brassplyer
Well-known member
Maybe he should have said something like -Let me give you an example of something that demonstrates where my thinking lies -
During the George Floyd protests, Trump had an opportunity to start a dialogue. He could have said “look, we hear you. We are going to look at what we can do to improve police training and avoid George Floyd situations”. Even if you think the police can do no wrong, there’s a diplomatic way of communicating that doesn’t throw gas on the fire. Instead, he said “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”. If you’re a black person who has had many instances of being profiled or mistreated, what is that saying to you?
"All Americans were rightly sickened and revolted by the brutal death of George Floyd. My administration is fully committed that for George and his family justice will be served he will not have died in vain. But we cannot allow the righteous cries of peaceful protestors to be drowned out by an angry mob. The biggest victims of the rioting are peace-loving citizens in our poorest communities and as their President I will fight to keep them safe."
Oh wait, he did. See the video below.
The tweet you're quoting is out of context, he wasn't aware of the history of the phrase - to him the phrase meant looting and rioting would as a matter of course bring violent conditions among the participants - it doesn't matter what Walter Headley's intention was 60 years ago. You of course will refuse to accept any other context because "Orange Klansman Bad!!"
Anyone with any sense whatever their color should have known better than to riot and loot. But of course there's always those who use any excuse to engage in lawlessness. The Floyd incident was no excuse to go on a crime spree. Period.
There are too many asshole cops like Chauvin, there are also too many people like George Floyd who exist to give police, the courts and jails something to do. I'm sure you won't see the irony of Floyd making "you should live right" videos for his church...between his stints in jail/prison. By all rights Floyd should have been shot dead when he home-invaded that woman years back. Who knows what else he did that we don't know about.
I don't know if Chauvin killed Floyd or not, as I understand it Floyd had a toxic level of drugs in him that could have killed him but Chauvin didn't have enough sense to grasp that when people were yelling "you're killing him" that at the very least the optics were really bad and to do something different than sit there with his knee on Floyd's neck - and that it was also possible he was in fact harming Floyd. Chauvin got his ego involved like asshole cops are wont to do and wasn't going to have people tell him what to do.
By "race-based assistance" when it comes to home buying apparently you mean subsidized loans i.e. that someone else helps pay for? Or lowering standards? You have any recollection of what happened in 2008? There's a reason lenders crunch numbers.I am very against going soft on crime. Lack of prosecution is killing cities. That is a liberal policy I despise. Full stop. I voted for some republicans in my local elections as this is a local issue.
I’m sure we all agree there are socioeconomic differences between whites and blacks. What caused it, and what do we do about it? I’ve already stated my position in other threads. We are dealing with multi-generational effects from lack of access to education and jobs, and subsequent pass-down of resources. I’ve advocated assistance for education and home buying. It was pretty clear the right wingers here were against any sort of race-based assistance. My position is the cause was race-based, so the solution could be as well. If it needs to be needs-based regardless of race, fine, it just makes it that much more expensive though.
What else does "race-based assistance in education" means other than artificially bumping someone who scores higher out of a spot or insisting someone else subsidize it?
Ultimately what's killing the cities is the presence of so many who are willing to commit crime. We of course know this is a blasphemy to you. Nowhere in your worldview is there any notion of suggesting that people shouldn't procreate in poverty in the first place, that people who haven't figured how to not be poverty cases shouldn't have kids - two poor people have a kid - instant "underprivileged child" - funny how that works.
As it stands any crack whore can procreate with any repeat-offender felon loser.
And you keep asking "how did the inner-cities get that way???"
.smh
And it continues to be wrong-minded.Obviously I support a national gun registry
Last edited: