For those who defend Trump

[Quasar]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

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.

I have no interest in your opinion or in changing your opinion.  I'm not willing to make my argument more literal or simplistic for you, and you were unable to respond to the argument I actually made.  Excuse yourself from this conversation any time.

[Quasar]

I love it that Trump has been calling the families of murdered officers and offering condolences. It's such a refreshing change from Obama.  

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Quasar said:

I have no interest in your opinion or in changing your opinion.  I'm not willing to make my argument more literal or simplistic for you, and you were unable to respond to the argument I actually made.  Excuse yourself from this conversation any time.

I would be more than happy to end our conversation. Good night to you.

[Anomaly]

No, Obama did not overtly say to shoot police.  However, O was widely criticized by the police community for his statements and tone inferring police were at fault in specific instance BEFORE investigators uncovered all the details and blame.   There are problems but the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson was/is entirely different than Tamir Rice in Cleveland or Laquan McDonald in Chicago.   If you think there are no possible perception issues with what Obama has said or not said, you're being obtuse. 

I do not defend Trump's punch in the mouth quip. But does it help anyone at all to spend tens of millions to play that clip many thousands of times for political manipulation?  Doesn't that just eventually make Trump's comment into a dismissible, over exaggerated attack, being used just to create fear and encourage exaggerated responses of fear or defensiveness?  Duh, yeah.

[Peace]

43 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

No, Obama did not overtly say to shoot police.  However, O was widely criticized by the police community for his statements and tone inferring police were at fault in specific instance BEFORE investigators uncovered all the details and blame.   There are problems but the shooting of Mike Brown in Ferguson was/is entirely different than Tamir Rice in Cleveland or Laquan McDonald in Chicago.   If you think there are no possible perception issues with what Obama has said or not said, you're being obtuse. 

Are these comments directed towards me? If so, I do not think they accurately reflect what was said previously.

Here is what Quasar wrote: "Obama and Hillary incited the murders of many men and women in blue.  Obama and Hillary have blood on their hands."

Here is how I responded: "I am going to have to call BS on that one. Obama speaks very highly of law enforcement. I can pull up numerous videos or quotes where he talks about how honorable and worthy of respect police are. He has never said anything along the lines of "I hope that people are violent towards the police" or "police should not be respected.""

I never wrote anything about there being "no possible perception issues with what Obama has said or not said."

What I said was that Obama has not made any statements that indicate that people should take violent action against the police, and that therefore the statement that president Obama has incited the murders police officers and that he has blood on his hands is false.

There is a big difference between suggesting that racial bias may have played a part in specific incidents of police conduct, and suggesting that people should go out and murder police officers.

For example, in the information that McM posted, Obama proposed a solution to the racial bias that he alleged: setting up a task force that includes police officers, community leaders, and activists, in order to help improve community policing. He did not suggest that anyone should go out and kill police officers in order to address potential incidents of racial bias in policing. Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence should be able to understand the difference.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Peace

[havok579257]

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

Are these comments directed towards me? If so, I do not think they accurately reflect what was said previously.

Here is what Quasar wrote: "Obama and Hillary incited the murders of many men and women in blue.  Obama and Hillary have blood on their hands."

Here is how I responded: "I am going to have to call BS on that one. Obama speaks very highly of law enforcement. I can pull up numerous videos or quotes where he talks about how honorable and worthy of respect police are. He has never said anything along the lines of "I hope that people are violent towards the police" or "police should not be respected.""

I never wrote anything about there being "no possible perception issues with what Obama has said or not said."

What I said was that Obama has not made any statements that indicate that people should take violent action against the police, and that therefore the statement that president Obama has incited the murders police officers and that he has blood on his hands is false.

There is a big difference between suggesting that racial bias may have played a part in specific incidents of police conduct, and suggesting that people should go out and murder police officers.

For example, in the information that McM posted, Obama proposed a solution to the racial bias that he alleged: setting up a task force that includes police officers, community leaders, and activists, in order to help improve community policing. He did not suggest that anyone should go out and kill police officers in order to address potential incidents of racial bias in policing. Anyone with a reasonable level of intelligence should be able to understand the difference.

 

but suggesting racial bias before any sort of investigation is completed is going to incite people to harm police.  the leader of the united states,the highest office of the land comes out and says these black men were shot by the police because they were black.  What kind of response would you honestly expect people to have?  Obama is an intellegent man.  There is no way he can claim his comments would not lead to aggression against police officers most of all when the black community already believes (be it true or false it doesn't matter here since all that matters is what a person believes to be true) the police and those in a position of power target blacks for crimes.  They think not only do the police target us unfairly, now we are being killed just because we are black and the president even said so.  

 

What sort of response would you expect from people? 

[Quasar]

11 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

 

but suggesting racial bias before any sort of investigation is completed is going to incite people to harm police.  the leader of the united states,the highest office of the land comes out and says these black men were shot by the police because they were black.  What kind of response would you honestly expect people to have?  Obama is an intellegent man.  There is no way he can claim his comments would not lead to aggression against police officers most of all when the black community already believes (be it true or false it doesn't matter here since all that matters is what a person believes to be true) the police and those in a position of power target blacks for crimes.  They think not only do the police target us unfairly, now we are being killed just because we are black and the president even said so.  

 

What sort of response would you expect from people? 

Very well said.  A sitting President who has been in office for eight years wields a very different kind of power and influence from a mere candidate.  It is a bit dense to suggest that an incendiary statement from a sitting President must be in literally the exact same form as a statement made by a candidate.  I believe Obama and Hillary both saw dead cops as collateral damage in their effort to float their narrative and win some votes. 

[Anomaly]

Peace, 

I didn't respond specifically to you, but it is accurate to say that many law enforcement spokespeople did consider what Obama said and didn't say was possibly exacerbating the attacks on police.   We can't prove that Trump or Obama words directly caused specific acts.  We can comment and propose the may have and argue about it.   Ultimately it's conjecture and opinions.  It's not fruitful to get in a battle of semantics to attempt beat people into reasonable intellectual honesty.  But others can call BS as well. 

21 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

What sort of response would you expect from people? 

 I expect vocal disagreement.  

It doesn't matter what Trump or Obama have been reported to have said.   Neither justified burning and rampaging protests and shooting people.  

[havok579257]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

 

 I expect vocal disagreement.  

It doesn't matter what Trump or Obama have been reported to have said.   Neither justified burning and rampaging protests and shooting people.  

I agree vocal disagreement is what should happen but we all know the way our society is at this current time and age.  I don't think anyone can honestly say with how divided this country is on "everything" that you can expect all people to go down the vocal disagreement route and not the violence route.  

 

Vocal disagreement should happen and most likely would have happened just 30 years ago but the climate we live in now, one can not expect that the presidents response will not lead to violence against police officers.  With this country so divided and so fractured, there is extreme doubt that a man as smart as the president could not forsee what his statements would incite.  We are not talking about joe blow tv news man here.  We are talking about a highly intelligent man.  You may not agree the man's policies but I don't see how anyone could doubt him being a very intelligent man.  

On 11/21/2016 at 10:57 PM, Ice_nine said:

These are the kind of people that also support him http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Thoughts?

I am new to this topic but I guess I just don't see the point of asking people who voted for Trump what they think abuot these people also voting for Trump.  Just like I would not see the point of someone asking anyone who voted or supported a democratic in this election what they think about the people who mark in the street screaming that they are happy about having their own personal abortion or the ladies who document thier abortion so called journey on youtube and then claim not only was it a great decision by them but one of their happiest decisions.  

 

Really what is the point other than to try to make them feel guilty for voting for Trump over a candidate who is for free unresricted access to abortions?

[Peace]

4 hours ago, havok579257 said:

but suggesting racial bias before any sort of investigation is completed is going to incite people to harm police.

I do not think so, but this is something that neither of us can prove so we will have to agree to disagree I think.

Quote

 the leader of the united states,the highest office of the land comes out and says these black men were shot by the police because they were black.  

That isn't what president Obama said, but no worries.

Quote

They think not only do the police target us unfairly, now we are being killed just because we are black and the president even said so.  

Do you have Cerebro or some other mind reading device? I can't speak for all black people, but I can tell you that there is at least one named Peace who does not think in such a simplistic manner.

[Peace]

The data below is from the Officer Down Memorial Page:

http://www.odmp.org/

Non-Accidental Officer Gunfire Deaths by year, under George Bush & Barack Obama

George Bush:

2001: 65

2002: 57

2003: 49

2004: 56

2005: 54

2006: 51

2007: 67

2008: 41

TOTAL: 440

Barack Obama

2009: 47

2010: 59

2011: 68

2012: 48

2013: 31

2014: 48

2015: 39

2016 (YTD): 60

2016 (Projected): 65 *

TOTAL: 405

* To obtain this number I projected the year to date figure to the end of the year by multiplying 60 by 12/11.

[<3 PopeFrancis]

On 11/21/2016 at 11:57 PM, Ice_nine said:

These are the kind of people that also support him http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/richard-spencer-speech-npi/508379/

Thoughts?

Wow!

I don't like it, but with faith this will not fly eg. The pipeline "issue" could not have been put at bay without faith in God.  It would not have happened.

19 hours ago, havok579257 said:

I agree vocal disagreement is what should happen but we all know the way our society is at this current time and age.  I don't think anyone can honestly say with how divided this country is on "everything" that you can expect all people to go down the vocal disagreement route and not the violence route.  

 

Vocal disagreement should happen and most likely would have happened just 30 years ago but the climate we live in now, one can not expect that the presidents response will not lead to violence against police officers.  With this country so divided and so fractured, there is extreme doubt that a man as smart as the president could not forsee what his statements would incite.  We are not talking about joe blow tv news man here.  We are talking about a highly intelligent man.  You may not agree the man's policies but I don't see how anyone could doubt him being a very intelligent man.  

I am new to this topic but I guess I just don't see the point of asking people who voted for Trump what they think abuot these people also voting for Trump.  Just like I would not see the point of someone asking anyone who voted or supported a democratic in this election what they think about the people who mark in the street screaming that they are happy about having their own personal abortion or the ladies who document thier abortion so called journey on youtube and then claim not only was it a great decision by them but one of their happiest decisions.  

 

Really what is the point other than to try to make them feel guilty for voting for Trump over a candidate who is for free unresricted access to abortions?

There is a window of opportunity in which we make a difference while Trump is figuring the ropes of the Office of Presidency by fighting for keeping our rights.

The point is there would not have been this window with Hitlery

Edited December 6, 2016 by <3 PopeFrancis

[<3 PopeFrancis]

I wonder what peaceful ethnic cleansing and more importantly what form it takes.

On 11/30/2016 at 9:32 AM, Anomaly said:

Papist, 

Is it possible that the voter ID laws, while sounding reasonable on one hand (providing security to process), could also be about voting demographics?   Certain demographics find it difficult to also obtain additional identification documents or vote in a small window of time?

Although not intentionally racist (who cares who votes for you as long as they aren't voting for the other guy), but effectively racist?   For example, gerrymandering done by both parties?  It's political gamesmanship.  The obvious fact is that minority's tend to vote Democratic.   Any effort to reduce potential Democrat votes can be seen as racist in effect, if not intent.  

Intention is hard to defend against another's perception of observed effect.   Most people are not really open minded, and it's very hard to give the "enemy" the benefit of the doubt in their intention. 

[As an aside, I strongly support voter ID laws "if" combined with extended voting periods, like two weeks.   I am dubious of mail-in or future on-line voting.  We have to confidence in accessible and secure voting.]

ran out of props.  prop.

 

[havok579257]

On 11/21/2016 at 10:57 PM, Ice_nine said:

n/m  

Edited December 6, 2016 by havok579257
mistake

[<3 PopeFrancis]

@Quasar, Hitlary definitely has blood on her hands.