• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump just ordered the gassing and shooting of peaceful protestors in Washington DC just so he could have an effing photo op in front of church

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,985
14,146
136
Remember when Putin's "Little Green Men" showed up in Crimea?


The whole point of having no insignia is to avoid accountability, isn't it? Who are these guys?
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
17,211
4,850
136
A tad bit understated, No?
There's a whole lot more.


This part stands out.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership,”
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
23,432
2,735
136
There's a whole lot more.


This part stands out.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership,”
Too little too late General.
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,920
10,469
136
There's a whole lot more.


This part stands out.

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership,”
Too little too late General.
His words are appreciated but we need actions. Will Mattis stand on a stage with Biden?

1591228628401.jpeg
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,853
14,985
136
Remember when Putin's "Little Green Men" showed up in Crimea?


The whole point of having no insignia is to avoid accountability, isn't it? Who are these guys?
What's Erik Prince doing these days?
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
13,126
8,162
136
Trump's armed thugs showing up at protests:


I disagree that these people are "an emerging incarnation of extremism that seems to defy easy categorization."

I think it's quite easy to "categorize" them.

They are the Sturmabteilung.

Read up on your history. This is no joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dingster1

alien42

Lifer
Nov 28, 2004
11,987
1,958
126
What's Erik Prince doing these days?
i wish that was funny, but since you asked. as of a few months ago, he is working with Project Veritas and recruiting ex-spies to infiltrate liberal groups.

 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,631
3,126
126
Trump's armed thugs showing up at protests:


I disagree that these people are "an emerging incarnation of extremism that seems to defy easy categorization."

I think it's quite easy to "categorize" them.

They are the Sturmabteilung.

Read up on your history. This is no joke.
The Sturmabteilung , literally Storm Detachment, was the Nazi Party's original paramilitary wing. It played a significant role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Its primary purposes were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies, disrupting the meetings of opposing parties, fighting against the paramilitary units of the opposing parties, especially the Red Front Fighters League (Rotfrontkämpferbund) of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), and intimidating Romani, trade unionists, and, especially, Jews – for instance, during the 1933 Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.
 
Mar 11, 2004
21,143
3,320
126
I don't know why but the "How was babby formed" video plays when I see that Turmp photo op. How is Bibble hand? Yes is bibble. Then his random gibberish.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,315
649
126
Anyone who thinks racism doesn’t play a part in disparate law enforcement numbers is either comically ignorant or is pushing an agenda.
Why did you say Broom Hilda was a great administrator then? We both know about the Clinton crime bill supported by centrist liberals, including black liberal leadership, and the liberal rule in many cities where this all goes down.

QUESTION: But your—you and your family have been personally and politically responsible for policies that have caused Health and Human Services disasters in impoverished communities of color (inaudible) the domestic and international War on Drugs that you championed as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. And so I just want to know how you feel about your role in that violence and how you plan to reverse it?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you know, I feel strongly, which is why I had this town hall today. And as the questions and comments from people illustrated, there’s a lot of concern that we need to rethink and redo what we did in response to a different set of problems.

And you know, in life, in politics, in government—you name it—you’ve got to constantly be asking yourself, “Is this working? Is this not?” and if it’s not, what do we do better? And that’s what I’m trying to do now on drugs, on mass incarceration, on police behavior and criminal justice reform. Because I do think that there was a different set of concerns back in the ‘80s and the early ‘90s. And now I believe that we have to look at the world as it is today and try and figure out what will work now.

QUESTION: Yeah. And I would offer that it didn’t work then, either, and that those policies were actually extensions of white supremacist violence against communities of color. And so I just think I want to hear a little bit about that, about the fact that actually while—

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I’m not sure—


The easiest way to see this is through marijuana convictions. Studies show black people and white people smoke pot at roughly equal rates but black people are arrested marijuana possession at more than twice the rate white people are.

Same crime, wildly different enforcement.
For most policy makers and voters, the intent wasn’t malicious in that way. It’s also difficult to conflate some of the reasons that cause the disparity here at all with racism unless the intent from the policy was bad. How is it racist that there is more police presence in areas with lots of violent crime? How is it racist that black people carry drugs outdoors more than white people in part due to lower SES?

Seriously? Your proof is a fact check article written in 2018, that uses statistics from 1980 to 2008, and 2013? You also cherry picked the 1980 to 2008 paragraph with the statistics that are 12 years old, because it fits your augment of blacks being responsible for over 50% of murders.
You’re not even showing any data to back up your arguments so that’s rich.

I gave you a British news source, yet you’re still unhappy over their verdict. The reason why they didn’t use more recent data (as if almost 3 decades up to 2008 saying it’s about half isn’t enough, sheesh) is because that data isn’t as readily available. You apparently didn’t read what they said or purposely omitted it:

“Alternative statistics from the FBI are more up to date but include many crimes where the killer’s race is not recorded. These numbers tell a similar story.”

Despite the unknown offenders, you can extrapolate based on victims alone easily, since homicides are mostly a within race offense.

2018 (most recent without being preliminary)

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1.xls

But conveniently left out that 2013 paragraph because it shows that number is dropping, and was 38%.
It’s dropping for everyone and again, the article states plainly that the more recent years have many unknowns for offenders, so “Unknown” is comprising a significant portion of the total percent.

Of course, it's 2020, why isn't there any articles using more up to date numbers that can support your argument and support that police are not racist today? Why did the article written in 2018 only include statistics that where 5 or more years old, and nothing newer? It's pretty clear it was written to cover up and/or downplay the racism, otherwise they would have included more up to date statistics, which I cover a little more below.
All of that shit is answered in the article. You just don’t like the verdict.

The quote you included states exactly what I said, even though this is again, about violent crimes, not just murder:
And right after that, they refute it. It’s included in the verdict to render no mass discrimination found.

There are huge problems with this conclusion, which makes it just as much BS as your argument. First, the arrest are taken from the actual recorded count on record which is gathered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The victims who identify the offenders as black are from a survey of 120,000 to 240,000 interviews (current numbers), not actual records to back up their claim. So they are comparing actual count (arrests) to estimates based off surveys (offenders identified as black by victims), which equals NO accuracy and also allows the results to be influenced by racial motivations.
It's not a coincidence that they match up year after year.

Second, there is racism involved in who is considered a victim, and who isn't. If it's a black victim and a white offender, it tends to be over looked in areas that there is a racial problem with the police, or they don't report it at all because they know nothing will come of it due to the racism that takes place.

There is also the fact that victims and witnesses, tend to confuse facts, including race, color, gender, clothing, height, etc. Hell, some victims of violent crimes invent "alternate versions" that they believe, but are not accurate, to allow them to mentally deal with the tragedy and move past it.
Where’s your data? You want the numbers to shift clearly, but you can’t change the facts. From 1980 to 2008, 93% of black homicides were committed by other blacks.

Thanks for the Chicago article written in 2018, that does nothing to support your argument. In fact, it deflates your argument. It's disturbing that you connect the term Minority to mean blacks. Specially since there have been more Hispanics than Blacks in Chicago since 2016.
Seriously? You’re just making shit up as you go.



wait...so are you trying to make an argument of discirimnation between men and women when it comes to crime, police response, and benegn traffic stops based on unfair gender bias, rather than the plain fact that women don't have massive amounts of testosterone pumping through their veins all the time?
I’m not sure how both you and alien came to the conclusion that I’m trying to argue that men are oppressed and have mass sexist discrimination happening to them.

The point I’m driving across is consistency. My stance has been both racial differences and sex differences aren’t oppression (well, drug war arguably has been bad enough, but intentions weren’t malicious by many policy makers) and aren’t indicative of mass sexism or racism. The woke liberal stance has been that men don’t experience anything bad in the system, yet I’m suppose to take seriously this idea that the racial differences are indicative of mass racism and oppression.

You know--hey, perhaps women don't aggressively respond to police as often as men do, because women simply aren't as aggressive? Nah, too difficult.

wtf...
The reaction every time is to adjust factors for gender to explain away and ignore whatever is unexplained but never for racial differences. Why? A lot of the data is left raw with people eating it up despite it not adjusting for age demographics, violent crime, and SES.

horseshit. blacks are sentenced at a far higher rate than whites, for all crimes, despite being charged at the same rate, across all crimes, as whites.



charged /= sentenced. Neither does "responsible" really, when you accept the plain fact that justice in this country is determined by access to wealth. plain and simple.
There are unexplained disparities with gender, too. And as I’ve repeated over again and again, it doesn’t even register. Anyway, it's obvious gender and racial differences are a function of mostly how much crime a group does. If a given group has more little shits, then they'll get saddled with worse generalizations.

But actually, the correlation becomes broken if there’s a black jury. They start convicting whites at a higher rate than whites do blacks, and they allow black defendants to get off the hook more so than whites do with other whites. But of course, that’s not racism, right? And ironically, white SJW juries end up becoming their worst enemy, skewering any white defendant if there’s a POC victim.




"Concerns about the appearance of jury fairness are likely to arise in courts where all-White juries try substantial numbers of BME defendants or try White defendants accused of racial crimes against BME victims."

"White jurors at Nottingham were significantly more likely to convict the White defendant when he was accused of assaulting a BME victim (61%) than when he was accused of assaulting a White victim (4%)."
 

NWRMidnight

Golden Member
Jun 18, 2001
1,147
765
136
Why did you say Broom Hilda was a great administrator then? We both know about the Clinton crime bill supported by centrist liberals, including black liberal leadership, and the liberal rule in many cities where this all goes down.

QUESTION: But your—you and your family have been personally and politically responsible for policies that have caused Health and Human Services disasters in impoverished communities of color (inaudible) the domestic and international War on Drugs that you championed as First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State. And so I just want to know how you feel about your role in that violence and how you plan to reverse it?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, you know, I feel strongly, which is why I had this town hall today. And as the questions and comments from people illustrated, there’s a lot of concern that we need to rethink and redo what we did in response to a different set of problems.

And you know, in life, in politics, in government—you name it—you’ve got to constantly be asking yourself, “Is this working? Is this not?” and if it’s not, what do we do better? And that’s what I’m trying to do now on drugs, on mass incarceration, on police behavior and criminal justice reform. Because I do think that there was a different set of concerns back in the ‘80s and the early ‘90s. And now I believe that we have to look at the world as it is today and try and figure out what will work now.

QUESTION: Yeah. And I would offer that it didn’t work then, either, and that those policies were actually extensions of white supremacist violence against communities of color. And so I just think I want to hear a little bit about that, about the fact that actually while—

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I’m not sure—




For most policy makers and voters, the intent wasn’t malicious in that way. It’s also difficult to conflate some of the reasons that cause the disparity here at all with racism unless the intent from the policy was bad. How is it racist that there is more police presence in areas with lots of violent crime? How is it racist that black people carry drugs outdoors more than white people in part due to lower SES?



You’re not even showing any data to back up your arguments so that’s rich.

I gave you a British news source, yet you’re still unhappy over their verdict. The reason why they didn’t use more recent data (as if almost 3 decades up to 2008 saying it’s about half isn’t enough, sheesh) is because that data isn’t as readily available. You apparently didn’t read what they said or purposely omitted it:

“Alternative statistics from the FBI are more up to date but include many crimes where the killer’s race is not recorded. These numbers tell a similar story.”

Despite the unknown offenders, you can extrapolate based on victims alone easily, since homicides are mostly a within race offense.

2018 (most recent without being preliminary)

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-1.xls



It’s dropping for everyone and again, the article states plainly that the more recent years have many unknowns for offenders, so “Unknown” is comprising a significant portion of the total percent.



All of that shit is answered in the article. You just don’t like the verdict.



And right after that, they refute it. It’s included in the verdict to render no mass discrimination found.



It's not a coincidence that they match up year after year.



Where’s your data? You want the numbers to shift clearly, but you can’t change the facts. From 1980 to 2008, 93% of black homicides were committed by other blacks.



Seriously? You’re just making shit up as you go.





I’m not sure how both you and alien came to the conclusion that I’m trying to argue that men are oppressed and have mass sexist discrimination happening to them.

The point I’m driving across is consistency. My stance has been both racial differences and sex differences aren’t oppression (well, drug war arguably has been bad enough, but intentions weren’t malicious by many policy makers) and aren’t indicative of mass sexism or racism. The woke liberal stance has been that men don’t experience anything bad in the system, yet I’m suppose to take seriously this idea that the racial differences are indicative of mass racism and oppression.



The reaction every time is to adjust factors for gender to explain away and ignore whatever is unexplained but never for racial differences. Why? A lot of the data is left raw with people eating it up despite it not adjusting for age demographics, violent crime, and SES.



There are unexplained disparities with gender, too. And as I’ve repeated over again and again, it doesn’t even register. Anyway, it's obvious gender and racial differences are a function of mostly how much crime a group does. If a given group has more little shits, then they'll get saddled with worse generalizations.

But actually, the correlation becomes broken if there’s a black jury. They start convicting whites at a higher rate than whites do blacks, and they allow black defendants to get off the hook more so than whites do with other whites. But of course, that’s not racism, right? And ironically, white SJW juries end up becoming their worst enemy, skewering any white defendant if there’s a POC victim.




"Concerns about the appearance of jury fairness are likely to arise in courts where all-White juries try substantial numbers of BME defendants or try White defendants accused of racial crimes against BME victims."

"White jurors at Nottingham were significantly more likely to convict the White defendant when he was accused of assaulting a BME victim (61%) than when he was accused of assaulting a White victim (4%)."
The very fact that you are here trying to argue that there is no racism shows that you have already ignored the indisputable proof that is already out there. Why are you asking for proof of what has already been given and proven time and time again? Hell, it was all right there in front of you during all your googling to try and prove your argument because for every 1 article that supports your racist view, there are 10 to 20 that prove otherwise. But you chose not to acknowledge any of it. You don't even understand that the very statistics that you are trying to use are skewed in favor of whites and against blacks due to the racism that is in the entire system, from government all the way down the the very citizens.
 
Last edited:

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,183
4,830
136
  • Wow
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
5,183
4,830
136
George Bush weighs in:


"It is a strength when protesters, protected by responsible law enforcement, march for a better future. ... Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America - or how it becomes a better place,"
 
Feb 4, 2009
29,920
10,469
136
Holy shit!...Remind me to check the current weather in Hell.

Yeah, cnn links on my phone suck so I didn’t read it but from what I heard Robertson appears to be following the same logic as my Pastor.
Everyone including the President has a right to go to Church. No one has the right to remove a bunch of others at the Church so they can attend.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
23,756
1,842
136
Oh, wait! No need for all this ado over the clearing out of the protesters and how it was done. It wasn't intentional, just a coincidence that the area cleared was the path he took to get to the church.

At least according to Barr:

"Barr said it was a coincidence that law enforcement cleared the area later used for the President's walk to the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church, where he posed for a photo."

Just a coincidence.

Right.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 
Dec 10, 2005
20,998
2,470
126
Oh, wait! No need for all this ado over the clearing out of the protesters and how it was done. It wasn't intentional, just a coincidence that the area cleared was the path he took to get to the church.

At least according to Barr:

"Barr said it was a coincidence that law enforcement cleared the area later used for the President's walk to the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church, where he posed for a photo."

Just a coincidence.

Right.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Being a "coincidence" doesn't make what happened better. I think it makes it even worse because then you were moving those people for no reason.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
32,869
11,615
146
Oh, wait! No need for all this ado over the clearing out of the protesters and how it was done. It wasn't intentional, just a coincidence that the area cleared was the path he took to get to the church.

At least according to Barr:

"Barr said it was a coincidence that law enforcement cleared the area later used for the President's walk to the nearby St. John's Episcopal Church, where he posed for a photo."

Just a coincidence.

Right.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Just insulting to the average american at this point.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY