UKC

Just when you thought he couldn't become more repellent, he manages to

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/20/donald-trump-jnr-compares-r...

Total arsewipe.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

That story's about his son, isn't it?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I can't believe people still read the Guardian after all that has emerged over the past couple of years.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


Like what?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I love that by reading the twitter responses there is always one american who can still somehow make it about guns.

In reply to galpinos:

Daring to disagree with Saint Farage at a guess.

In reply to Lemony:

Good spot.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:



You don't need to read the Guardian to know that Trump is a dangerous c*nt.

In reply to GarethSL:

To be fair, that was a pretty good tweet. Also, if I was living with such a high chance of being randomly gunned down in a mass-shooting and one of the presidential candidates was openly wooing the NRA, gun control would be on my mind too.

The tweet, in case we read different ones:

In reply to Andy Hardy:

'In a tongue-in-cheek article, Washington Post journalist Philip Bump did some calculations around Donald Jr's statement, using data showing that the annual chance that an American would be murdered by a foreign-born terrorist was 1 in 3,609,709.

Based on his sums, it would take about one and a half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles in order to find three killers.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37416457

In reply to TMM:

Olympic swimming pools - that well known SI unit for sweets

In reply to galpinos:

Well, the list goes on and on. But just recently:

- If you're not a reader of Private Eye: http://www.private-eye.co.uk/street-of-shame

- They are also not particularly good at upholding their own ideals with maternity pay. (Noted in Private Eye article as well as elsewhere)

- Tax avoidance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocri... If you don't like this source then have a google, lots of others.

The list goes on. While the writers may well have some integrity, the organisation is abysmal and has been for years. It always amazes me so many people think they're a trustworthy left leaning organisation.

EDIT: please do note this isn't to say anything about my opinion of the buffoon that is Trump. I feel if we're going to discuss these things everyone would be better off if we were to avoid Daily Mail/Guardian sources given lack of journalistic integrity and straight up hypocrisy respectively.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:


And I think we should embrace *every* source - and the more the better. The important thing is to get your news from multiple places. If the Guardian is one of them, so be it.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
OMG, this just in : Donald Trump is an arse!

Who knew?!

As Lemony said, actually about his son anyway.

Who ,apparently, is also a bit of an arse.

I'm beginning to see a pattern emerging......

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

I was aware of the zero hours and tax bits, not the maternity pay. They aren't whiter than white but a lot of their output is good imo.

In reply to galpinos:


Yeah, I do agree. As I say, the writers are good. But the management and the structure is just so out of line with what they appear to stand for, I don't think they are supportable as a whole.

In reply to Xharlie:


Actually, it's not a high chance of getting killed by a shooting.

Deaths per 100,000 with guns:
10.3

Deaths per 100,000 by Prius cars:
14.5


You are more likely to die by poisoning or an RTC than a Shooting.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

As much as the whole thing seems incredibly hypocritical, I'm still concerned that they'll have disappeared in ten years time (I think that's when the pot runs out) and the mainstream press will be all right wing. I think they provide a valid and important counter the mainly rightwing media outlets that dominate at the moment.

Having said that, their circulation is pretty low (I think the website is better) so maybe their loss won't make that much of a difference if they're just preaching to the converted.

In reply to Bootrock:
Source?

(as the number of fatalities in the US due to motor vehicles is about 10 per 100,000, I would imagine that meme is bo**ocks?)

In reply to Bootrock:






Firstly, that is not correct, at all, the numbers for car deaths are lower and it includes all cars, not priuses. It is a manipulated stat that occasionally does the rounds on right wing websites.

But there is some context, its just not the context you think:

www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rates/1784595/

In short, automobile deaths across america are fallingto the point where they are almost the same as gun deaths.

Most people would be of the opinion that driving is a little more important that having a gun in a 1st world 21st century country. And if you are not alarmed that deaths by firearms are almost the same as deaths by vehicles then I don't think you're humaning correctly.

In reply to galpinos:

Didn't get it from a meme brah. I don't have Facebook. Or social media, if I drunk soya latte and voted remain, you would think I was a hipster...

Wait I love Soya Lattes.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/liberal-media-gun-grabbers-ignore-l...

In reply to sensibleken:


And why are they rising? Could it be an increase of the target rich environments that are hundred zones?
Could it be domestic terrorism?

Driving is still a responsibility. People don't need super Gucci speed machines, but they still buy them.

http://www.simplefactsplainarguments.com/2013/01/6-things-that-kill-more-pe...

In reply to Bootrock:



No, simple answer. Principally because car deaths are not rising, they are falling due to better regulation. which is the point.



And it doesn't matter if there are some things that kill more than guns. If heart attacks kill more people than strokes, it doesn't mean you stop treating strokes.

In reply to TMM:

Based on his sums, it would take about one and a half Olympic swimming pools of Skittles in order to find three killers.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37416457

Wouldn't 1 swimming pool to find 2 killers have been enough to get the point across?

In reply to Bootrock:

You've lost me? No mention of electric car driving hippies running down excessive amounts of tubby yanks?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

The original meme referenced three skittles.

In reply to Lemony:

fair enough, I just read the original news story now. Three skittles from a handful would kill you. Those odds sound more like what gladiators faced rather than US citizens

In reply to Bootrock:




Obvious bollocks. Try using your brain a little instead of swallowing everything you read on barking websites. Even if true, the conclusion would be we need to regulate both gun and Prius ownership, which we of course in fact do pretty well in the UK which has very low gun deaths and some of the worlds safest roads.

In reply to MG:


I did like the neat touch of using "Prius" as the example since thats some sort of hippy type of car.

In reply to Bootrock:


You realize that UKC is, err, social media?

In reply to MG:

And a huge rise in violent crime since 1996.


Drugs are rife too, maybe we should make them illegal as well.

kevinD have a like for that,.

In reply to MG:

You raise an interesting point. I reject it. Because I am anti social and don't like most of you snowflakes.


I jest. I just like rocking the boat.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I read Private Eye quite a lot, it strikes me that the journalism is possibly often better than the company when it comes to the Guardian. Where things are referenced or based on fact - I don't think what's written should be discredited.

In reply to sensibleken:


LOL. Not humaning properly... seems a fair assessment of Bootrock to me
jk

In reply to Bootrock:


Correlation isn't causation. Frankly in this case it's a bit of a stretch to see much correlation.


Regulation and prohibition aren't the same thing.

If it wasn't for halfwit rightwing arseclowns steering drug policy in the UK we might actually focus on harm reduction rather than criminalisation.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:

so you see yourself as a bit of a maverick ?

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=im...

In reply to Bootrock:


Where? Currently lowest for decades in the UK - see for example Figure 1
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletin...

and in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#/media/File:Violent_Crime_in_th...

Making stuff up doesn't make it true.

In reply to jkarran:


We will see how liberal you are when you have to deal with junkies, or get stabbed by a junkie, or fall foul of their tricks and hidden needles placed to incapacitate good people.

harm reduction, classic. That's the motto of the snowflake brigade.

Yes Lummox, a maverick fighting against the snowflake brigade.

MG:
http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after...

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-abo...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-...

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01940/SN01940.pdf

In reply to Bootrock:
None of those show a "huge rise in violent crime since 1996". They mostly show a decline, with a peak in the early 2000s for some offences relating to fire arms, and murder, in part due to changes in reporting. Stop making stuff up and try thinking, even just a little.

In reply to Bootrock:


WTF are you on about?


Yeah, harm reduction, reducing the harm drugs do to individuals and society. Perhaps you'd like to argue against that as an objective?

What's with the snowflake thing anyway, it makes you sound like a frothing tosser?
jk

In reply to jkarran:



I imagine him more as a Top Gunner.

In reply to jkarran:
I am a tosser. Deal with it. Unlike you snowflakes I don't go around worrying about what people think of me if I say one thing or another, or worry about offending anyone.

But yea, cheers, everyone else will pick up the tab for someone's poor life choices. Why is it always everyone else's responsibility and problem for some junkie? It's never their fault is it. And you would be surprised what is funded by The illegal drug trade. So I reject your harm reduction. And stand by criminalisation.

MG, it would appear that there was a rise, wire a big rise, a peak in 2000s and the. A small decrease, and a rise again this year.
I do think, we just think differently. You think the world is pink and fluffy and we can all love each other. And I see the world for what it is, and what humans can do to each other.

A change in reporting? Like the changing of statistics and crimes to make an increase in a specific crime look like an overall decrease?


The original meme was "If there was 10,000 M&Ms in a bowl and 10 were posoined and would kill you, would you take a handful"

In reply to Bootrock:

I bet you went to the School of Hard Knocks as well.

Followed by the University of Life.

Not like all those effin snowflakes eh ?

In reply to Bootrock:


We already do pick up the tab. So if I understand your position correctly you're standing by a demonstrably failed policy driven by right wing dogma over evidence? One that costs us all significant amounts of money, delivers a lucrative drugs trade into the hands of serious organised criminals and does precious little to tackle people's addictions so they continue to offend against society between expensive stints in gaol or hospital to fund their addiction to illegally sourced, often dangerously adulterated drugs? That's your position and I'm the wooly-minded idiot in this conversation?

Who gives a flying f*** who's responsibility you think it is, it's plainly in our collective interest to help clean them up and reintegrate them into society wherever possible while taking drug money out of the hands of organised criminals.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:

I suspect the whole "will kill you" is a red herring just to garner support. In reality, Donald Trump Jnr (and I suspect a lot of Americans) just don't want a lot of Muslims coming into the country regardless of the miniscule risk of one of them becoming a terrorist. We are seeing it in Europe as well. Forget the terrorist angle, it's just propaganda. The crux of this is anti muslim immigration because a lot of people just don't like the religion and humans are atavistically wired to being provincial.

In reply to jkarran:
Revels would have been a better sweet for the analogy.

If you have a nut allergy then the peanut one could definitely kill you. If you don't have a nut allergy, then the coffee one is a little fcker that spoils the whole experience.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
absolutely- what vicious sadist came up with the idea of the coffee one in the first place...?

evil, on a par only with Hitler, and celery.

edit: there appears to be a celery fan on here- deviant...

In reply to lummox:

Judging by some of his posts, I think he also spent some of his very early childhood in the Nursery of Being Dropped on Your Head.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

<Tedious UKC pedantry alert>

That would be a legume allergy; peanuts are not nuts.
Most people with a nut or peanut allergy tend to avoid both but it's quite possible to be allergic to peanuts but unaffected by true nuts, or vice versa.

<Sorry>

In reply to deepsoup: Apology accepted.

But that's the beauty of using revels, anyone who falls through the net of a nut allergy that doesn't react to peanuts can still be snared with the coffee one

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

I typed up a big reply to this but it disappeared when I went to look for a link.

I can't be hooped to type it out again. And I am at work. I will see what I can club together after work.

Long and short of it was stop being such a left wing special snowflake. Why aren't the Rich Arab states helping their brothers.
And with 205298 people killed in terrorist attacks since 2001 by Islamists, doesn't seem like a propaganda angle to me?

They don't like the religion because innocent people keep getting killed for a fairytale. And they keep forcing their values onto other people.

I don't exactly see the Dalai Lama cutting people's heads off.

In reply to Bootrock:


Let me guess. Another invented "fact"?

In reply to MG:

No, It too me ages with a calculator, and a pen and paper.
I forgot to mention, that's not the UK that's numerous other countries too.

In reply to Bootrock:


You have to keep saying that though don't you, because you keep posting false stats which are typically popularised through memes. To be honest, you'd be better off saying you did get them from memes - as you didn't get them from any legitimate (read: accurate) sources...

In reply to Bootrock:


Most of us don't pick our views based on whether or not they offend people, just based on whether or not they are morally right.


You don't get it do you? The point of harm reduction is that it benefits everyone, by not pushing people into a situation where they are criminalised and then end up acting in the ways you feel objectionable. Who do you think is more likely to do something bitter and harmful to others - someone who is ostracised by society and suffers as a result (and therefore doesn't mind lashing out, or who they hurt), or someone who is offered treatment and understanding?


That view of people says more about you than about the rest of the world.

In reply to Bootrock:

So complete bullshit, as I expected. Again, a moment's thought might have made you question the suspiciously.round number

Heres a more honest attemptnto count

https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism/

In reply to Bootrock:


Even by your standards claiming that was in the UK would have been pushing it.

In reply to Bootrock:


Who is "they" ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

"They" and "the religion" can be any demographic and any religion you like and that statement about killing for a fairytale and forcing values onto other people will be true at some point in history, making it meaningless and, consequently, irrelevant to Bootrock's point - whatever that may be.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
Getting back on topic, though the distractions above are amusing...
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/20/nazi-who-originated-donald-trump-jr-s-s...

To be fair to the frothing right wing; I'm sure they can come up with original and interesting abuse of foreigners, all on their very own. It's just that they don't.

In reply to MG:




How *dare* you bring actual *evidence* to the debate. You bleeding hearted libtard. That's what Hitler did, probably. I bet you even like celery.

In reply to Bootrock:

So how come they seem OK with Christianity - probably the religion with the bloodiest history

In reply to lummox:




I think The Kindergarten of having the shit kicked out of him probably featured as well.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

I am just back from work, and can't be bothered going through this yet. But I saw this,

Yea Christianity was pretty violent, we all know the crusades, can you tell me about the expansion of a certain religion before the crusades?
And I don't like Christianity. I don't like any religion.

Religion is just mankind's attempt to answer the big questions in life.
Faith means to believe without evidence.


But at least we have a seperatiom of church and state. Although Religion has no place in modern society.

In reply to Bootrock:


Are you congenitally incapable of getting anything correct!? We don't have separation of church and state.

In reply to balmybaldwin:

*history*. It is what is happening today that is concerning.

In reply to elliott92:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


MG you are quite right, It was a heavy night shift, I meant we need seperation of church and state. Although I am sure I remember reading that Scotland has a desperate Church from state but I can't remember.

In reply to Bootrock:


I love this response, its just great!

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I note that most of that data is pretty dated though....most seem to stop around 2009. A lot has happened since then, which would push the figures up considerably.

Best,

Steve

In reply to Andy Hardy:
Always find it amusing that people are so shocked by the thoughts that run through Trumps head. So he speaks how he thinks, do you not find it refreshing that there is no second guessing with him. I certainly do and if all politicians were as open and honest about how they feel about certain issues then I reckon the world would be a better place. We'd know better the intentions of those we elect instead of this second guessing game about just how they really feel and how motivated they are .

In reply to Dominicandave:

But his opinions change on a daily basis! For example with Obama's birth certificate. There is nothing honest about him whatever and there is endless second guessing as a result.

In reply to Dominicandave:

I'm more shocked that he spent so little time thinking through the issues than by what comes out of his gob.

In reply to MG:


Interesting you don't find his opinions an honest insight into how he feels. So you don't believe he is as horrid as many make out? His views are a well thought out plan to shock and disgust, is that what you're saying? He's really pretending to be this dangerous prospect.......... interesting idea, but I disagree, I think he speaks as he sees things and how he feels.
I think that's a bit much for people to handle, they're so used to not hearing a view from a none politician go out as a politician. Politicians being open and speaking as they see things, it's nice, even a novelty I guess many will be voting for purely for that reason.

In reply to Dominicandave:



That would be nice if it was true. Only a cursory knowledge of the mans positions shows he does far from - saying how he sees it.. or if he does he sees it a different way every few minutes.

He has no core positions, he has been pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-democrat and pro-religion. Pro racism and supposedly banning segregation. He has campaigned for people to be executed who were innocent.

He wants a minority government but also a database of US Muslims.

If anyone thinks he 'speaks as he sees things' they just do not fact check what he says. He lies and lies and accuses others of lying. Its like a little 4 year old.

Go over all his statements, he's flip flopped and flipped on immigration only recently. We've gone from banning muslims to only certain countries, he's said he's not a racist and then wanted a hispanic judge taken off his case as he's mexican... He's even talked about a legal path for citizenship, then after hearing the uproad jumped back. Even though leaving and coming back in legally is in fact obamas policy that the republicans are so up in arms about.

He's a con man, a salesman who will say anything his target audience want to here and he will change depending on who his target audience is.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Is it not human for people to change their mind, even more so as they see things develop? I just think this is another positive, a guy not so stuck in his own mind that he is afraid to change it and not give a toss about what the people will think about that. There is something more human about his approach to politics.
Just look where we are, I reckon there are plenty Brits who wish our own politicians would have flip flopped on this call for referendum, or even a second chance, but nope even though it is being slowly accepted that this Brexit might work against us in more ways than one I am sure many who voted to leave would now change, but for exactly the reasons you complain about above there is no chance of any of this.
Changing stance on things as there is progression is natural, to stand in defeat without backing down is stupidity.

This is not about my view on Trump running the US, this is about his approach to it, I wish more were so human about it.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Yes, in part.


No he's dangerous but more because he is a dishonest narcissist out for himself and no one else.

Yes. Which is the problem. Acting on feeling isn't a good thing for country leaders

In reply to MG:


What and others have the publics best interests at heart? Come on...................
How do you know this.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Most have what they see as the public best interests at heart, yes.

Know what?

In reply to Dominicandave:

Making quasi fascist racist statements that he knows will play well with his core support, and rowing back on them when a critical mass of outrage is generated by them, isn't a sign of admirable flexibility.

Its utterly irresponsible opportunism, toxic to the fabric of society, and amoral. Even if he is defeated, he will leave a poisonous legacy which may have permanently changed the US for the worse.

There is nothing admirable about this man; he is contemptible.

In reply to MG:

If only we could persuade Tyson Fury to enter politics in the UK we'd have a man unafraid to speak his mind or change it whenever necessary.
Imagine Tyson Fury leading a potentially successful political campaign where he might get real power.
Trump is the American version of that scenario.
What l can't understand or forgive is senior Republicans who support Trump.

In reply to Bootrock:

You seem not to understand the true character of a snowflake, and underestimate them. Snowflakes cause blizzards and create glaciers.

In reply to damhan-allaidh:

10/10 for effort with that. Have a like.

Snowstorms that hamper a correct route, and you have to navigate through a haze of shite to find the right way.

A bit like you lefties knee jerk reactions to things.


As an interesting point, anyone see which political group grew in popularity lately in Germany?

In reply to Bootrock:
But snowstorms are no real problem for those with the skills to handle them. Indeed they can be exhilarating and a proper test of mettle for the properly equipped. Only the ill prepared and inexperienced would find them a problem...

And afterwards- what a magical transformation they make to the landscape. They lift the spirit of all. Well, except for misanthropic old Daily Mail readers, who as usual will find some sour note to wallow in...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




Nice words but possibly the majority of America disagrees with you.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Ok I am lost with that first bit.


And no it doesnt. It just covers everything in a fluffy layer. The same shit is under it, and eventually it melts away to expose the same shit there was before.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Yes. How utterly depressing.

In reply to Bootrock:


Well it's your metaphor, i'm just running with it....


So what you're saying is that the default right wing landscape is shit, and the blizzard of left wing ideas can briefly cover up this ugly view; but that they are doomed not to last as some sort of latent selfishness and mean spiritedness will inevitably take over?

Well, it's a pretty pessimistic view, but I'm glad we agree on the inherent ugliness of right wing politics. ...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

You see the world as pink and fluffy, I see the world for what it is.

Politics shouldn't be about left or right.

In reply to Bootrock:
You have no idea how I see the world, and i'd suggest its risky making assumptions about my views based on a few posts on here, given that half of them have been facetious comparisons of celery fans with Nazis.

And I certainly wouldn't be so grandiose as to think my view of the world, whatever it actually is, represents some underlying fundamental Truth.

Especially if I had a tendency to get confused by my own metaphors. ...



Edit: I'd agree with you on the point about left and right though. It's lazy shorthand, and redundant, regressive thinking.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
You like your world pink and fluffy, I have seen a different world.
I wasn't confused by my metaphor. I lost interest in your reply to it.


I am glad we can agree on something. That's progress I suppose. If it counts for anything, I sometimes find myself wanting to think like you lot, but I just can't.

In reply to Bootrock:
Ok its just when you said 'I'm lost with that first bit', I took it that you were meaning that you were lost with that first bit.

And im not sure which 'lot' you think im with. It can't be a left wing lot, since we've agreed that's a crap way of looking at politics. And since I've told you that you shouldn't take my posts on this thread as an accurate statement of my views, not sure why repeat the pink and fluffy bit.

It is possible to have both an appropriately bleak view of human nature, and the almost infinite capacity of human beings for evil, and at the same time think that simplistic solutions that look to division and unnecessary violence are probably going to be unhelpful.

And also to recognise that I can't possibly know all the answers to the world's problems, but that I can recognise a nasty lying demagogue when I see one. ..

In reply to Dominicandave:

No, if he thought being pro-Mexican would get him power he would.. I dont think he's actually racist, well I'm not sure, but he plays up to those who support him who hold those views.

Change your mind? Of course.. 3 times within a week on your major core policy? So what is his message?

he is the ultimate politician, not at all honest and if you even look at his business dealings you can read about his dishonesty. Taking small contractors, they work on credit to install so many hundred toilets in a hotel, and he says sue me, knowing they have no more credit and so just have to struggle to survive. Is that an admirable quality?

In reply to Dominicandave:


And this shows a gross ignorance of US politics. Check voting levels, voter turnout how many total votes. Its not even the majority of the eligible voters.

Its those who are motivated to vote, it is why lies are so dangerous, we've just seen it with Brexit.

He could well win but that doesnt mean he's supported by all those who vote. Many in this election are voting either to be against the other or for the justices... actual support for either is historically low.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I am somewhat suspicious that senior democrats and republicans were out on the piss one night and after a few too many shots made a bet about who could get the worse candidate.

In reply to Dominicandave:


I don't think standing up to the fascists, even if you're losing, is stupidity.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Ignorance of US politics? Then forgive my ignorance in thinking when 2 candidates go up against each other and one wins this would mean a majority preferred to support the winner. I didn't realize people were obliged to vote in support of Trump even if they didn't want to.

Yes I get the point that people are voting for one purely to vote against the other and not what the other stands for, but you can not get away from the fact that each vote is in 'support' of. Those not voting are void, not for or against and so are irrelevant there is a choice of they are truly against him.

In reply to KevinD:


I had that exact same thought. But then I realised they couldn't have chosen worse even if they were trying.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:



Or that the right wingers see an imperfect landscape that needs some work, while the blizzard of left wing ideas that covers it is dazzling and pretty but also makes the world much more awkward to live in, and then when it clears it leaves the mess it originally covered and more mess created by it... Nice in it's place of course - in the deserted wilderness.

In reply to Dominicandave:


That is not the majority of America.... that is the majority of those who chose to vote.

In reply to KevinD:


The common joke is they are facing the only candidate in history they could beat..

Johnson is seen as a preferable candidate and his tax policies hurt the poor and his Syrian comments...

I think Hilary, 4 years, allow the republicans to get in shape and then they will get in. Its rare you win more than 3 elections. After 8 years the country normally wants to change but now they have Trump as that option...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Correct, during an election those are the ones who count.
Anyone deciding not to vote obviously feels confident enough that those who do will make the right decision for them, and so are in support of the winner. Anyone who felt strongly enough against either would vote against them.

In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:

- Tax avoidance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/28/the-insufferable-hypocri... If you don't like this source then have a google, lots of others.


You take full advantage of the tax system you are presented with.
Why would anyone do anything else?
What you are essentially saying is that it is not acceptable to disagree with and/or work to change a system while operating within it.

In reply to Dominicandave:


So it is not the majority of America....

And your last point no! That is very Un-American. Many many live out in the woods away from anyone, deep in Appalachia and HATE all government. They just refuse to partake at all. My states motto is live free or die, whilst ironically needing a permit for a yard fire, but many come here to avoid any government. They just do not want to be involved with politics.

You have a gross misunderstanding of what voter apathy means and how much some have detached from society. They have no faith at all in government, they despise it, others just dont care either way.

In reply to Bootrock:


As a point of interest, is your definition of "lefties" simply someone who doesn't accept all of Bootrock's "facts" uncritically?

In reply to Roadrunner5:




Oh I don't think so, I understand very well. I have many many American friends, a good circle I built over the last 20 years and they feel exactly the same about their government as most intelligent people do.

So America has a poor turnout on elections and this one will be even worse, and rightly so. I have tried to decide in my own mind who the hell I'd back given the situation and it stinks, I suppose at a push I would have to vote Trump which means I would have supported him over the alternative, which to me is unacceptable, unimaginable and depressing, yes even more so than rolling the dice with Trump.

But you made your point, like anywhere in the world that there is a minority in America that doesn't vote, do politics, I was not referring to those, they really don't count as they made the choice not to count for the future.

If you want me to rephrase it I will. 'Possibly the majority of those Americans who matter will be supporting Trump'.

In reply to Dominicandave:


There's nothing honest or authentic about Donald Trump, not the apparently unfiltered casual bigotry and careless cruelty on display at his appalling rallies, not the conspiracy crackpottery, not the glitzy buisiness persona built on the back of failure and corruption and a history of unpaid creditors, not the quieter more reflective Trump we were shown playing the statesman in Mexico, probably not even the bombastic narcissistic bully we know from television ... He's a chameleon who'll do and say absolutely anything, he'll back whoever will take him further, he'll say whatever he thinks the audience wants or needs to hear to get him on in the world no matter how irresponsible or harmful. Yeah, he's smart enough to do that, big deal, lots of people are unremarkably smart. *That* is why I think he's a nasty dangerous c**t, not because he says some illiberal things at his rallies.


There's nothing nice about what Trump is doing nor is there anything particularly novel, he follows in a long line of similarly ruthless demagogues who stumble upon their moment in history to stoke our fears and appeal to our basest instincts in their grab for power and attention.
jk

In reply to Bootrock:


Try harder.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I can't, it hurts.

In reply to Bootrock:


you some sort of leftie? Fight through the pain and prove yourself a true warrior and defender of freedom against those liberal communist types.

In reply to KevinD:
Ha! You can have a like for that.

That's brighten my day fella. Cheers!

In reply to Dominicandave:

Its actually very very easy who to back.

Who supports equality?

Who will offer family leave for parents, for males, for homosexuals? Trumps is for mothers only... so what about fathers and gay parents?

Who is pro choice? Who will defund abortion clinics?

Who will break up families and deport 11 million of our friends and relatives. It really is the simplest choice.

The justice decision alone should put Clinton in. We've had massive gains under Obama and these must be protected.

In reply to jkarran:

And you know all this because he is so transparent, which is my point.
I have no idea if Trump is a nice guy or not, but he doesn't seem to worry about those who enjoy their daily rant about him, which is rather boring now to be honest. I said seeing his approach and transparency was nice and a novelty to many and could well be why he will get the votes. People look as if they prefer to see this. You only know all you rant about because he can't hide it, it's there and he doesn't seem to care. If this is not the case then we are dealing with the possability that the majority of Americans who will vote are (as you put it) nasty dangerous c*nts, which ever you prefer, but if the latter I'm sure many will disagree.

In reply to DominicanDave: He isn't transparent, not in the slightest.

He parrots soundbites that people want to hear, but what he really believes or what he will do is a mystery, a point well observed by many commentators.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


The evidence has historically never been stronger to say the complete opposite.

In reply to wbo:



I think you are trying to miss the point, or not taking transparency in the context I intend.

In reply to Dominicandave:

You say you believe him to be honest. In which case, why are you supporting someone who believes Mexicans are rapists, that Muslims should be banned from the US and that it is appropriate to withhold medical attention from those suspected of crime, among other things. You don't sound very pleasant if you support such a person.

In reply to Dominicandave:


In an earlier post you say this:


Is that not completely at odds with what you're now apparently claiming, that he's an obviously transparent opportunistic liar, that everyone sees through this yet they somehow still love him for it? We know almost nothing of what Trump thinks when it comes to governing, those with a strong stomach could perhaps look to how he runs his businesses for a clue but all we really know about Trump is his naked ruthless ambition and his petty spiteful narcissism. These aren't the character traits of a great leader.


There's nothing nice or novel about demagogues.


Really? There's a pretty easy way to tell. Do they treat others like shit when it doesn't directly benefit them to do otherwise?
jk

In reply to Dominicandave: What context is that? What do you mean by transparency? I am not trying to be clever, but apart from building a wall and reducing taxes on the rich he has changed his position on just about every other 'policy'.

He will say whatever he thinks will get some cheers.

In reply to MG:


I don't need to support anyone, and have stated many times that this is a ridiculous decision to have to make, so don't try to spin it on me agreeing with Trumps policies. If forced into it then I probably would vote for Trump but purely against Clinton, but that is irrelevant. I even made the effort to take Trump as a person out of the point I was making so that this wouldn't happen, but you've tried anyway.
If it makes it easier for your mind to understand, try imagining Trump as a hopeless 9 year old that couldn't keep his real feeling no matter how gross, to himself. That should not be difficult for most of you. Now maybe you understand what I mean, if you don't then try harder or just don't.

In reply to jkarran:


That is exactly what I am saying, I think people are enjoying it and prepared to take the gamble for novelty reasons. They are getting a clean canvas as like you say no one knows what his going to do or how good or bad he will turn out. He could even get in and surprise everyone as he realises the realities and restrictions of what he's doing. Obviously he doesn't have a clue and we know this by some of the stuff he has come out with, which has been utterly ridiculous.
That idea might well be as crazy as the concept that Trump gets in, but it is a thought on why he is so well supported.

In reply to wbo:



And he hasn't been bothered about doing so has he, he's all over the place but people can at least see how all over the place he is. It's obviously working isn't it, understand it or not.

In reply to Dominicandave:

so you appear to consider voting for someone = not supporting their policies.

ok, if you like, but i'm not sure your will find many people who think that's a credible position to take

and imagining an emotionally incontinent and petulant 9 year old taking the job as the most powerful person on the planet is about as dystopian as it gets. why on earth would anyone consider that would make him attractive as a candidate? are you really sure that's a comparison that will help your argument?

In reply to Dominicandave:


youtube.com/watch?v=a-xjiXfJ58Q&


And you try telling that to the families of Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, Steven Smith and Chris Stevens..

In reply to Dominicandave:


So your analysis is that currently somewhere just under 50% of US voters support someone who is like a hopeless 9 year old as their future leader and they see this as "refreshing" and a good thing?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I do not think I have said anything of the sort, but no doubt you are about to have a damn good go at spinning something I have said and so go ahead.
I can only speculate as to why people would vote for Trump, and this is about as good as it gets.
Maybe it is an accurate sign of what the people feel they have been left with. Or are you going with the idea that the majority of voters are nasty horrible c*nts, as was mentioned earlier.

In reply to Dominicandave:


If you were gay, black or muslim or hispanic you would say the opposite.

How come 98% of black people in America support Clinton.

If you support oppression, support Trump

One of my best friend is undocumented, been here 12 years, pays tax, has an american wife, american kid, runs a business, employs local americans, earns more than I do, owns a house, clean record. To say he's worried is an understatement,. He's already said if he gets deported his wife and kid stay here without him.

In reply to Dominicandave:
Again you seem totally blind to how spiteful this man is. He knows very well what he does. WHat do you tell those workers who racked up huge debts working on what they thought were life changing deals to be told he wont pay.. knowing they were under so much debt they couldnt make a claim. He'd then offer half and pay them even less than that and they were forced to accept it. The man was partly responsible for destroying areas of NJ's economy.

In reply to MG:


Not the entire support, there are many genuine supporters of Trump out there who fully support him for all the reasons that just as many will not. And then those who would support anything other than Clinton. But trying to understand why those in the middle, lost who are being swayed in his direction are leaning then you have to look at what is infront of you, and that is what I see. It's new, he's new, no one really knows what he'll grow up to be.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

There are lots of white comparitively well off straight males saying life will be no different between HRC or DT.. which it wont be. Life doesnt change much for those people. Its the ones who can now adopt, marry, even bring in fiance's that life changes with progress. Progress Obama finally brought in. If you support that regression in society then no, there is no difference.

In reply to Roadrunner5:




No I wouldn't, I couldn't change the facts no matter what my race, religion or sexual orientation, I don't get to make these stats. It is evident that more people than ever are not finding this decision very easy, as you claimed.

In reply to Dominicandave:

There's lots of people only thinking for themselves.

Even yesterday he wants more stop and frisk, a practice stopped because a judge said was racist..... So yes he is supporting racist practices. SO for me, and any right-minded person this should be an easy decision unless you support racist stances.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Why would you presume such a thing. How I feel or what I feel about Trump has nothing to do with this election. All I can do is try to understand why he is so popular. You wouldn't expect him to be as popular as this given what he has suggested over recent months. But he is and it is very interesting given how he has more or less cut out certain demographic from possibly voting for him, so he is doing unbelievably well considering that alone.

In reply to Dominicandave:


well, you said that you would vote for him, if you were eligible. this might have been intended as an 'anti-clinton' vote, but voting for someone, whether you like it or not, is an endorsement of their policies and politics, and increases the likelihood that they will get the opportunity to actually do the things that they say they want to. When the things Trump says he wants to do are so absurd, unpleasant or both, then voting Trump is voting for absurd unpleasantness.

So saying you would vote for him, but that you don't support his policies, is just wrong; the act of voting is by definition support for their policies.



yes, i agree with you there. but there are other ways of approaching a failing political system that don't involve putting someone who you regard as having the emotional maturity of a 9 year old in charge of it. I can't respect anyone that takes that approach to the problem

In reply to Roadrunner5:



That depends where you stand on the 'stop and frisk' issue. Many don't believe this is a racist stance, myself included. But given that anyone who confronts these issues in the US these days is a racist I suspect people are not really bothered about people calling them racist. Racism has been utterly devalued, it means nothing as it is thrown around so flippantly these days. To be called a racist only means you have discussed crime stats by race with a black person. So you can agree with him on this without being racist, and I have a feeling many many people will.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


No I did not, I said if I was pushed into a corner where I had to vote then I would probably vote for Trump purely as Clinton was not even an option. Get it right!

In reply to Dominicandave:

apologies; but what you are describing is such an abstract and unlikely set of circumstances, it looked like you were saying that, if you were a US citizen, you'd vote trump.

I still don't get the 'clinton not an option, but trump is', position. is that based on policy? as iain says, she does actually put forward a coherent and, for the US, relatively progressive programme. If its based on character though- it would need such wilfull blindness to Trump's character flaws, i fail to see how any rejection of hilary based on this area would not lead to just as virulent rejection of Trump.

In reply to Dominicandave:

The US courts judged it to be racist

And just because he's popular doesn't mean he's right..

In reply to Dominicandave:
So you don't think a racially profiled stop and frisk isn't racist ? History is not on your side

You, I guess, have no idea how much trouble racially profiled traffic stops have caused? Ferguson?

In reply to wbo:


Side issue I know, but - Ferguson wasn't racially profiled stop and frisk (or a traffic stop)
Wilson was identified as the person sought by police having just robbed a convenience store, and the "hands up don't shoot" narrative has been discredited by witness and forensic evidence.

In reply to wbo:

There was one guy, no shot dead, he was stopped something like 60 times, almost always for nothing. That's once a week. In the US even for minor traffic violations you can got to jail until you get to see a judge and if you cant afford the fine it's jail. Its just horrific how badly the poor are treated.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

No it didn't, it looked nothing like that. I even went out of my way to make it very clear, but for your argument I suppose to you it suited YOU better that it looked as you chose to mislead. I didn't and it didn't, so don't try and join dots that I haven't put out there, it devalues any good argument you otherwise had.
If I was a fan of Trump I would not have any issue at all in saying so, just as I am happy to tell you I am for the increase in 'stop and frisk' policies. This alone does not make me a Trump supporter.

In reply to Dominicandave:

You don't communicate as clearly as you think you do.
jk

In reply to Dominicandave:


It did. For example "So he speaks how he thinks, do you not find it refreshing that there is no second guessing with him. I certainly do and if all politicians were as open and honest about how they feel about certain issues then I reckon the world would be a better place. "

It is quite reasonable to take that as at least tacit support for Trump.

In reply to off-duty:



It was.. A lot of the resentment came from racial profiling in traffic stops. It was a much wider issue, the shooting was just the flash point

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/are-the-racial-disparities-in-fergusons-...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Anyone who wants to address the realities of crime and race in the USA is a racist, didn't you know that. The label has no value, it isn't even an insult to someone who doesn't consider they deserve it anymore.
Absolutely.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



That's a lot of post hoc attempts to justify rioting, some of the numbers may be true, but the reality was that the Ferguson riots were directly caused by the shooting of Wilson.
Wilson's stop was justified - not racially profiled, and not a traffic stop, and there was found to be no case to answer for his shooting.

In reply to MG:


If you want to then you can, but it's not, and if you have read my posts prior to that then it is very obvious that I do not consider Trump to be a suitable candidate, quite to opposite. What I meant by it is that if people with better qualifications for the job were as open as he is with every changing thought, bad thought, reckless thought then we would be in a much better position to judge who deserves to be in office. We know Trump is not suitable because we see how he thinks, we know Clinton is not suitable because we know her history. Would it not be a better place if everything was so transparent that we knew, is it not better that we know about Trump before he gets in, and know that if Clinton does get in that there will be alot of deception. Maybe I'm not making as much sense as I think I am, maybe you're right, but it does make sense and certainly is not about my liking for Trump, but maybe a little about my very serious dislike for Clinton.

In reply to Dominicandave:

well, it looks like you weren't anywhere like as clear as you think you were, as i appear to be far from alone in forming the opinions i did. suggest you revisit what you've posted, as the bits where you express admiration for him, such as in the example MG cites, could give the reader a reasonable belief that you are supportive of him. Its not our fault if your contributions are internally inconsistent, and accusing others of bad faith when they're just trying to make sense of what you posted isn't really fair.


that's fine. but when you say you find him 'refreshing', and suggest the world would be a better place if more politicians were open in the way he is, forgive us for thinking that that looks like supportive language. We're not suggesting that you make donations to his campaign, or that you have joined the republican party, just that you appear to express admiration for him and claim that the traits he displays are positive ones.

Well, not everyone agrees; as has been repeatedly pointed out, his continued shifting of position looks nothing like principled idealism and everything like cynical opportunism. And while it might be refreshing for some to have a politician who speaks like a loudmouth at the bar, tossing out simplistic solutions to intractable problems like they are self evidently true, and belittling anyone who disagrees, others will take the view that this is the behaviour of a crass bully, and a bigot, and that it makes him entirely unsuitable for the office he aspires to.


EDIT: OK just read your last reply to MG and think i can see where you are coming from more clearly now...

In reply to off-duty:



Again you are grossly underestimating how often people are stopped... 10's of times. Constant police attention. There is genuine resentment, this doesnt justify the riots but it does explain the resentment and that is justified. You can check the stats, the ferguson police were racially profiling. In the US traffic stops are a genuine source of town incomes so the police do chase targets. The poor are easier to target as they cannot afford the fees to clear their names, so almost always pay the lower fee. Rich white guys will probably send their lawyer, I went to court myself at a greater expense than just paying the initial fine but cleared my name.

In reply to Dominicandave:



As someone who lives here I think you are wrong. And the US courts have judged racial profiling to be wrong. It is wrong for the police to stop you going about your daily basis on the colour of your skin.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I agree, racial profiling is wrong, even more so if it results in stop searches as a result of the colour of your skin, but....

It can be very hard to unpick racism on the basis of stats - eg if black people are disproportionately represented in stops and arrests but are also disproportionately responsible for crime - then those stops and arrests MIGHT be entirely justified.

In the case of Watson - if he was stopped "for being black" it would be an entirely different matter to "matching the description of, and coming from the vicinity of, a convenience store theft"

In reply to Dominicandave:


Would you vote for him or not ?

In reply to Dominicandave:


Oxford dictionary : Racism "The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.".

So discussing crime stats by race, in itself, is not racist, but being of the view that all members of a specific race are more likely to commit crimes than another race, is racist. Unfortunately this is often the kind of views you hear when people discuss crime stats by race.

In reply to off-duty:

Oh I agree on that, but also it was based on lies... by the witness.

It was jumped on by the black lives matter movement, perhaps wrongly but the underlying bad feeling that they tapped into was genuine grievances.

I do think the BLM movement react too fast and don't always wait for enough facts to come in. I think there should be expedited investigations and cameras released in days and then they can protest genuinely. Right now the protests are happening too soon and before facts are known.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I have already addressed this with you and I don't buy this fragile BS. In parts of the US where some of my friends live black men are 7 times more likely to be criminals. Now anyone who was to tell me that they shouldn't attract more attention from the police based on these facts does not really qualify for my reality. I can not have the discussion as they are not prepared to be realistic about things.
If you had equal stop and frisk on blacks and whites, yet 80% of the guns were being carried by blacks then you are automatically allowing the vast majority of illegal guns to remain on the street, because you don't want to hurt anyones feelings or get labelled racist, which means nothing these days in reality. Sorry, I don't buy any of this ultra PC and racially fragile BS the world has gotten itself into. No one is racist because they want to deal with the issues at hand in the most realistic way possible.

And so what happens, no one wants to upset anyone and so all stop and frisks stop and ALL gun stay on the street............... Great progress people.

In reply to Dominicandave:

I hope this is another case of your posts meanin the opposite of what they look like, but sadly I doubt it.

It's America. The streets are awash with guns, nearly 400 million of them. If you want to deal with guns, then tackling the NRA and bringing in at least rudimentary gun control would be a better bet than harassing black people.

Intelligence led stop and search, based on information about a crime, fine. Just stopping random black people going about their business because other black people have committed a crime, racist and toxic. Creates an environment where the police are seen as 'oppressive', fuels division between communities, and hampers law enforcement as people from the black community won't come to the police with information.

Being against racially profiled stop and search isn't 'PC BS', it's beingaagainst something that is counterproductive. Oh, and its not supporting a racist practice.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I don't think you understand how this works. I know a couple of officers based in NYC and this took a hell of a lot of guns off the street apparently. And I don't think they just go about stopping any black people, only that black people have gone about claiming innocence where yes maybe they were, but in the officers mind they were in an area or acting suspicious enough to warrant a stop and frisk. No officer wants to go about getting all over people for no reason, believe that, risking himself being shot, abused or whatever. No, this is another case of the black community crying racism and getting the call, as they will always. Just look at the crap that is tolerated due to white guilt, we are entering very tricky times, and I believe going about issues in a realistic manner rather than being afraid of upsetting folk is really needed. otherwise things are just going to get more and more out of control. People are forgetting what racism is, or at least redefining it which is silly.

In reply to off-duty: I've missed the above as , shock horror, I've actually been climbing. However, further to my point, and to support Ian (Roadrunner ) while the shooting was the flashpoint that started rioting there was a considerable, and deep seated resentment of the police as they were perceived as being racially biased.
The federal investigation supported this, and had considerable demands and recommendations for changes in police behavior. Dismally one of the tasks of the police was to generate revenue for the city by doling out fines and poor black people with poor legal representation made for a soft target.

Looks like racism to me?

In reply to Dominicandave:


Well you're certainly hammering that point home.
jk

In reply to wbo:



It's very easy to find post hoc "causes" for riots.

They do have an uncanny similarity in that the most violent riots are often in memory of the least attractive "victims" and part of that memorial service appears to involve looting.

As previous, my response was to highlight that the trigger of the Ferguson riots was not a traffic stop or a racial profile stop and frisk.

In reply to jkarran:



I have to as long as people keep misplacing it.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Whoosh...

In reply to Dominicandave:
Just look at the crap that is tolerated due to white guilt

What crap is this?

People are forgetting what racism is, or at least redefining it which is silly.

Remind us what racism is.

In reply to off-duty: but that shooting caused a riot due to the context in which happened, a racially biased arrest pattern deliberately, and illegally, designed not to promote law and order but to generate revenue.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:





Haha, no thanks, if you have't got it yet then you're not paying attention or are part of what I feel is a problem.

In reply to Dominicandave:
Dave, honestly, we're paying attention, but as we realised up thread, your posts aren't as clear as you think they are. So, go on, indulge us; I've got no idea what this crap us white people are tolerating is- help me out.

And as to what racism is, you clearly think it's being redefined by someone. But by who? And what to? You might think you've told us, but just so there's no more misunderstandings, please set it out again.

And what problem might I be part of? Really can't see how encouraging better understanding of our positions could be anything other than a good thing.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Re the more likely to be criminals... they are desperately poor and resent society... its a chicken and and egg issue

In reply to Dominicandave:


Can we talk about white privilege not white guilt.. Black guys serving longer sentences for shop lifting than white rapists.....


This isnt a one off issue. Money buys liberty.

Liberty and Justice for all.. The last line of the pledge which must really stick in the african american and poor peoples throats as it is not true.

I've been there. Ive had issues with the police in the US but as a well off educated white guy I get preferential treatment. That is not equality. That is racism.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


It stems from the beginning that I remember of pc going mad when kids nursery rhymes had to be changed in order not to offend those looking to take offense for something that was not even race related. Remember when this started happening, even advertising having to change labelling where there was no racial intent at all. And it has progressed into what we have today where the likes of the 'black lives matter' movement are able to march on the streets throwing racial slurs around intimidating folk and it is seen as a civil rights movement. Where the equivalent white march is seen as a racist march. They would both be racist movements and should be recognized as such. There is so much going on now that is very plainly creating a racial divide at the hands of black people. Black people feeling they are victims and have no power when they reality is black people have plenty power, it starts at the Whitehouse. There is some kind of delusion going on that white people don't feel racism, are not offended by it, when the reality of the matter is that most of us find racism very offensive, unfortunately through white guilt white people are forced to tolerate it.


It is a trend that is so out of control, being labelled racist means nothing any more. If you are going to call a guy racist for stating facts then what does that mean, a white guy is racist for recognising that black men are more likely to be criminals. No one is saying because someone is black that they are probably going to be a criminal, what is a fact and can not be denied is that percentages state that a black man is more likely to be a criminal. And then we have those that say there is no point in defining crime rates through race as everyone is individual. But then they will turn around and use stats that support their agenda, like likelihood black men being stopped and searched or shot. But the stats that don't support their agenda mean nothing, are not a contributing part of the whole problem. There is alot of cherry picking going on and none of it goes anywhere near helping in bridging that divide.


If you are in support of this I have mentioned above, then as it is not bridging the divide, it is wideing the divide, even creating new issues and so you are a part of the problem. It is about time we started recognising racism for what it is on both sides of this, and not accepting those trying to create a divide. Racism is very ugly, it should not be flung around just because people don't like the sound of something, that is an easy cop out, a way to kill the progress in resolving problems.

In reply to Roadrunner5:





There are also many white convicts locked up innocent then released 10 years later when found innocent. This is not a race thing, this is an issue within the justice system.

In reply to Dominicandave:

No it is not..... You need to go into poor areas. Look if I tried to tell you you were wrong about Dominica what would you say?

Youve been there?

I've lived and taught, my wife worked in the hospital of the US's most violent city. We do understand more than you. I'm sorry but this is just a fact. You seem to think you know more than me because youve read the papers...

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Tell away, I have never been to Dominica and so would not be so stupid as to hold an opinion on somewhere I knew nothing to very little about. And certainly not presume to know more about anything than someone I did not know. That would make me an idiot.
Yes.
You seem to know alot about someone you do not know and therefor can not know anything about.

In reply to Dominicandave:
OK so say.I've lived an worked in NJ, NH, VT, VA, TX, OK, ME. I've visited KA, CA, OR, NY, MD, WV, GA, FA amongst others.

So say which areas have you lived to know about poor black people? Camden Nj? West Philly? Gary Indiana? Give something.. not 'I have friends.. "

So far you are as vague as "People say" which the Donald uses...

Dominican Republic.. sorry, clearly stated on your profile. So 2-300 miles from the Dominica and and closer to that than FA.......
and you gave nothing.. just deflected...

In reply to Roadrunner5:
You have clearly seen more of the US than I, unfortunately this does not automatically give you an authority over others experiences and opinions. Many people who have lived their entire lived in the US share my opinions, I am sure you are aware of that.

Gave nothing, deflected? I have given my opinion which is what people are doing on here.

Are you drunk?

Sleep it off.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Haha.. brilliant.

I'd suggest to you? Are you an old racist drunk to suggest its ok to frisk someone only on skin colour?

You do come across as an odious racist character. Are you drunk?

Sleep it off, think it through, then not judge people on race.

Trump wants to not allow homosexual parents time off when they adopt or have a child. Is that OK for you?

Trump wants to ban judges from deciding cases if it involves people of another race? is that OK?

Trump wants to spilt families who pay tax? Is that OK?

I hear this.. 'Its not personal;" No its not. Not if you don't live here. For me and others it is. I have to look my niece in the eyes and explain where Daddy is if that cnut gets in. This is as personal as it gets. This is family.

In reply to Dominicandave:





Most KKK have lived in the US their whole lives.. does that make their views OK? The White people (who were paid) also built the white house, the calling the presidents kids chimps? The doubting the birth country of the country based on race?

The banning of people from housing based on color?

The banning the people from family leave based on sex?

The banning the people from immigration based on religion?

The banning of family leave based on sexuality?

This is your 'well he's better than clinton"..

The 'lets torture them"

"lets steal there oil"

"lets bomb the crap out of them"

"Mexicans are rapists"

Do you mind if I just think him and his supporters are generally cnuts?

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Knock yourself out, it is rather entertaining watching you rant away and creating an argument with yourself.

In reply to Dominicandave:

No you and others ignore a fact that this is personal. It is not a bigger picture issue. It is friends and families, wives, kids, uncles, brother in laws being deported. That is not scare tactics. You seem to be ignorant of what this man wants to do to our families. This is actually the life we are facing.

Try and be clever but you have spoken about your wife. No imagine her being deported and your kids without a mother? That is what we face, what millions of Americans face.It may be close but this has a long way to run as this is our families we are talking about. It is forgotton that these rapists.. are people. They are the guy pushing my daughter on her swing as she giggles away.. This isn't just some lefty cause. And fuck you if you think it is just calling racism as such.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


You might well think that if indeed I had said anything about skin colour when mentioning stop and search. But I didn't, it appears your agenda is driving you mad.
Oh, could you not think of this all on your own and rather return my observations of you.
I don't and never will judge people on race, I judge people on who they are and what they do. I'd have thought that would be clear if your agenda wasn't blurring your view of my posts.
Nope.
Nope!
Nope!
You have made this point several times, and I read it the first.

You finished making up arguments for yourself? Probably not, carry on.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
And you say I come across as a drunk? lol, how did I know you would be back, picking an argument with yourself.


I am well aware of what he has said, and what in reality he will be able to do. I am not ignorant in the slightest to the ideas that have come from his head. I don't think anyone is, I have covered this several times, you are not paying attention.


You are almost right, so observations are getting better, but still terribly wrong. Yes I have mentioned the mother of my daughter in another thread. And I imagine my daughter without her mother every day, I am a single father.
But then unfortunately again you let yourself down by completely derailing at the end. But I like the consistency, not very often someone gets everything they point that finger at wrong, in consecutive posts, but impressive.

In reply to Dominicandave:

I dont think you are drunk, I think you have snorted coke and maybe injected something..

You have exceptional ignorance of life in the US. You yourself so 'my friends say this'. Well I live here and have lived in numerous states.

Its not like I work in academia. I work in a private catholic school, so my work colleagues and families are republican. I am very very well aware of their views. In three years here I have lived in the US's most murderous city, one of its richest suburbs and a mix of extreme rural wealth and poverty. I doubt I could have seen a better cross section in 3 years plus other work experiences. You are the one who says that Trump may not be a bad person that you know Clinton will do X.

Look at her history? Your ignorance is horrific. Trump is even currently being sued for raping a child... his excuse for his ex-wifes statement he raped her... 'you cant rape your wife'... This is the guy you say may not be worse than Clinton.. yes she sent an email from hotmail not gmail....

The GOP lost MILLIONS of emails they were legally obliged to turn over... Powell illegally used non-state emails... it was a bullshit political witchunt.

In reply to Dominicandave:









These are what you support by supporting him..... you judge on what they do. So banning people from housing based on race? Accusing a nation of being rapists? Making a homophobic family leave policy.. this is what he does.... supporting racial profiling... and you support him. Total ignorance.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

WTF are you on about. I am a Brit, I do not enter into the equation at all. I do not get to support anyone. Stop being so damn immature and irrational, it's ridiculous.

Why don't you go outside and gather a group of voters and then set about calling half of them cunst and telling them to fukc off, you might have more of an impact on people that actually matter, or they you, who knows. You're being ridiculous!

EDIT; ok, just read you've lived in the US for '3' years................. and you are claiming an authority on American life? Give me a break ffs. You just carry on, I can't even be bothered to entertain this BS anymore. Do as said above, go and pick a fight with those that matter, half the voting population.

In reply to Dominicandave:



Yes it is, by definition, racist.

Racism "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

In reply to RomTheBear:


No it's not. Look at statistics.


To say the statement "All black men are criminals" then it's a racist statement." Or "Blacks are criminals"

But to say that "Black men in America are more likely to commit crime" is not.

Instead of taking offence at it, instead of emotionally knee jerking, why don't we address the reason why they are more likely.

Poverty? Culture?

Interestingly 90ish% of Blacks vote Democrar, the KKK was part of the Democrat party, just somewhere along the line they swapped racial oppression for governmental dependency.

We were just talking about those who had devalued racism by throwing it about, causing issue where there were none, making problems where there needn't be any. Those holding progress up, those we need to leave behind if we are to address the issues behind the reason and find some resolve.

In reply to Bootrock:




No. But that is not what he said. He said "black men are more likely to commit crimes".

He took one characteristic ("being more likely to be a criminal") and applied it to all member of the same race.

This is, be definition, racist. I'm not questioning whether it is true or not, I don't know.



I don't take offence at it nor did it trigger any emotional reaction. Your reaction is though.

In reply to RomTheBear:

No. He said "More Likely" not "they are, because they are -insert race-"


My reaction isn't, I have no emotion. Emotions are weakness.

In reply to Dominicandave:

These are mutually exclusive statements from two of your posts last night. Is someone messing with you, has your account been hacked?

In reply to Bootrock:

'My reaction isn't, I have no emotion. Emotions are weakness. '

Brains are too, and it looks like you haven't got those either.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Please, tell me more!

In reply to jkarran:


Yes, now do carry on, what is your point?

In reply to Dominicandave:

Over some prick who says "I know someone who has been to the US' yes I do think I know more than you about life in the US.

You have said you would vote for Trump over Clinton. You would support someone who would halt progression, would lead to further poverty, would try to ban abortions, would try to overturn gay marriage.

ITs this attitude of f*ck the others.. she sent a dodgy email... its people with nothing to lose from his hateful policies who support him. Sickening.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


well, you've only been there, what, 3 years?
we forget how much of an expert you are though, on any subject

In reply to Roadrunner5:
It was a lot worse than 1 dodgy email.

We won't forget Tyrone, Doherty, Smith or Stevens.

You are aware Hillary was against gay marriage for the majority of her political career?

Her health care was a joke and wasted millions of tax payers money.

And NAFTA decimated local industries around the US?

Racial profiling:
youtube.com/watch?v=hNYcKdUTBbg&

And I do believe subtle has served you. Does it taste delicious?

In reply to Bootrock:



But that's still problematic. That implies that there is something about Black men that makes them more likely to commit crimes.

It is true that the proportion of black men convicted of crimes in the US is higher than the proportion of white men. But that says nothing about any given black man's propensity to criminal acts; the overwhelming majority of black men are not criminals, and they have no innate 'criminality' hidden in them.

That's why racial profiling is racist. It assumes that by virtue of his race, the black person stopped is more likely to be a criminal than a white person. Well, statistically, that's true; but people aren't statistics, and get legitimately upset when their daily activities get repeatedly disrupted on the assumption that, because they share a skin colour with some criminals, then they are more likely to be a criminal themselves.

Of course, if the stop and search is guided by information that the person looks like the description of someone implicated in a crime, then that is entirely reasonble; the alternative to 'stopping black people because we think they may be up to no good, because they are black', isn't 'we can never stop black people'. its proper, intelligence led policing.

Dave said, well it works, it took a lot of guns off the streets. But that's, as usual, looking at only one side of the equation, and seeing the problem only at one level ie- why were the guns on the street in the first place? that was a choice americans, via their legislators made, and their use in criminal acts was hardly unforseeable; and- by alienating a community by seeming to target law abiding members of it for harassment just because of their skin colour, it creates the conditions from which incidents can spark civil disorder, as is happening regularly across the US now.

we recognised that, and as far as i can see, have done something about it; and no, we don;t have utopia, but british cities are a long way from the curdled racial ill feeling and suspicion that seems to pervade a lot of US ones.

In reply to Bootrock:

I am very aware she was and has changed that stance. Most of the US was and has changed that stance. Why shouldnt a stance change? I worry when stances change 3 times in a week.

Your last link is just odd... one dash cam disproves racial profiling which has been very well documented.

NAFTA isnt so simple. The US has also benefited. Trump himself has.


Free trade does come at a cost but there are huge gains.

Clinton was fighting for the education of black kids from the off. She has plenty of skeletons but she has been massively influential on US policies and has been there for various groups of minorities, Trump has not. All he complains about he himself does. He produces his good abroad.. he uses illegal immigrants, he employs cheap foreign labour over local workers.

In reply to subtle:



I dont think you need to live here for years to know that black people should be treated equally.....

In reply to Dominicandave:

Firstly, thanks for the considered response.


What racial slurs are BLM throwing round- i'm genuinely unaware of this? I think you are misunderstanding the situation though. there is no such thing as an equivalent 'white march'. In the UK, black people have experienced discrimination for decades, from reduced opportunities in the workplace, to different treatment in the criminal justice system, to overt abuse and physical attacks. Yes, things have improved, but its taken legislation to criminalise racial discrimination to get this process moving, and i dont think its a process that is finished. In America, the situation is even more stark; there are still many people who lived in a system of apartheid, and though that has been outlawed, life chances and interactions with the state are still profoundly different depending on your colour. The fact there has been a black president does not negate the reality of millions of people across the country.

And i don't get what you mean by white people experiencing racism; of course, white people can be the victim of race crime, look at the murder of that polish person recently. But look around you, at the colour of skin of politicians, judges, police, business executives, lawyers; high status jobs are disproportionately white (and male) in the UK. The system is not rigged against white people, and their are not singled out by virtue of their skin colour for less advantageous treatment in their dealings with state bodies. But if they were, then the law must, and does, cut all ways.

Can i ask, you post as if from personal experience- so what is this racism that you have been forced to tolerate?


Please see my reply to Bootrock for an answer to this bit. I dont think its a question of ignoring inconvenient evidence; its a question of interpreting it meaningfully, and what gets done with this to improve the situation overall.


You are right; people do try to close down debate by claiming 'racism'. but that doesnt mean that every time racism is alleged, its a bogus allegation in order to close down debate. you appear to be suggesting that any allegation of racism can be ignored, because some allegations of racism are tactical. i dont think that a defensible position.

and a position that fails to recognise that in the UK, white British people as a whole have been in a position of relative privilege, and discrimination on the basis of ethnicity had been largely a problem faced by non-white British people (i've been careful there with my terminology, because other white groups such as Irish and Polish have very much faced this), is part of the problem, not part of the solution. So we have to be sensitive about our use of language, and we get absurdities such as 'baa baa white sheep'; so what, a small price to pay for dismantling decades of injustice.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Erm, I have never used the phrase mentioned above, although I do know police officers in NYC. You asked me if I had spent time in the US and I replied yes, besides that you know nothing at all about my relation with the US. You might even be quite depressed if I told you my relation and experience with the US, but you have not taken the time to find out, instead you make assumptions based on nothing, sero, zilch. Mind you when you came across as if you had real experience of living in the US I myself made the assumption you had considerably more experience than we later found out you actually have. All your postings are an attack on someone that you are presuming to have a clearer insight, after a 3 year stint of moving around the US. I am not stating either way, I would not be so ridiculous as to make such a claim, it is childish and irrational thinking to make such comments. Judging by your childish ranting toward me, on a topic that I have no say in I would be very surprised if you have more experience in anything than I, you don't appear to deal with life very well if this is anything to go by.
How many times do you need to repeat this, and I was using an uncontrollable 9 year old boy to describe Trump only yesterday, I'd have been better to use this as a description of you. Get a grip and grow up. I have said in a fictional world where people went to sleep in the UK a Brit and Woke up in the morning in the US American with an obligation to vote, then if cornered I probably would vote on the side of Trump as I could not vote for Clinton. Now you can dribble at the mouth all you like over the point you don't like what someone who doesn't have a say would do, in a made up scenario. You might as well say what would I do if the moon feel down and it was made of cheese, would I eat it or give it to the starving. I expect if I said i'd eat it you would be dribbling at the mouth in anger and throwing insults around as you are now. You're being very immature and extremely irrational. Get a grip of yourself ffs sakes.

And again, you are really trying to come across as some kind of special case here, no one from this house has a right to support him, can you get that through your really dense head. No one from this country as even seriously given a thought to it, because you know why, we do not get to vote.

Now as I said earlier, if you are so utterly insulted that a fictional scenario is affecting you then go outside, grab a group of people and then set about half of them how you are this guy online, me. I am sure you will be noticed and they will advise you on what they think of your approach to deciding how to vote. Infact hang on, maybe they'll shine a light and tell you that it has absolutely nothing to do with you and your confused, angry, immature, irrational, deluded and misguided none American ass. And they may even tell you to get the hell out of there with that kind of attitude, probably 'who the fukc do you think you are' would be something that might come up.
Now stop presuming to know that which you don't, stop attacking others for not sharing your views, or if you are going to do it then get real and go out and attack those who matter, grow up about it and stop crying to me about half the voting population of the USA. If this is about more than an opinion that doesn't count and you want me to send you some used underwear then PM me, but you need to stop this obsessive irrational munching on my ass.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Time to lighten up folks, here's what's on my mind - do you prefer chicken nuggets or cheeseburgers?

Me, these days - cheeseburgers.
Abseil

In reply to abseil:

Cheeseburgers, every time.

But cheeseburgers v chicken legend. .. that's a tougher call...



NMSE

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


OK - thanks - but - ketchup, or mustard?? (Me, ketchup)

In reply to abseil:

Hmmm.

Like a good liberal, im going to sit firmly on the fence and say, both....

(Not on the chicken legend though, mustard on a chicken burger would be weird)

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

You do realise you can go on YouTube and actually see BLM actively encouraging killing cops and quite people, and even turning on white sympathers.

That's right, people supporting their cause, turned on because of their colour.

Can you say hypocrisy?


The Police Cheif in Ferguson, is black, as is the mayor, the state representative, and the president.


And you sir, are a toilet. And I reject your white privilege. I didn't certainly didn't see any of it when I was homeless.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Thanks for your reply. Research continues.

I'm just signing off because I'm off out for a couple of cheeseburgers and a chicken legend [both with ketchup]

In reply to abseil:


Ketchup?! You disgust me.


It's all about the reggae reggae sauce!

In reply to Bootrock:

Yes, clear hypocrisy, and racially aggravated incitement to murder, if as you described. I don't make a point of defending the indefensible, unlike some.

Sorry to hear about your circumstances. I hope things have improved. ''White privilege' doesn't mean all white people get preferential treatment, just that the obstacles they face are not because of their ethnicity. There are many other ways people can be disadvantaged, irrespective of their colour. Clearly the brexit vote was in part about that.

Cheers

Gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

People see what they want to see.

White privilege is not real. It's a made up tumblrite saying invented by the regressive left.

And what about Asian Priviledge? Or why about the numerous white slaves that have happened throughout history? Jesus. What's next? Me suing the Italians for the Romans? The Norwegians for the Vikings?
Let's not forget Africa had an established slave trade long before "white" Europeans turned up. And it was the "whites" that ended slavery. (Ironically it was the republicans that wanted liberty and freedom for all men, black or white)

"The left’s campaign against so-called “white privilege,” although misguided, rests in part on an important truth: Throughout much of America’s history, governments and many private individuals horribly mistreated various ethnic minorities. The most glaring example is slavery; other examples include policies stripping rights-respecting American Indians of their property, myriad racist laws many states enforced into the 1960s, and overtly racist immigration policies (e.g., against the Chinese).

A black man living in the South in 1850 certainly could claim that white people had “privileges” that black people didn’t: Whites had the legal “privileges” of (among other things) enslaving him, selling his children, brutalizing him, even murdering him.

But when today’s leftists speak of “white privilege,” their goal is not to abolish overtly racist laws—those were abolished in part by Lincoln and his supporters in the Civil War and virtually in full within a century of the Civil War. Nor is the left’s goal to eradicate private bigotry—which today is big news precisely because it is rare (e.g., Donald Sterling).

What, then, do today’s leftists mean by “white privilege,” and what do they hope to accomplish by campaigning against it? “White privilege” in the modern leftist sense means essentially four things:

It means (or implies) that non-leftists who happen to be “white” should mute their non-leftist cultural and political views. As satirist Julie Borowski remarks in discussing the phrase “check your privilege”: “We all know what that really means: Shut up.” In this respect, the left’s campaign against “white privilege” is part and parcel of its broader strategy of smearing and bullying its opponents.
It means that individuals are to be judged, not by their words, deeds, actions, and character, but by their skin color and by their adherence to leftist narratives regarding racism (e.g., see my recent blog post.) In this respect, the left’s campaign against “white privilege” is patently racist.
It means that “white” people should perpetually feel guilty about their skin color and self-sacrificially work to serve the allegedly non-privileged. In this respect, the left’s campaign against “white privilege” is a mixture of the morality of self-sacrifice and the atrocity of racism.
It also means that, if there is any disparity in income or wealth between any “white” person (however defined) and any “person of color”—whatever the cause and regardless of context—government should work toward eliminating the disparity by forcibly redistributing wealth and imposing regulations. In this respect, the left’s campaign against “white privilege” is part of its broader egalitarian and statist aims.
To further see why the left’s campaign against “white privilege” is (in the respects mentioned) absurd, racist, and immoral, consider some additional facts:

In America today, people’s success or lack thereof has (for the most part) nothing to do with the color of their skin. All one need do is glance at a newspaper or a television to see that highly successful people as well as miserable failures come in every skin tone. To succeed, what a rational person fundamentally needs is freedom—specifically, freedom to live his own life by his own judgment—and today, all Americans have or lack such freedom to the same extent.
Who counts as a “white” person, and what counts as “privilege,” are largely arbitrary. As Tal Fortgang eloquently writes, it’s absurd to claim that descendents of Jews who escaped Hitler’s holocaust somehow led a “privileged” life. Irish and Asian immigrants, among others, suffered under bigoted laws and faced widespread prejudices. Yet, as Eugene Volokh points out, Asians now are often regarded as “white” for political purposes. I know adopted “white” children who were abused so badly by their birth parents that they will carry the physical and emotional scars for life; is this their “privilege”?
Insofar as some minority neighborhoods are relatively impoverished and crime-ridden, that is not because of the skin color of the residents (or nonresidents). Rather, such conditions are, as I’ve written elsewhere, the “result of cultural breakdowns exacerbated by bad government policies.” Numerous government policies, even if not overtly racist, disproportionately harm minorities. Such policies include prohibitions on drugs, which drive black-market crime; minimum wage and union laws, which cause unemployment; government schools, which fail to educate children properly (if at all); licensing laws, which throttle competition and preclude people from starting their own businesses; and welfare programs, which foster dependence on the state.
For the sake of justice, as individuals and as a culture we should continue to condemn racist attitudes, whether among whites, blacks, conservatives, leftists, or whomever. For the sake of liberty and prosperity, we should seek to repeal rights-violating laws, which harm every rational and productive person.

What no one should do is feel guilty about the color of his skin, or judge another person by the color of his skin. Each individual deserves to be judged, not by the color of his skin, but by his actions and by the “content of his character.” It is high time for all Americans to embrace these truths.

In reply to Bootrock:


You have certainly proved that.

In reply to Bootrock:

When you copy other people's work (even complete drivel), it is good form to credit it to the author, at least.

In reply to Bootrock:

thanks again for the reply, Bootrock, and for the lack of personal abuse in this one. though that may of course be because its just a big dump of cut and paste and not your own words.

its clear we are talking about different things, and that you aren't actually reading what i post. for a start, i'm not left wing, except in relation to Donald Trump, indeed probably to the right of centre on economic arguments (though i thought you had rejected the whole left/right thing anyway, so its baffling that you keep going on about it).

for a second, i'm talking largely about the UK, and that breach of copyright you've just committed refers to the US. it also refers to a definition of 'white privilege' that you are foisting on me, rather than what i've actually typed. I explicitly noted that some white ethnic groups faced, and face, racism ('No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs'). And i specifically stated that its only 'relative privilege', ie the absence of direct discrimination. Its not that being white in the UK by definition advantages you, as there are so many other factors that go into determining your relative advantage or disadvantage; its just that discrimination based on skin colour isnt one of the disadvantages you face, which others do.

you appear to be projecting your mental construct of a 'special snowflake' onto me, and anyone that doesnt entirely agree with you; and then reacting to me based on what you think a 'special snowflake' would think, rather than on what i actually post.

well, carry on, if you like; but it might be more constructive if you respond to what's actually there,

best wishes
gregor

In reply to MG:

Aye true. I thought I had copied the link at the bottom.

At no point did I take credit.

Can't break me mate, I'm a rubber duck.

Shut it nick. You potato.

In reply to Bootrock:


Well you did actually. The post has your name at the top.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Mate. Not gonna lie, I am getting pretty bored with this whole thing. And I am back on shift.

You disagree with me. Sound. Let's leave it at that.
Some people agree with you. Others agree with me.


And as a note, I may come across brash, but it's not personal mate. I am sure you are a good egg.

In reply to MG:
Pedantic. I put quotation marks at the start and was distracted by the end and forgot the other mark and the link.

Typical snowflake brigade, attack the grammar, layout, other minor points in a poor attempt to embarrass the person or deflect from the content.

I couldn't give a shit. At least have a pop at the content fella.

Same to you, I am back on shift and I can't be hooped. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Up till now we have been unable to address the issue about whether there is an underlying reason black men are more likely to be criminals. One might guess there is a reason and it is not just coincidence as the stats state that for the last 30 years black men have been significantly more likely to be criminals in every area of crime type. Including 8 times more likely to commit murder and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race. The people reading these stats don't make them, the actions of others make them, and so to accuse those merely acknowledging the facts is at best utterly ridiculous.
I don't think anyone in their right mind would assume anyone is a criminal based on the colour of their skin, and people don't use these statistics constructively to attack individuals. These stats are used to get an idea of how a society is functioning, or not as the case may be.
Only if you want to create issues where people are trying to find resolve. You have just accepted that it is true that a black man is more likely a criminal, so you acknowledge there is a fact in there, does this acknowledgement make you racist? I ask you as some seem to think it does. When dealing with social issues such as the overwhelming 30 year problem of blacks disproportionately being criminals you have to use stats to understand there is an issue, otherwise that issue never gets addressed. Anyone with a sound mind will accept there is a problem within the black community that drives them to be more likely criminals. If people are prepared to just brush this under the carpet and allow society to go down hill then this is not responsible at all is it. Some are trying to bring people closer together, but there are some idiots who are not prepared to accept reality, address the problems, sit down and talk and try to find a way of getting these people a decent quality life without having to resort to crime. As you say the majority of black men are not criminals, and so there is evidence that these stats do not need to be as they are. If they would accept accountability rather than fight the reality then things may well work out alot better for future generations.
Police don't just stop black people, I think you are completely confused on this, and those that they do stop are not just random people walking down the street. White folk are also stopped and searched they just don't make a huge racial issue about it like black communities do. As far as this is concerned this is exactly the denial the black community need to come to grips with. If the crime stats are so overwhelmingly high against them then obviously they will draw more attention. But they won't see it, they play the race card when it is really a statistical card.
I think this is addressed above. If you want things to remain as they are then continue on this line of thought. This pretending there is not an underlying issue is just burying your head in the sand. And again, blacks are disproportionately stopped because they are disproportionately committing more crimes. Is it not time to get real and get down to moving on, changing this statistic and hopefully finding a balance across the board. As mentioned above, the majority of black men are not criminals, so it doesn't have to be like it is if we were allowed to address it, but that will never happen until it is accepted that the problem is there.
I agree, racial issues between the two are worlds apart.

In reply to Bootrock:
Nice copy and paste. Next time try to write something yourself instead of copy pasting rubbish you find on the internet.

In reply to abseil:





Spicy mayo legend make me feel guilty, but a good guilt. I am against chicken nuggets as they refuse to move with the times, someone needs to have a word.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Mayo induced white guilt?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Are you a real person?



I am aware it's a copy and paste. read my previous posts.

Not sure if that was bait..

In reply to Bootrock:





scotch ones always are... have a good one,

gregor

In reply to Dominicandave:

no dispute over the numbers, as i said, just the interpretation. just because black men are overrepresented in crime statistics, that doesn't mean black people should be stopped by police because the are black. the criminal justice system works on an individual basis, not on groups; so interactions with its agents, such as the police should be driven by individual factors and intelligence, not by racial profiling.

and when stop and search was run here, black people were being disproportionately stopped because of their colour. because criminality rates are still low, far more innocent people had their day intruded on by the police than criminals did. often repeatedly; after 20-30 stops and searches ( i remember listening to an interview where this had happened to the person), it must become tiresome

and again, you're not engaging with the underlying point- you are looking at one side of the equation. the negative side is important; it corrodes trust in black communities for the police, and undermines the whole basis of 'policing by consent'. it feeds into tensions that can emerge as civil disturbance. thats why we dont do it here now; not because of PC, but because it was counterproductive.

if a higher rate of black people are stopped because of intelligence relating to crimes in the area, then so be it; you can't get away from the underlying realities of what's happening in the area. I'm only talking about untargetted 'sus' stops, which were stopped in the UK for the reasons above,

anyway, like Bootrock, i've got work to do, so have a good weekend, whatever you get up to,

cheers
gregor

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Every point you mention above has been addressed in very recent posts, and so I am not going to go there again for the benefit that you can only absorb so much of peoples posts.

And yes, it is Friday night and I have a baby sitter for the first time in 5 months. I have forgotten what a pint of beer looks like and so am going to pop out for an hour and enjoy a treat of freedom.

Enjoy your weekend.

In reply to Bootrock:


I never doubted that you were aware of it, it doesn't seem plausible that you would have plagiarised this article without realising.

In reply to RomTheBear:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/many-in-nation-tired-of-expl...

Another reason to not vote trump is he thinks climate change is a global conspiracy...

His running mate things you can pray away homosexuality...

Oh and his running mate also tried to stop funding HIV prevention methods and fund a cure for gayness instead..

https://www.romper.com/p/the-mike-pence-hiv-scandal-4-things-you-need-to-kn...

His state now has a HIV epidemic because of his practices... Shutting down test centers as he thought they also offered abortions.

There no singular reason to not vote for trump there are so many it is sickening this man stands a chance..

In reply to Roadrunner5:


He does seem flexible on this when it comes to his business interests though.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/23/donald-trump-says-climate-change...

In reply to Roadrunner5:
I love the liberal idealists on UKC that more people dislike a post that says we shouldn't be praying away homosexuality than like it....

And yeah Lusk, I did. But things won't change hence my link above.here many are set one side and will deny all reason, that's both sides..

If Gandhi came back and ran for the GOP the left wouldn't back him...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

Damn, you're quick! In fairness, I think I said do you post as much anti T stuff on US forums?
Still sticking with 1-2 though

In reply to Roadrunner5:
I am going to make this one post towards you and that is it, for your own benefit. I think you are very naive, I think you have a motivation to become so upset, and that is down being naive on the topic you have chosen to take up arms about. If you are legally in the US and are contributing to society then there is absolutely no reason for you to panic as you appear to be. If however you are illegal and not contributing then rightfully so, no matter who gets in you should be as paranoid as you are. I don't think you understand the American process of election and the extents candidates will go to. I think your ignorance on the US and society as a whole is very limited, and that is only natural given such a short period of time trying to absorb the realities and having travelled so many places in such a short time. It is impossible to understand life anywhere after only spending a few months or even a year there as a visitor, which you have stated is your situation.

Here's a headstarts..
youtube.com/watch?v=-TmNy5SPcj8&
youtube.com/watch?v=_g_WVWjQ-8Q&


Now before you address me again, watch these and any other info you feel like. Then maybe you would like to remind people why they should vote for Clinton.

Until you have educated yourself on the opposition I suggest you shut up. Come back when you understand why this is so close!!

In reply to Dominicandave:
Hold on telling me to shut up? Check your amendments... how ironic! That was superb! did you mean that? Haha Brilliant! Very Trump-esque!

I have a reason to panic as my relatives are those facing deportation so f*ck off.

I have educated myself on racist xenophobes like yourself. I think that is why you arte hateful and the world will be a better place when the more liberal open minded people get control. When a gay person can marry and adopt and tak the leave a straight mother can, which you oppose..

Educate yourself. And I wont tell you t shut up, as you are free to talk. likewise I am free to say you re talking shite. Your shut up statement shows your gross misunderstanding of US culture. Your ignorance is outstanding, but likewise so is that of your brethren who are sp annoyed at a black man taking a peaceful protest..

"Hey BLM stop the riots, protest peacefully"

NFL player kneels for the anthem... "not like that!"


You are a joke, an ignorant person who supports someone who takes the freedom straight white males take for granted. You oppose progress.

So where have you lived and worked in teh US? I listed my states, the diversity.. yet you say I'm ignorant. Show it, say where you have been? Camden NJ? The southern States? I think I've seen a great cross section of society, more than most Americans TBH as few travel. I've worked, lived and visited in every area apart from the central north. I have worked in the deep south, the fly over states appalachia, the mid atlantic states, the pacific NW and the far NE.

So far you are just showing your ignorance of US culture with your 'shut up' comment. I doubt you could come up with a better example of your ignorance if you tried..... Hint Free Speech...

Re me: I work as a teacher, my wife is an MD (US citizen), my daughter is a US citizen, I am a greencard holder. I have no concerns. We are financially secure with a great future. But we realise we were dealt a lucky hand so will continue to support the left who will look out for the less fortunate. People like us should trend Right as that will mean less taxes. We wont.

You see me as you. You care about you. I care about others. That is why you would support trump, you only care about what benefits you. I care about others. My life is sorted. Its now we should look out for the less fortunate. You see me as worried for myself, paranoia.. not that I am worried for other. Look out for others.

I am concerned for family and friends. I see their worries. Any right minded person would be. A guy who has lived here for 17 years, no record, 3 kids, US wife can be caught speeding and deported.....

Its so close because there are a lot of uneducated, selfish, white people.. but it is not that close. 60-40 right now.. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Correction 62:38 pushing a 2/3rds chance she will win again..... and she's rising.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Check your attacks on me, then......

Until you have educated yourself on the opposition I suggest you shut up. Come back when you understand why this is so close!!

2 minutes later, you respond.

You are even unable to commit to education in a fight you want to wage. Sorry, you fail at the 1st. You are very obviously very ignorant to the Clintons, and so..............

I have no time for you. Enjoy your weekend, while you contemplate on your vote for Clinton that you are actually not eligible to make. ................................. Fukc, I thought I'd met all the cyber delusion possible.
Gunight! XX

In reply to Dominicandave:

Heres a good one...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/laquan-mcdonald-video_us_5654e329e4b079...

Yes he had a knife. Walking away from the police. Shot 16 times. 12 times once lay on the floor.....


He was no threat as he was walking away, he certainly wasnt after 4 shots and on the floor.

That is why there is anger.

You have white rapists getting 6 months in prison and black men executed for carrying a knife....

But thats not racism.. you know better...

In reply to Dominicandave:







I have educated myself. I have lived and worked in the most dangerous city in the US have you?

I cant vote muppet. More ignorance. Do you know anything about US life? Its just a constant spout of ignorance. I clearly stated I am not a citizen.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

If one day you want to know how to deal with all you are facing, and want to discuss the issues you face in a respectful manner and would like to hear from someone who has been through much of what you may face, and has helped thousands of people facing deportation keep a life in the nation they chose to escape to then I would be happy to advise you. Your attitude makes it difficult and so that would need to change., you're acting like an idiot.

But I have experience in this beyond your obvious comprehension, I'd advise you to do a little more listening, than throwing insults and comments of ignorance around. This often makes you look like an idiot, and someone who could have benefitted from not being an aggressive prick.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Respectful manner? Wow.... after the accusations from you last night? Now I'm not respectful?

You could benefit by not supporting a racist.....

At least you used the right 'you're', most of your brethren would not.....

In reply to Roadrunner5:


No you have not!

You listed about 12 places you have lived in the US over a space of 3 years............. That is not living somewhere, that is an extended vacation, and if you did not know that, then you do now. Infact a physical snigger came from me as I wrote that, because it is a joke. Stop with the ignorance, gain a little understanding.

Now you are as you were earlier, an irritating mosquito, I'll leave you to the spray of reality.

In reply to Roadrunner5:



Go tell em, how you do me. I'm sure they'll listen to you..........................

Grow up son, we're done!!


Edit;; I've just realised I wouldn't even be entertaining this had I not just been out for my first 5 pints of beer in 5 months. Sorry for the moronic exchange, It should have ended with an 'OK, carry on'. My bad.

In reply to Dominicandave:



That is brilliant!

1 I did not list 12 places for 3 years. I listed places I have lived and worked in for extended times. That doesn't mean in the last 3 years. You have very little comprehension. Again ignorance. I've spent 3-4 months a year here for most of the last decade before I finally moved. Most Americans don't leave their state. At work I have travelled the US more than any other member of staff... Very few leave the US. So Yes I think I am quite educated about geographical differences as I have worked for months at a time in numerous areas. Certainly much more than you have. Yet you know a man... very Trumpesque.... superb!

You get more of a muppet by the minute. You drunk? Put that glass down....

In reply to Dominicandave:
Maybe you should listen to the black guys who feel life is over at age 14. They will never work and only crime is an option.... Hold on. They only said that for a year so that doesnt count for you.....

Maybe you should look at the republican sex ed methods which have led to HIV epidemics.... look at who have the highest teenage pregnancies... your rightwingers??

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/

Another good 'non racist' shooting.. a guy crashes his car, knocks for help, scared householder calls the police, they turn up and execute him.

I broke down, knocked on a door, she was scared but was OK and called the police. I'm white.

Your refusal to accept racism occurs is your downfall.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

My father is Pakistani, the mother of my daughter is black...................... we have encountered our fair share of racism. One thing I can say is that I acknowledge racism when I am bringing my daughter home from school and someone shouts (once we have passed), Paki bastards.

I understand racism very well, I have been a victim since primary school.

In reply to Dominicandave:


I'm really sorry to hear that, Dave, it is shameful.

Best wishes to you and your daughter.

In reply to abseil:


Yeh, my daughter is tough. She questions it but I tell her they are the crazy clowns of the town, it's just fun. Having come from where we have, Hispanola, where my daughter has seen people lynched for being too black (Haitian), strung up and set on fire, or kicked off the GuaGua (minibus) for being too black (Haitian) if someone of lighter skin wants to get on, she is pretty resilient to someone calling us a name she has no idea of which it means.
18 months in the UK and to be honest it is a lovely place, we are both very happy. Some people don't realise how good it is.

EDIT; I must clarify for the spin artists on here that Haitians and Dominicans live together, but if you are Haitian and someone thinks you committed a crime then in the barrios you are very likely to be be lynched. No Haitian gets lynched for being a hole digger or a part of the barrio. Most Haitians are abused through false accusation.