2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
As bad as the debate was, it was pretty entertaining watching Lester Holt trying to keep the debate under control. :lol
He was like the out of control parent at Toys R Us.

"Hey, hey. What did we agree to in the car? If you want a toy you have to be good. Okay stop crying, if you don't stop crying you won't get a toy. I'm gonna count to ten. One... Okay you can have a toy but you have to be good starting now. Okay if you start being good for the rest of the time we're in the store I'll get you two toys. What did I say, if you aren't good you won't get a second toy. Okay I'm going to count to ten. Alright you can have 3 toys but you have to let me ask you about race in America."
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
Yeah I am the imbecile but you don't even know what rhetorical means
I never said you were an imbecile. But we can go with that one if you prefer.

Also...

rhe·tor·i·cal
rəˈtôrək(ə)l/
adjective

of, relating to, or concerned with the art of rhetoric.
"repetition is a common rhetorical device"

expressed in terms intended to persuade or impress.
"the rhetorical commitment of the government to give priority to primary education"

question asked or to make a statement in order to produce an effect rather than to elicit information.


Looks like that definition fits his statement perfectly. Who doesn't know what rhetorical means again? I'd say imbecile fits nicely. Good choice, Al.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
He was like the out of control parent at Toys R Us.

"Hey, hey. What did we agree to in the car? If you want a toy you have to be good. Okay stop crying, if you don't stop crying you won't get a toy. I'm gonna count to ten. One... Okay you can have a toy but you have to be good starting now. Okay if you start being good for the rest of the time we're in the store I'll get you two toys. What did I say, if you aren't good you won't get a second toy. Okay I'm going to count to ten. Alright you can have 3 toys but you have to let me ask you about race in America."
:lol

Yes, it was quite entertaining.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Yeah that would have been perfect.

I'm not sure how rich old white man Bernie Sanders was able to come of as genuinely caring about minority groups and wanting to help them but rich old white woman Hilary does not have that same ability. Trump just repeats the same damn phrases over and over while Hilary sounds like she is reading a poorly written script about nothing that she believes in. The debate was god awful and honestly not only could I not pick a winner I saw three losers during the debate. Trump, Hilary and America for having one of them as a president.
Because Hillary has actually helped minorities every since she graduated college and she has actually employed them at every level since she has been in public office.

I am not saying she is above questions but she actually has a positive track record in that area.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
I never said you were an imbecile. But we can go with that one if you prefer.

Also...

rhe·tor·i·cal
rəˈtôrək(ə)l/
adjective

of, relating to, or concerned with the art of rhetoric.
"repetition is a common rhetorical device"

expressed in terms intended to persuade or impress.
"the rhetorical commitment of the government to give priority to primary education"

question asked or to make a statement in order to produce an effect rather than to elicit information.


Looks like that definition fits his statement perfectly. Who doesn't know what rhetorical means again? I'd say imbecile fits nicely. Good choice, Al.
Well imbecile and idiot are your go to insults sorry I mixed them up.

He was not trying to make a statement he has been asking for those emails for the last 3 months but of course there is always somebody like you with a follow up exsplanation "of what he really meant".

He is actually trying to get something not being rhetorical of he would not have been saying the exact same thing for 3 months, remember him asking the Russians to hack her and find the emails?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Can we stop and talk about Trump wanting nationwide stop and frisk? Is there anyone in this country that thinks that would be a good idea? That was his answer to the problem of race in America. Reviving an authoritarian and transparently racist breach of the 4th amendment.
 
Last edited:

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Can we stop and talk about Trump wanting nationwide stop and frisk? Is there anyone in this country that thinks that would be a good idea? That was his answer to the problem of race in America. Reviving an authoritarian and transparently racist breach of the 4th amendment.
After it has been found unconstitutional.

The whole "broken windows"debate is pretty fascinating the premise makes sense but the human element sort of derails the implementation.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Can we stop and talk about Trump wanting nationwide stop and frisk? Is there anyone in this country that thinks that would be a good idea? That was his answer to the problem of race in America. Reviving an authoritarian and transparently racist breach of the 4th amendment.
It's not racist. God I wish people would stop throwing around that term when it doesn't apply.

It is horrific though. Nothing good would come of something like that.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
It's not racist. God I wish people would stop throwing around that term when it doesn't apply
I've said many times that the more we make shit about race when it doesn't apply the further we are getting from a solution.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
It's not racist. God I wish people would stop throwing around that term when it doesn't apply.

It is horrific though. Nothing good would come of something like that.
It was used overwhelmingly to target blacks and Latinos. Anything can be "not racist" if you don't talk about who it affects.

Here's the data from the NYCLU

In 2003, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 160,851 times.
140,442 were totally innocent (87 percent).
77,704 were black (54 percent).
44,581 were Latino (31 percent).
17,623 were white (12 percent).
83,499 were aged 14-24 (55 percent).
In 2004, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 313,523 times.
278,933 were totally innocent (89 percent).
155,033 were black (55 percent).
89,937 were Latino (32 percent).
28,913 were white (10 percent).
152,196 were aged 14-24 (52 percent).
In 2005, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 398,191 times.
352,348 were totally innocent (89 percent).
196,570 were black (54 percent).
115,088 were Latino (32 percent).
40,713 were white (11 percent).
189,854 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
In 2006, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 506,491 times.
457,163 were totally innocent (90 percent).
267,468 were black (53 percent).
147,862 were Latino (29 percent).
53,500 were white (11 percent).
247,691 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).
In 2007, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 472,096 times.
410,936 were totally innocent (87 percent).
243,766 were black (54 percent).
141,868 were Latino (31 percent).
52,887 were white (12 percent).
223,783 were aged 14-24 (48 percent).
In 2008, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 540,302 times.
474,387 were totally innocent (88 percent).
275,588 were black (53 percent).
168,475 were Latino (32 percent).
57,650 were white (11 percent).
263,408 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
In 2009, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 581,168 times.
510,742 were totally innocent (88 percent).
310,611 were black (55 percent).
180,055 were Latino (32 percent).
53,601 were white (10 percent).
289,602 were aged 14-24 (50 percent).
In 2010, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 601,285 times.
518,849 were totally innocent (86 percent).
315,083 were black (54 percent).
189,326 were Latino (33 percent).
54,810 were white (9 percent).
295,902 were aged 14-24 (49 percent).
In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times.
605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent).
350,743 were black (53 percent).
223,740 were Latino (34 percent).
61,805 were white (9 percent).
341,581 were aged 14-24 (51 percent).
In 2012, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 532,911 times
473,644 were totally innocent (89 percent).
284,229 were black (55 percent).
165,140 were Latino (32 percent).
50,366 were white (10 percent).
In 2013, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 191,558 times.
169,252 were totally innocent (88 percent).
104,958 were black (56 percent).
55,191 were Latino (29 percent).
20,877 were white (11 percent).
In 2014, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 45,787 times.
37,744 were totally innocent (82 percent).
24,319 were black (53 percent).
12,489 were Latino (27 percent).
5,467 were white (12 percent).
In 2015, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 22,939 times.
18,353 were totally innocent (80 percent).
12,223 were black (54 percent).
6,598 were Latino (29 percent).
2,567 were white (11 percent).


That's a decade where minorities made up over 80% of the stop and frisks.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
It was used overwhelmingly to target blacks and Latinos. Anything can be "not racist" if you don't talk about who it affects.

That's a decade where minorities made up over 80% of the stop and frisks.
Well, they were targeting high crime areas with that initiative, and, well, there are a ton of minorities that live in high crimes areas.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Well, they were targeting high crime areas with that initiative, and, well, there are a ton of minorities that live in high crimes areas.
Exactly. The law itself wasn't racist which is what was implied and ridiculous. It's like saying theft laws are racist because a disproportionate amount of theft convictions are African American as opposed to White. It doesn't make the law racist.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Well, they were targeting high crime areas with that initiative, and, well, there are a ton of minorities that live in high crimes areas.
But 91% of the people targeted were innocent. So the entire methodology is faulty. If they were successfully targeting criminals and not just harassing minorities, then they would have actually gotten results.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Exactly. The law itself wasn't racist which is what was implied and ridiculous. It's like saying theft laws are racist because a disproportionate amount of theft convictions are African American as opposed to White. It doesn't make the law racist.
First of all, the criminal justice system is racist because it holds blacks to a different standard than whites. So a white kid caught stealing is more likely to be seen as a kid who made a mistake with a bright future ahead of him, and a black kid will be seen as a thug who has no respect for law and order.

So yes the convictions are a sign of an intrinsically racist system. The difference is while a law against stealing itself isn't racist, a law that says its okay for cops to racially profile innocent citizens is.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
By your logic poll taxes and literacy tests weren't racist either, as as those laws didn't mention race.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
Exactly. The law itself wasn't racist which is what was implied and ridiculous. It's like saying theft laws are racist because a disproportionate amount of theft convictions are African American as opposed to White. It doesn't make the law racist.
Correct.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
But 91% of the people targeted were innocent. So the entire methodology is faulty. If they were successfully targeting criminals and not just harassing minorities, then they would have actually gotten results.
I'm not saying they should do it. I'm stating it wasn't implemented with racial intentions. It was implemented to fight the high crime. And, btw, it was stop and frisk everyone, so of course the percentage of people they stop that were innocent would be high. It's not a very efficient way of doing things. Just a huge waste of the police's time. But, it was effective. Crime in NY dropped a ton during that time.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
It's not racist. God I wish people would stop throwing around that term when it doesn't apply.

It is horrific though. Nothing good would come of something like that.
The judicial branch considered it racially biased and that was the reason they ruled against it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom