemed like a good way to mobilize black voters.  Hillary tried to cash in on this as well.  On my way to work, I sometimes listen to a morning talk show with a primarily Afro-American target audience and black hosts , and I had the pleasure of listening to Hillary try to court votes with this rhetoric.  It certainly helped me decide how to case my vote. 

As Holder commented, when his DOJ exonerated Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting of Michael Brown:  "I recognize that the findings in our report may leave some to wonder how the department’s findings can differ so sharply from some of the initial, widely reported accounts of what transpired.  I want to emphasize that the strength and integrity of America’s justice system has always rested on its ability to deliver impartial results in precisely these types of difficult circumstances – adhering strictly to the facts and the law, regardless of assumptions.  Yet it remains not only valid – but essential – to question how such a strong alternative version of events was able to take hold so swiftly, and be accepted so readily."

It's unfortunate for some dead cops and the families they left behind, that this administration didn't take its own advice. 

Show me the specific anti-police statements made by Obama please.

You don't have any, do you?

[Quasar]

Try google.com;  Your exercise doesn't interest me. 

I made a clear statement above of how Obama (personally and through his administration) incited violence against police officers by refusing to respect due process before speaking out against them and labeling them as murderers.  You have no response, obviously.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Quasar

[McM RSCJ]

Quasar,

The words in your "clear statement" are not accurate.  You cannot supply any instance in which President "Obama (personally and through his administration) incited violence against police officers by refusing to respect due process before speaking out against the and labeling them as murderers."  

Here is the statement by the President responding to the police killings of two African American males this past July.  He is critical of the racial inequality in our country and, sometimes, in law enforcement--and he says we all should be so concerned.  ( know I am.)  But he does not attack police officers, call them murderers, or violate due process. 

"All Americans should be deeply troubled by the fatal shootings of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and Philando Castile in Falcon Heights, Minnesota. We’ve seen such tragedies far too many times, and our hearts go out to the families and communities who’ve suffered such a painful loss.

"Although I am constrained in commenting on the particular facts of these cases, I am encouraged that the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation in Baton Rouge, and I have full confidence in their professionalism and their ability to conduct a thoughtful, thorough, and fair inquiry.

"But regardless of the outcome of such investigations, what's clear is that these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.

"To admit we’ve got a serious problem in no way contradicts our respect and appreciation for the vast majority of police officers who put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. It is to say that, as a nation, we can and must do better to institute the best practices that reduce the appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement.

"That's why, two years ago, I set up a Task Force on 21st Century Policing that convened police officers, community leaders, and activists. Together, they came up with detailed recommendations on how to improve community policing. So even as officials continue to look into this week's tragic shootings, we also need communities to address the underlying fissures that lead to these incidents, and to implement those ideas that can make a difference. That's how we'll keep our communities safe. And that’s how we can start restoring confidence that all people in this great nation are equal before the law. 

"In the meantime, all Americans should recognize the anger, frustration, and grief that so many Americans are feeling -- feelings that are being expressed in peaceful protests and vigils.  Michelle and I share those feelings. Rather than fall into a predictable pattern of division and political posturing, let’s reflect on what we can do better.  Let’s come together as a nation, and keep faith with one another, in order to ensure a future where all of our children know that their lives matter."  7/7/2016 whitehouse.gov

 

 

 

[Quasar]

1 hour ago, McM RSCJ said:

"Although I am constrained in commenting on the particular facts of these cases, I am encouraged that the U.S. Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation in Baton Rouge, and I have full confidence in their professionalism and their ability to conduct a thoughtful, thorough, and fair inquiry.

"But regardless of the outcome of such investigations, what's clear is that these fatal shootings are not isolated incidents. They are symptomatic of the broader challenges within our criminal justice system, the racial disparities that appear across the system year after year, and the resulting lack of trust that exists between law enforcement and too many of the communities they serve.

 

 

 

 

Actually, this is a perfect example of Obama refusing to respect due process before concluding that cops are murderers.

How did he decide, prior to any investigation being completed, that the shooting deaths of these two black men was part of a larger pattern of racial disparity in the justice system?  How did he know, prior to an investigation, that these shootings weren't just cops being forced to defend themselves?   How incidiary for the President to publicly suggest that someone was murdered for his race, with no investigation.  This was profoundly unfair to those officers.  It's great example of Obama's failure to respect due process in officer involved shootings.  Thanks for making my argument for me. 

 

Edited December 4, 2016 by Quasar

[Quasar]

It's impressive how consistently LEOs and LEO families express that Obama has made their loved ones targets for violence.  Do you have any intellectual curiosity about that?  Step out of your echo chamber and read a news source that doesn't align with your political view.  Read a page or blog with participants from LE backgrounds.

I already know your arguments, because I'm surrounded by proponents of those arguments and I read/listen to liberal news sources and anti-law enforcement sources.  If you can't anticipate the reasons I believe Obama has made cops targets for violence, it's time for you to get out more.  Learn about people who are different from you.  You don't have to change your views, but it makes life interesting.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Quasar

[McM RSCJ]

Quasar, first, I talk to Police Officers all the time because I work with quite a few.  When there is word of incidents like the ones to which President Obama refers, I ask how they are feeling and thinking about such incidents, and I listen to what they say.  I find different Officers have different points of view, and I have certainly heard one of my Officer Colleagues express the views you cite.  And I do learn from these conversations. . . .

That said, President Obama, in the statement I cited, does not make your argument for you.  He does not call Police Officers "murderers."  He does not "put a target on their backs."  He does not interfere with any judicial process. 

He emphasizes that we, all of us, in this country have to address the racial inequality and injustice in our "Justice" system.  Are you saying that the President should not address us when these deeply troubling killings occur?  

He has also emphasized in other statements that we, all of us, put too much responsibility on individual Officers to address or overcome the racial inequality in our communities. 

You are blaming him for what he has never said.  That's not fair.  And it's not accurate (true).  You also seem to suggest he has not right to think about he sees and speak about what he considers the deeper implications  Why not?

 

 

[Norseman82]

On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Peace said:

For the record, I have no problem with voter ID as a general principle. I have a problem when voting laws are specifically designed with the intent to reduce voting among particular ethnic groups, and where nearly non-existent voter fraud is used as a pretense to attempt to make it more difficult for them to vote. There is strong evidence to suggest that is what happened here.

In the meantime, Democrats have begun the recount process in Wisconsin:

(Hey, I'm from Chicago, so humor based on the "river wards" or "51st ward" is a staple in our diet of political humor)

[Peace]

20 hours ago, Quasar said:

Try google.com;  Your exercise doesn't interest me. 

I made a clear statement above of how Obama (personally and through his administration) incited violence against police officers by refusing to respect due process before speaking out against them and labeling them as murderers.  You have no response, obviously.

You have not presented me with anything to respond to except for your unsubtantiated personal opinion. Your personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant to me, so unless you have any evidence to support your statements, we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that. Good day to you.

[CountrySteve21]

20 hours ago, Quasar said:

Try google.com;  Your exercise doesn't interest me.