(11-19-2019 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 01:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 01:42 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Do you ever get tired of interpreting my posts in the least charitable way possible?

Probably not.

Lad jumps in. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.

You could have stopped at 'lad jumps in'. Or just added the 'with a snide ad hom implied'. The snide ad hom tells us all we really need to know.

Quote:Lol - that's real rich.

So your snide implied ad hom is just for ***** and giggles, and how dare someone call you out on that. Actually, that is rich.

By the way I will ask you -- do you find it odd that you interpreted my facially benign statement as worthy of a snide as fk 'probably not'?

Let's start with what your point was when saying "Podcasts are not the sole means of information transmission, though."

Perhaps the point was --- and let me pause and try to be translate the 'nuance' as much as possible -- that 'Podcasts are not the sole means of information transmission'.

Maybe you should take it at face value. If you think that podcasts are so much more informative, cooler, hipper, or what not, and they are *your* form of 'ace in the hole' -- whatever blows your hair back.

Just simply stating that they 'are not the sole means of information transmission'. Full stop.

You and Graham seemingly get your diapers in a gander for that being said, though.

(11-19-2019 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 01:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Probably not.

Lad jumps in. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.

You could have stopped at 'lad jumps in'. Or just added the 'with a snide ad hom implied'. The snide ad hom tells us all we really need to know.

Quote:Lol - that's real rich.

So your snide implied ad hom is just for ***** and giggles, and how dare someone call you out on that. Actually, that is rich.

By the way I will ask you -- do you find it odd that you interpreted my facially benign statement as worthy of a snide as fk 'probably not'?

Let's start with what your point was when saying "Podcasts are not the sole means of information transmission, though."

Perhaps the point was --- and let me pause and try to be translate the 'nuance' as much as possible -- that 'Podcasts are not the sole means of information transmission'.

Maybe you should take it at face value. If you think that podcasts are so much more informative, cooler, hipper, or what not, and they are *your* form of 'ace in the hole' -- whatever blows your hair back.

Just simply stating that they 'are not the sole means of information transmission'. Full stop.

You and Graham seemingly get your diapers in a gander for that being said, though.

Weird statement since I don't think anyone ever said, or even suggested, they were the sole source of information.

You were being unnecessarily combative then, by using the word "though." Must have been unintentional.

(11-19-2019 03:55 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Just don't get why you feel it necessary to point out that podcasts aren't the only form of information out there. Who would be under that impression?

Because of perhaps the fixation in your post to podcasts to an apparent exclusion (or preference) to other forms of data transmission.

Why do you feel it necessary to point out the "pile o' podcasts" to OO, for that matter?

(11-19-2019 04:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 04:46 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 04:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 03:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 02:11 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Lad jumps in. The enemy of his enemy is his friend.

You could have stopped at 'lad jumps in'. Or just added the 'with a snide ad hom implied'. The snide ad hom tells us all we really need to know.

Quote:Lol - that's real rich.

So your snide implied ad hom is just for ***** and giggles, and how dare someone call you out on that. Actually, that is rich.

By the way I will ask you -- do you find it odd that you interpreted my facially benign statement as worthy of a snide as fk 'probably not'?

Let's start with what your point was when saying "Podcasts are not the sole means of information transmission, though."

Perhaps the point was --- and let me pause and try to be translate the 'nuance' as much as possible -- that 'Podcasts are not the sole means of information transmission'.

Maybe you should take it at face value. If you think that podcasts are so much more informative, cooler, hipper, or what not, and they are *your* form of 'ace in the hole' -- whatever blows your hair back.

Just simply stating that they 'are not the sole means of information transmission'. Full stop.

You and Graham seemingly get your diapers in a gander for that being said, though.

Weird statement since I don't think anyone ever said, or even suggested, they were the sole source of information.

You were being unnecessarily combative then, by using the word "though." Must have been unintentional.

I guess your snide as fk aside wasnt being unecessarily combative in your view.

I am glad to know that one word connotes not just 'combative' in the great scheme of things, but also 'unecessarily' as well.

Any other rules of lad-diction we should be aware of before responding?

(11-19-2019 04:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-19-2019 03:55 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  Just don't get why you feel it necessary to point out that podcasts aren't the only form of information out there. Who would be under that impression?

Because of perhaps the fixation in your post to podcasts to an apparent exclusion (or preference) to other forms of data transmission.

Why do you feel it necessary to point out the "pile o' podcasts" to OO, for that matter?

I was earnestly curious if OO listened to any podcasts. They said no. I encouraged them to check some out because podcasts are something I enjoy and learn from, and I thought OO might get some enjoyment out of them too.

Thread-relevant research from an article in The Atlantic about the positive response from Christian nationalists to Trump's photo-op.

Quote:Andrew Whitehead, a sociologist at Clemson University, has argued that Trump’s religious base can best be understood through the lens of Christian nationalism. In his research, Whitehead has found that white Protestants who believe most strongly that Christianity should hold a privileged place in America’s public square are more likely than others to agree with statements such as “We must crack down on troublemakers to save our moral standards and keep law and order” and “Police officers shoot blacks more often because they are more violent than whites.”

Whitehead told me in an interview that Christian nationalism is often not really about theology (and thus can’t be ascribed to all conservative churchgoers): “It’s about identity, enforcing hierarchy, and order.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...ch/612529/

A couple of years ago, I had a discussion with several black friends about a situation where a white police officer saw a young black male loitering around in a neighborhood, and there were reports of young males throwing rocks through windows and breaking them. The officer stopped the kid, found out that he was far from home, and determined that he should take him home. He cuffed the kid and put him in the back of the police car and drove him home. When he got there, the kid's mother came out and pitched a fit. My black friends were totally pissed off at the officer, and asked me how I would feel if that were my son. I said I'd probably thank the officer for bringing him home and talk to my son and find out if he did it, and pretty much wear his butt out if he did. They could not believe that I wouldn't have gone ballistic on the officer. From that conversation, I came to realize that black and white children are taught very differently about interaction with police. Black kids are taught to distrust them, white kids are taught to trust them. And I have to believe that has some impact on disparate treatment.

The point was brought home to me again by an article a week or so ago by a black professor from an urban university. Obviously intelligent and well educated, he was stopped while walking from his car park to his classroom, by police who said he matched a description they had of a burglar. He was detained for several minutes and released, still in time to get to his class. What he said that caught my attention was that while he was being detained he made up his mind that if they tried to put him in the police car, he would resist physically, because he felt that if they got him in the car, they would haul him off and kill him. I'm not aware of any situation where that has ever happened, and any time police kill a black man it gets pretty widely publicized, so i tend to believe that is a pretty irrational fear. But if a highly educated and presumably intelligent black man can believe that, then that is clearly a problem.

As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

(06-03-2020 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

(06-03-2020 10:10 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A couple of years ago, I had a discussion with several black friends about a situation where a white police officer saw a young black male loitering around in a neighborhood, and there were reports of young males throwing rocks through windows and breaking them. The officer stopped the kid, found out that he was far from home, and determined that he should take him home. He cuffed the kid and put him in the back of the police car and drove him home. When he got there, the kid's mother came out and pitched a fit. My black friends were totally pissed off at the officer, and asked me how I would feel if that were my son. I said I'd probably thank the officer for bringing him home and talk to my son and find out if he did it, and pretty much wear his butt out if he did. They could not believe that I wouldn't have gone ballistic on the officer. From that conversation, I came to realize that black and white children are taught very differently about interaction with police. Black kids are taught to distrust them, white kids are taught to trust them. And I have to believe that has some impact on disparate treatment.

The point was brought home to me again by an article a week or so ago by a black professor from an urban university. Obviously intelligent and well educated, he was stopped while walking from his car park to his classroom, by police who said he matched a description they had of a burglar. He was detained for several minutes and released, still in time to get to his class. What he said that caught my attention was that while he was being detained he made up his mind that if they tried to put him in the police car, he would resist physically, because he felt that if they got him in the car, they would haul him off and kill him. I'm not aware of any situation where that has ever happened, and any time police kill a black man it gets pretty widely publicized, so i tend to believe that is a pretty irrational fear. But if a highly educated and presumably intelligent black man can believe that, then that is clearly a problem.

I appreciate the post and the outcome of the thinking.

But I have to ask, did you forget the Henry Louis Gates arrest and the subsequent diplomacy beer?

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

Frizzy said this so much better than I did.

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

This is one of the reasons this is a systemic issue. We’re seeing these problems regardless of political party.

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  As far as all the racists joining the GOP, let's take a look at the George Floyd situation. It occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a democrat mayor in a state with a democrat governor and two democrat US senators. Even more interesting, it occurred in a congressional district represented by, guess who, Ilhan Omar. Still more interesting, the officer in question had 12 prior complaints, which is not an unusual number, but what is unusual is that the DA who ruled out taking action against him for those prior complaints was one Amy Klobuchar.

So in a situation that is about as democrat as one can get, this happened.

People say blacks should vote for change. Maybe the change they need is to vote all those democrats out of office.

Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

The basic choice is one of two parties. When one says "The Democrats haven't handled this issue well. They should be voted out." the implication is that the GOP would handle the issue better. He didn't have to mention the GOP by name.

Quote:

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

I have a hard time ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party. I have an even harder time figuring out how GOP policies would improve this situation.

(06-03-2020 12:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

The basic choice is one of two parties. When one says "The Democrats haven't handled this issue well. They should be voted out." the implication is that the GOP would handle the issue better. He didn't have to mention the GOP by name.

Quote:

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

I have a hard time ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party. I have an even harder time figuring out how GOP policies would improve this situation.

We are always subjected to politicians of all stripes telling us that if we want change, we should go to polls and vote it in. Didn't you have a guy not so long ago run on a platform of hope and change? Change from what, to what? That was never clear.

What GOP policies are concerning you? Enforcement of the laws? I don't care what the DNC tells you, protection of racists is not in the GOP platform or its agenda.

As for " ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party", I don't see that was said or implied. What was said is that the Democrats in power did not get the job done, more a matter of negligence than platform. Probably the platform was fine, just not executed. Was it part of the D platform that racists would be eliminated from policing? If so, why did it not happen? Which Republican is at fault? Klobuchar? Ellison?

At some point, your guys need to keep their promises.

(06-03-2020 12:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:28 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Your argument that the party in power in a city/state somehow controls what is the in the hearts and minds of every constituent is interesting to say the least.

Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

The basic choice is one of two parties. When one says "The Democrats haven't handled this issue well. They should be voted out." the implication is that the GOP would handle the issue better. He didn't have to mention the GOP by name.

Quote:

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

I have a hard time ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party.

Nobody's doing that. The Minneapolis police issues are being ascribed to the people in charge of Minneapolis. As it happens, those people are Democrats.

Are you arguing that because they are Democrats, they should be excused by the voters instead of voted out of office? If not, then just what is your point?

Quote:I have an even harder time figuring out how GOP policies would improve this situation.

Do you have a hard time believing that a change in leadership would improve the situation? If you do, then why hold any politician of either party accountable for anything? If the incumbents in Minneapolis run for re-election, then how - pray tell - can the voters change the leadership, except by voting for their opponents?

(06-03-2020 12:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

The basic choice is one of two parties. When one says "The Democrats haven't handled this issue well. They should be voted out." the implication is that the GOP would handle the issue better. He didn't have to mention the GOP by name.

Quote:

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

I have a hard time ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party. I have an even harder time figuring out how GOP policies would improve this situation.

We are always subjected to politicians of all stripes telling us that if we want change, we should go to polls and vote it in. Didn't you have a guy not so long ago run on a platform of hope and change? Change from what, to what? That was never clear.

What GOP policies are concerning you? Enforcement of the laws? I don't care what the DNC tells you, protection of racists is not in the GOP platform or its agenda.

As for " ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party", I don't see that was said or implied. What was said is that the Democrats in power did not get the job done, more a matter of negligence than platform. Probably the platform was fine, just not executed. Was it part of the D platform that racists would be eliminated from policing? If so, why did it not happen? Which Republican is at fault? Klobuchar? Ellison?

At some point, your guys need to keep their promises.

At what point in the police departments of Minnesota did this sort of behavior become ingrained and/or acceptable? Certainly this didn't happen overnight.

Looking back at Minnesota over the past 30 years, you have a Republican governor for 16 years and a Democrat for 9 years (removing Jesse Ventura from this equation) . Should we say that the Republicans didn't get the job done?

I agree with Lad. More of a systemic issue and not one that is fixed simply by voting out the current party (whether they be Democrat or Republican).

(06-03-2020 12:42 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 12:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-03-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is that what he is saying? I misunderstood, I guess. I thought he was saying the Democrats in power had not done a damn thing about the alleged systemic racism in the police and the lack of justice the people are demonstrating against. So what good have all those democrats done for the people?

Is your assertion that black people tend to be treated better in areas where the GOP is in power?

I don't read that into what he said, either. He didn't even mention the GOP.

The basic choice is one of two parties. When one says "The Democrats haven't handled this issue well. They should be voted out." the implication is that the GOP would handle the issue better. He didn't have to mention the GOP by name.

Quote:

Quote:Like most things... I sure that the reason that Minnesota is having these recurrent issues is quite nuanced. Saying "Vote out the Democrats" doesn't make sense to me.

Well, they're in charge. The police there are their employees. If they aren't responsible for police conduct and accountability, then who is? If people living in Minneapolis want things to change, doesn't it make sense to vote for a change in leadership?

Remember this next time you're blaming a Republican president for this or that action by the federal government.

I have a hard time ascribing these "excessive use of force" issues in the Minnesota police force to the platform of the Democratic party.

Nobody's doing that. The Minneapolis police issues are being ascribed to the people in charge of Minneapolis. As it happens, those people are Democrats.

Are you arguing that because they are Democrats, they should be excused by the voters instead of voted out of office? If not, then just what is your point?

Quote:I have an even harder time figuring out how GOP policies would improve this situation.

Do you have a hard time believing that a change in leadership would improve the situation? If you do, then why hold any politician of either party accountable for anything? If the incumbents in Minneapolis run for re-election, then how - pray tell - can the voters change the leadership, except by voting for their opponents?

There are certain issues that I think are easier to pin responsibility on the current party in charge than others. There are plenty of issues that the Democrats fumble and I'd agree that voting against them on that basis makes sense. This simply isn't one of those IMO.

Taking a snapshot of the country right now... things are pretty damn bleak. Are you going to assign blame to the Republicans who have been in charge for the past 3 1/2 years for our current situation?