This incident was just as tragic as all the others, but you might want to ask yourself why it took a white woman from Austrailia getting killed by a cop for certain people to realize this is a problem.
As I said earlier I found this case particularly troubling and that's not to do with skin color. One aspect was that the victim was not stopped by the police (as is typical), where you might expect a greater degree of guardedness from officers and thus more likelihood of tragic reactions resulting. Instead she was actively seeking help from the police for another person (dressed in her pyjamas). A second aspect has been the refusal of the officer involved to make any statement. I don't believe that it's appropriate to release what has to be a suspect in a murder investigation without even having a statement from them.
This incident was just as tragic as all the others, but you might want to ask yourself why it took a white woman from Austrailia getting killed by a cop for certain people to realize this is a problem.
As I said earlier I found this case particularly troubling and that's not to do with skin color. One aspect was that the victim was not stopped by the police (as is typical), where you might expect a greater degree of guardedness from officers and thus more likelihood of tragic reactions resulting. Instead she was actively seeking help from the police for another person (dressed in her pyjamas). A second aspect has been the refusal of the officer involved to make any statement. I don't believe that it's appropriate to release what has to be a suspect in a murder investigation without even having a statement from them.
And Tamir Rice was a kid playing in the park and Philando Castillo was involved in an illegal traffic stop. The problem is in police culture itself. The thin blue line is the problem. This stuff simply DOES NOT happen in other countries. For starters, we need to require police have a 4-year degree in criminal justice, and not a few months of obviously horrible training.
@jjstraka34 The point of the post was that racism can easily be applied in an attempt to be inclusive. Hiring someone BECAUSE of their skin color is no less racist than refusing to hire someone for the same reason, no matter how they perform.
This is, of course, untrue. There is a huge difference between hiring a historically unrepresented group and excluding the same.
And, of course, if people are not forced to hire historically excluded groups, they will by and large not hire (or promote, or pay equally) people of this group. This has been proven over and over and over again.
There is not a market solution for prejudice. What actually works is forcing people to intermingle and work with the people they previously excluded. This has been proven to work in many countries and conditions, regardless of how fair you think it might be as a person who is not in a historically unrepresented group.
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly) that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
By your logic, I guess since George Burns lived to be 100, that showed that all the statistical evidence about the effect of smoking on lifespan were bunk.
I cannot work, because I am disabled AND I have a disabled wife (no son, though). So we are roughly equivalent aside from the fact I live in a country where needing "health insurance" is a quaint absurdity, but on the other hand, that country is Australia, so we're even again.
So as a fellow disadvantaged white:
If you cannot be bothered to actually learn what white privilege is, maybe you shouldn't have such a strong opinion on it. Your anecdotal unlucky life experience is irrelevant, just like mine is irrelevant. If you don't know why it doesn't matter how your life is, and if you don't realise why bad things happening in your life do not mean you never benefited from white privilege, then you never understood the concept in the first place.
Thanks for proving my point. I'm white so my difficulties don't matter.
And Tamir Rice was a kid playing in the park and Philando Castillo was involved in an illegal traffic stop. The problem is in police culture itself. The thin blue line is the problem. This stuff simply DOES NOT happen in other countries. For starters, we need to require police have a 4-year degree in criminal justice, and not a few months of obviously horrible training.
I don't disagree with your main point, but I still think this incident was qualitatively different in a way you don't seem to. - in Tamir Rice's case officers were responding to a call about a male waving a gun around and came across an individual apparently pulling a gun out. Given the problems with police culture you're talking about it's not that surprising that tragedy resulted even though the 'gun' was actually a toy. - in Philando Castile's case officers pulled over a car. Whether they were entitled to legally or not, that provides an element of tension and being told an occupant had a gun added to that. Without in the least suggesting that the officer's reaction was justified I think there was again the pre-conditions for a cocktail of mistakes and prejudice to result in a tragedy. - in the Damond case those pre-conditions appear to be far less apparent - officers were not looking for a woman suspect, but were aware a woman had called them out.
While I agree the Damond case is illustrative of general problems with policing culture and is also relevant to some previous discussion on this thread in demonstrating that activist organisations will protest just as much about a white person's death as they would for a black person that's not why I originally made the post. At the risk of being boring I'll repeat that I can't understand how anyone - whether police or not - can shoot someone, refuse to talk about it and just be sent home.
@jjstraka34 The point of the post was that racism can easily be applied in an attempt to be inclusive. Hiring someone BECAUSE of their skin color is no less racist than refusing to hire someone for the same reason, no matter how they perform.
This is, of course, untrue. There is a huge difference between hiring a historically unrepresented group and excluding the same.
And, of course, if people are not forced to hire historically excluded groups, they will by and large not hire (or promote, or pay equally) people of this group. This has been proven over and over and over again.
There is not a market solution for prejudice. What actually works is forcing people to intermingle and work with the people they previously excluded. This has been proven to work in many countries and conditions, regardless of how fair you think it might be as a person who is not in a historically unrepresented group.
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly) that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
By your logic, I guess since George Burns lived to be 100, that showed that all the statistical evidence about the effect of smoking on lifespan were bunk.
I cannot work, because I am disabled AND I have a disabled wife (no son, though). So we are roughly equivalent aside from the fact I live in a country where needing "health insurance" is a quaint absurdity, but on the other hand, that country is Australia, so we're even again.
So as a fellow disadvantaged white:
If you cannot be bothered to actually learn what white privilege is, maybe you shouldn't have such a strong opinion on it. Your anecdotal unlucky life experience is irrelevant, just like mine is irrelevant. If you don't know why it doesn't matter how your life is, and if you don't realise why bad things happening in your life do not mean you never benefited from white privilege, then you never understood the concept in the first place.
Thanks for proving my point. I'm white so my difficulties don't matter.
To boil it down, he is essentially trying to say your hardships didn't occur specifically because you were white, and that your race was not the primary factor in how they came about. Not that they don't matter. No one should be saying your problems don't matter. That's not what white privilege means. It doesn't mean white people don't have problems. I means white people are inoculated from CERTAIN problems black people face on a daily basis simply by walking out the door.
While you have white privilege, you may not have economic privilege, or the privilege of good health for your family. Both can be true.
@jjstraka34 The point of the post was that racism can easily be applied in an attempt to be inclusive. Hiring someone BECAUSE of their skin color is no less racist than refusing to hire someone for the same reason, no matter how they perform.
This is, of course, untrue. There is a huge difference between hiring a historically unrepresented group and excluding the same.
And, of course, if people are not forced to hire historically excluded groups, they will by and large not hire (or promote, or pay equally) people of this group. This has been proven over and over and over again.
There is not a market solution for prejudice. What actually works is forcing people to intermingle and work with the people they previously excluded. This has been proven to work in many countries and conditions, regardless of how fair you think it might be as a person who is not in a historically unrepresented group.
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly) that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
By your logic, I guess since George Burns lived to be 100, that showed that all the statistical evidence about the effect of smoking on lifespan were bunk.
I cannot work, because I am disabled AND I have a disabled wife (no son, though). So we are roughly equivalent aside from the fact I live in a country where needing "health insurance" is a quaint absurdity, but on the other hand, that country is Australia, so we're even again.
So as a fellow disadvantaged white:
If you cannot be bothered to actually learn what white privilege is, maybe you shouldn't have such a strong opinion on it. Your anecdotal unlucky life experience is irrelevant, just like mine is irrelevant. If you don't know why it doesn't matter how your life is, and if you don't realise why bad things happening in your life do not mean you never benefited from white privilege, then you never understood the concept in the first place.
Thanks for proving my point. I'm white so my difficulties don't matter.
To boil it down, he is essentially trying to say your hardships didn't occur specifically because you were white, and that your race was not the primary factor in how they came about. Not that they don't matter. No one should be saying your problems don't matter. That's not what white privilege means. It doesn't mean white people don't have problems. I means white people are inoculated from CERTAIN problems black people face on a daily basis simply by walking out the door.
While you have white privilege, you may not have economic privilege, or the privilege of good health for your family. Both can be true.
It STILL boils down to, "You're different because of your skin color". Just more racist crap thrown onto the pile of hate and prejudice. Anyone who is willing to demonize someone for their color has nothing of value to say in ANY discussion of racism. It propagates more hate and segregation and I REFUSE let such discriminatory rhetoric to pass unchallenged.
@Artona Was this line not clear enough? "One of the most unacknowledged white privileges is how virtually everyone else has not held the undying blood vendetta against white people that, morally, they are pretty entitled to." Remember kids, its the moral thing to go on a genocidal ramapage against people whose skin color is different than yours. Yeah, I don't see how this is racist at all. It clearly promotes acceptance and love. Because I am white, I am clearly a vile human being that spends my weekends killing and enslaving all minority groups, and they are ENTITLED to want to slaughter me and my family. My wife? She's white so she must also be a genocidal tyrant. My ! year old son? Doesn't matter, genocidal tyrant. Don't waste my time trying to defend hateful tripe like this. There is NO excuse for it. Frankly, I'm shocked that saying crap like that is allowed in the site rules.
@ThacoBell - well, you did say: "It STILL boils down to, "You're different because of your skin color". Just more racist crap thrown onto the pile of hate and prejudice." And saying "something happens to Asians, because they are Asian" is literally saying that they are different because of their skin colour. Hence my question. With that being said, I do think your interpretation of what @Ayiekie said is unfair at least, since you took one single sentence out of something that looks like this:
"Somehow, I think the people doing this don't CARE whether the message fails to resonate with white people.
You don't have to be included in their experience.
One of the most unacknowledged white privileges is how virtually everyone else has not held the undying blood vendetta against white people that, morally, they are pretty entitled to. Meanwhile, white people in the US by and large still hate and fear black people (statistically speaking), and this shows up again and again in their prejudices and actions."
Bear in mind, of course, that this thread is for discussing politics and not other forumites. Just so we don't go off on a tangent.
...this thread is not here for us to discuss each other's alleged character flaws. In fact, there is no place on this forum for such a discussion, as the Site Rules--which are not up for discussion and which you agree to follow by using this site--forbid insults and personal attacks of all kinds. If we have not already reached that point, we are coming awfully close.
Accusing each other of ill motives or absurd beliefs is not acceptable. Any further comments in this vein will be deleted and reported to the moderating team for review.
"I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree," said Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh. "That was never our intent."
Trump is very selective with where he appears. He only ventures out to campaign rallies, military people, christian things, and Fox news. He only appears at mainstream things where people are forced to be there.
Glad the boy scouts rejected his political speech full of lies, though it took a bit longer than it should have for them to say something. If he'd shown up and "rah rah boys keep up the good work I'm proud of you" that would have been appropriate. But he can't help himself he's unhinged.
@Artona The existence of that line colors the entire post. If a white person had included the same line, but said that white people have a moral entitlement to a blood feud with the black community, do you think would dismiss it amongst a larger post? I doubt it, since simply having white skin seems to be a crime. But this is making me far too angry to continue discussing without going too far. As @semiticgod has pointed out, I am coming close, so I will bow out of the discussion for now to calm down.
Straight-up facts about Trump's proposed transgender ban: He did not talk to his generals, the Joint Chiefs and heads of the various branches of the Armed Services had NO idea this was coming. Furthermore, as a conservative estimate in both categories, there are at least 9000 transgender people actively serving. A rough estimate cost of training simply a run-of-mill Army recruit alone is $17,500. So at a bare minimum (for all the fiscal conservatives out there supposedly concerned about governement waste) removing these troops would be like flushing 158 million dollars down the toilet. But that only assumes BASIC training. The vast majority of these people have likely been serving for years and advancing their careers through MORE training. So, again, conservatively, you can easily triple this number. If trans people are removed from the military, the government and taxpayers just threw away half a billion to a billion dollars based on Donald Trump's mood Wednesday morning. Nevermind the fact that nearly all of these people are likely serving vital and important roles in their unit. Every one of them would have to be replaced, so the total amount would then at least DOUBLE.
Straight-up facts about Trump's proposed transgender ban: He did not talk to his generals, the Joint Chiefs and heads of the various branches of the Armed Services had NO idea this was coming. Furthermore, as a conservative estimate in both categories, there are at least 9000 transgender people actively serving. A rough estimate cost of training simply a run-of-mill Army recruit alone is $17,500. So at a bare minimum (for all the fiscal conservatives out there supposedly concerned about governement waste) removing these troops would be like flushing 158 million dollars down the toilet. But that only assumes BASIC training. The vast majority of these people have likely been serving for years and advancing their careers through MORE training. So, again, conservatively, you can easily triple this number. If trans people are removed from the military, the government and taxpayers just threw away half a billion to a billion dollars based on Donald Trump's mood Wednesday morning. Nevermind the fact that nearly all of these people are likely serving vital and important roles in their unit. Every one of them would have to be replaced, so the total amount would then at least DOUBLE.
I would assume they'd be grandfathered in.
Also, just because he tweeted it, doesn't mean it is law. I am pretty sure that still has to go through all the branches of government something like this would have to go through. It has the chance of being nixed.
yes just because he tweeted no trans in the military doesn't mean it's happened yet. Presumably the wheels are now to be set in motion.
“Reince (Priebus) is a f------ paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci told New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza in a Wednesday phone call while accusing Priebus of leaking details of a private dinner with President Trump and claiming he will be asked to resign.
Scaramucci was angry that Lizza found out he planned to dine with Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox News executive Bill Shine at the White House. He believed that Priebus, whom he has feuded with for months, was the one who told Lizza about it.
Mimicking Priebus, Scaramucci tells Lizza: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the f------ thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ”
White House Communications director here ladies and gentlemen.
Its almost too easy. Hey Scaramucci, Steve Bannon said you looked fat and you're only worth 2 million dollars. lol next thing you know Bannon would be in the hot seat.
I can see now why Spicer bailed. Defending and working for one loose cannon must be stressful enough. Throw in a second like Scaramucci and you're bound to just throw your hands up and give up.
What is going on in the Senate right now is the most cynical and stupid bullshit I have ever seen. First of all, this new "skinny repeal" bill was literally put together by Republican leadership OVER LUNCH this afternoon. But beyond that, so-called Republican "moderates" like McCain and Graham are now on record saying they will vote for the bill, but only if they get a guarantee it won't become law when it goes to conference with the House. That's right, you didn't read that wrong. They are willing to vote for a bill they don't want to become law. Why?? Very, very simple. They want to say they voted to repeal Obamacare, but take no responsibility for the consequences of that vote. I can't think of a single thing that sums up the modern GOP more than this line of thinking.
I can see now why Spicer bailed. Defending and working for one loose cannon must be stressful enough. Throw in a second like Scaramucci and you're bound to just throw your hands up and give up.
I think I'll go ahead and predict that the military transgender ban thing is never actually going to be implemented.
Even it doesn't (and it won't only because Trump is an incompetent boob), the President of the United States still signaled and told the entire country yesterday that transgender people are less than everyone else. That they aren't full citizens or people. That they are to be feared and shamed. This is undeniably true. I know for a fact we have transgender people on these forums. Imagine how they might feel.
I think I'll go ahead and predict that the military transgender ban thing is never actually going to be implemented.
I think it has a good chance. Trump has a long time left in office, at least theoretically. And his actual real job is to be in charge of the military as commander in chief. He thinks he has fake jobs like perpetual campaigner and twitterer in chief, or religious guy in chief or something but honest to god he's actually supposed to be in charge of the military. And if he doesn't last then Pence takes over who doesn't like alternative people, or women, or anyone not a rich white christian old man.
So I'd say the ban is one's actually likely to happen.
But Scaramucci fits well with Trump. Rich guy used to getting whatever he wants so he's spoiled and a braggart at the same time. He loves the spotlight and wants it all to be about him "hey look at me!" Perfect for Trump.
The White House Communications Director is bitching about a reporter reporting on stuff he said ON THE RECORD. The stupidity that envelopes the people in charge of this country right now is unfathomable. And the day anyone in this White House takes responsibility for anything is the day I drop dead of shock. I don't even care about Scaramucci's language, I like to swear to. The idea that it's the fault of the reporter he dished all this dirt to is the ridiculous part.
More updates on healthcare: it is 10pm in Washington, no one has even SEEN the bill that is being voted on tonight, and there are Republican Senators who are on the record saying that a.) the bill is terrible and b.) they are going to vote for it anyway. I think the fix is in, I think they are actually going to pass this tonight. They are going to just rip healthcare away from 16-20 million people. What sick, sick bastards.
If this passes tonight, it will NOT go to conference. They are lying about that. The tell is that it strips Planned Parenthood funding for one year. If this passes, it's over. By the way, the stripping of that funding, by ALL Senate rules that we know of, should force this to get 60 votes based on how it affects the budget. But that is flat-out being ignored.
Barring John McCain voting no, this is over. We are so, so screwed. If you think things are volatile in this country now, wait til 16 million less people have health insurance next year. Wait til everyone else is paying 20% higher premiums than currently. Give this another 12 months, and see just where your country is going. You are watching a high-dive into a some amalgamation of autocracy and fascism right before your very eyes. Again, don't say you weren't warned. Things are going to get way, way worse than they are now. The discourse, the debate, everything.
Whatabout when the Democrats tried to ram through legislation that would take away healthcare and give the richest 1% a huge tax break in the dead of night without debate or input or anything? I mean they mostly serve corporations over people albeit to a lesser extent than Republicans but never ever pulled any 'burn democracy to the ground' stuff like Mitch and and party does all the time and is doing.
Both sides! Fair and balanced. yeah right. It's one party.
Whatabout when the Democrats tried to ram through legislation that would take away healthcare and give the richest 1% a huge tax break in the dead of night without debate or input or anything?
Both sides! Fair and balanced. yeah right. It's one party.
Obamacare had 10 months of debate. Nearly a month on the Senate floor itself. Democrats bending over backwards, moving the bill further and further to the right in some HOPE of cooperation from Republicans. Now we're here. A sociopathic (and I'm not even slightly kidding about that term) political party hell bent on simply killing poor people. Seriously, 16 million more uninsured NEXT year, and 20% rate hikes EVERY YEAR between 2018 and 2026. From the CBO. The CBO that is headed by a man put into that position by Tom Price himself.
Obamacare had 10 months of debate. Nearly a month on the Senate floor itself. Democrats bending over backwards, moving the bill further and further to the right in some HOPE of cooperation from Republicans.
That is the part which still confuses me. Why did the Democrats even bother consulting with Republicans at the time? When the ACA passed, the Democrats had majorities in both Houses of Congress so they could have passed whatever they wanted yet they chose to pass what got passed. Why?
I guarantee that the next time they wind up with majorities in both Houses (whenever that might occur) they won't bother about trying to include the other side. Quit trying to be "bipartisan"--if you have the votes to pass your legislation then just vote and pass it. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that if your legislation winds up being a really bad idea you have to own it.
*************
Logically, "not having health insurance" is not equivalent to "killing someone" or "allowing someone to die". If it were, then everyone who died throughout human history before health insurance existed was "killed" or "allowed to die". Find a better, more logical argument.
Obamacare had 10 months of debate. Nearly a month on the Senate floor itself. Democrats bending over backwards, moving the bill further and further to the right in some HOPE of cooperation from Republicans.
That is the part which still confuses me. Why did the Democrats even bother consulting with Republicans at the time? When the ACA passed, the Democrats had majorities in both Houses of Congress so they could have passed whatever they wanted yet they chose to pass what got passed. Why?
I guarantee that the next time they wind up with majorities in both Houses (whenever that might occur) they won't bother about trying to include the other side. Quit trying to be "bipartisan"--if you have the votes to pass your legislation then just vote and pass it. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that if your legislation winds up being a really bad idea you have to own it.
*************
Logically, "not having health insurance" is not equivalent to "killing someone" or "allowing someone to die". If it were, then everyone who died throughout human history before health insurance existed was "killed" or "allowed to die". Find a better, more logical argument.
16 million people will lose insurance. All 16 million of them will be far less likely to go to the doctor when they get sick, because they don't believe they can afford it. A small percentage of them (but still thousands upon thousands) will die because they didn't seek medical treatment because they COULDN'T AFFORD IT. There is plenty of "logic" here.
Obamacare had 10 months of debate. Nearly a month on the Senate floor itself. Democrats bending over backwards, moving the bill further and further to the right in some HOPE of cooperation from Republicans.
That is the part which still confuses me. Why did the Democrats even bother consulting with Republicans at the time? When the ACA passed, the Democrats had majorities in both Houses of Congress so they could have passed whatever they wanted yet they chose to pass what got passed. Why?
I guarantee that the next time they wind up with majorities in both Houses (whenever that might occur) they won't bother about trying to include the other side. Quit trying to be "bipartisan"--if you have the votes to pass your legislation then just vote and pass it. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that if your legislation winds up being a really bad idea you have to own it.
*************
Logically, "not having health insurance" is not equivalent to "killing someone" or "allowing someone to die". If it were, then everyone who died throughout human history before health insurance existed was "killed" or "allowed to die". Find a better, more logical argument.
apparently it's foolish to try and be bipartisan is what you're saying. Republicans certainly weren't and certainly are not now.
I reckon that one of the worst things about President t rump's comments about how he does not want transgender in the military, is the effect that asinine comment might have on those already IN the military. For someone's overall Commander in Chief to make this comment/decision about them cannot be good for one's moral. The same could be said I imagine for at least some of one's fellow comrades in arms who consider one another to be extremely dependent on, regardless of gender, and to trust beyond all else, especially when on deployment. Furthermore, if I were in the military now, I would be telling that same person, (at least in private), "Forget him, I gotcha' ya back".
To top it all off, and this is what makes it even worse, it came out from him on a tweet for Pete's sake.
Comments
- in Tamir Rice's case officers were responding to a call about a male waving a gun around and came across an individual apparently pulling a gun out. Given the problems with police culture you're talking about it's not that surprising that tragedy resulted even though the 'gun' was actually a toy.
- in Philando Castile's case officers pulled over a car. Whether they were entitled to legally or not, that provides an element of tension and being told an occupant had a gun added to that. Without in the least suggesting that the officer's reaction was justified I think there was again the pre-conditions for a cocktail of mistakes and prejudice to result in a tragedy.
- in the Damond case those pre-conditions appear to be far less apparent - officers were not looking for a woman suspect, but were aware a woman had called them out.
While I agree the Damond case is illustrative of general problems with policing culture and is also relevant to some previous discussion on this thread in demonstrating that activist organisations will protest just as much about a white person's death as they would for a black person that's not why I originally made the post. At the risk of being boring I'll repeat that I can't understand how anyone - whether police or not - can shoot someone, refuse to talk about it and just be sent home.
While you have white privilege, you may not have economic privilege, or the privilege of good health for your family. Both can be true.
Remember kids, its the moral thing to go on a genocidal ramapage against people whose skin color is different than yours. Yeah, I don't see how this is racist at all. It clearly promotes acceptance and love. Because I am white, I am clearly a vile human being that spends my weekends killing and enslaving all minority groups, and they are ENTITLED to want to slaughter me and my family. My wife? She's white so she must also be a genocidal tyrant. My ! year old son? Doesn't matter, genocidal tyrant. Don't waste my time trying to defend hateful tripe like this. There is NO excuse for it. Frankly, I'm shocked that saying crap like that is allowed in the site rules.
"It STILL boils down to, "You're different because of your skin color". Just more racist crap thrown onto the pile of hate and prejudice."
And saying "something happens to Asians, because they are Asian" is literally saying that they are different because of their skin colour. Hence my question.
With that being said, I do think your interpretation of what @Ayiekie said is unfair at least, since you took one single sentence out of something that looks like this:
"Somehow, I think the people doing this don't CARE whether the message fails to resonate with white people.
You don't have to be included in their experience.
One of the most unacknowledged white privileges is how virtually everyone else has not held the undying blood vendetta against white people that, morally, they are pretty entitled to. Meanwhile, white people in the US by and large still hate and fear black people (statistically speaking), and this shows up again and again in their prejudices and actions."
So your rant seems to be misguided.
As I have just stated... ...this thread is not here for us to discuss each other's alleged character flaws. In fact, there is no place on this forum for such a discussion, as the Site Rules--which are not up for discussion and which you agree to follow by using this site--forbid insults and personal attacks of all kinds. If we have not already reached that point, we are coming awfully close.
Accusing each other of ill motives or absurd beliefs is not acceptable. Any further comments in this vein will be deleted and reported to the moderating team for review.
"I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree," said Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh. "That was never our intent."
Trump is very selective with where he appears. He only ventures out to campaign rallies, military people, christian things, and Fox news. He only appears at mainstream things where people are forced to be there.
Glad the boy scouts rejected his political speech full of lies, though it took a bit longer than it should have for them to say something. If he'd shown up and "rah rah boys keep up the good work I'm proud of you" that would have been appropriate. But he can't help himself he's unhinged.
Also, just because he tweeted it, doesn't mean it is law. I am pretty sure that still has to go through all the branches of government something like this would have to go through. It has the chance of being nixed.
It is just a well placed smoke screen imo
“Reince (Priebus) is a f------ paranoid schizophrenic, a paranoiac,” Scaramucci told New Yorker writer Ryan Lizza in a Wednesday phone call while accusing Priebus of leaking details of a private dinner with President Trump and claiming he will be asked to resign.
Scaramucci was angry that Lizza found out he planned to dine with Trump, Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox News executive Bill Shine at the White House. He believed that Priebus, whom he has feuded with for months, was the one who told Lizza about it.
Mimicking Priebus, Scaramucci tells Lizza: “ ‘Oh, Bill Shine is coming in. Let me leak the f------ thing and see if I can cock-block these people the way I cock-blocked Scaramucci for six months.’ ”
White House Communications director here ladies and gentlemen.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344215-scaramucci-priebus-is-a-paranoid-schizophrenic-will-be-asked-to
Its almost too easy. Hey Scaramucci, Steve Bannon said you looked fat and you're only worth 2 million dollars. lol next thing you know Bannon would be in the hot seat.
I can see now why Spicer bailed. Defending and working for one loose cannon must be stressful enough. Throw in a second like Scaramucci and you're bound to just throw your hands up and give up.
Seriously though, all I can picture is Scaramucci sitting behind his desk with a mountain of cocaine in front of him, Tony Montana-style.
So I'd say the ban is one's actually likely to happen.
But Scaramucci fits well with Trump. Rich guy used to getting whatever he wants so he's spoiled and a braggart at the same time. He loves the spotlight and wants it all to be about him "hey look at me!" Perfect for Trump.
The White House Communications Director is bitching about a reporter reporting on stuff he said ON THE RECORD. The stupidity that envelopes the people in charge of this country right now is unfathomable. And the day anyone in this White House takes responsibility for anything is the day I drop dead of shock. I don't even care about Scaramucci's language, I like to swear to. The idea that it's the fault of the reporter he dished all this dirt to is the ridiculous part.
If this passes tonight, it will NOT go to conference. They are lying about that. The tell is that it strips Planned Parenthood funding for one year. If this passes, it's over. By the way, the stripping of that funding, by ALL Senate rules that we know of, should force this to get 60 votes based on how it affects the budget. But that is flat-out being ignored.
Barring John McCain voting no, this is over. We are so, so screwed. If you think things are volatile in this country now, wait til 16 million less people have health insurance next year. Wait til everyone else is paying 20% higher premiums than currently. Give this another 12 months, and see just where your country is going. You are watching a high-dive into a some amalgamation of autocracy and fascism right before your very eyes. Again, don't say you weren't warned. Things are going to get way, way worse than they are now. The discourse, the debate, everything.
Both sides! Fair and balanced. yeah right. It's one party.
I guarantee that the next time they wind up with majorities in both Houses (whenever that might occur) they won't bother about trying to include the other side. Quit trying to be "bipartisan"--if you have the votes to pass your legislation then just vote and pass it. Of course, the flip side of that coin is that if your legislation winds up being a really bad idea you have to own it.
*************
Logically, "not having health insurance" is not equivalent to "killing someone" or "allowing someone to die". If it were, then everyone who died throughout human history before health insurance existed was "killed" or "allowed to die". Find a better, more logical argument.
Furthermore, if I were in the military now, I would be telling that same person, (at least in private), "Forget him, I gotcha' ya back".
To top it all off, and this is what makes it even worse, it came out from him on a tweet for Pete's sake.