Former President George W. Bush: 'It is time for America to examine our tragic failures'
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 4 years ago • 286 commentsBy: Jane C. Timm (NBC News)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former President George W. Bush released a lengthy statement Tuesday calling on the country to listen to black Americans and "examine our tragic failures."
"It is a strength when protesters, protected by responsible law enforcement, march for a better future," he wrote. "This tragedy — in a long series of similar tragedies — raises a long overdue question: How do we end systemic racism in our society?"
His statement comes more than a week after the death of George Floyd, a black man who was killed in Minneapolis police custody after a white officer knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes, prompting days of protests across the country marked by looting and violent clashes with police.
Bush called on people to listen to "grieving" African Americans, saying it was critical to seeing the country's reality honestly and improving on it.
"We can only see the reality of America's need by seeing it through the eyes of the threatened, oppressed, and disenfranchised," he wrote.
Bush did not speak out publicly on police killings during his two terms as president, despite two major cases, according to The New York Times. And he did not refer to policy brutality specifically, instead speaking of racism and saying black Americans "are harassed and threatened in their own country."
Bush also did not refer to the current president or his urging of a harsh clampdown on protests Tuesday. Still, he argued, it is the entire country's responsibility to achieve "justice for all."
"We know that lasting justice will only come by peaceful means. Looting is not liberation, and destruction is not progress. But we also know that lasting peace in our communities requires truly equal justice. The rule of law ultimately depends on the fairness and legitimacy of the legal system. And achieving justice for all is the duty of all," he said.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
These are photos of thousands of people laying down on a bridge in Portland yesterday, on their stomachs with their hands clasped behind their backs, to mimic the death of George Floyd.
The protests across the country are in their ninth day today, and have taken place in roughly 150 American cities.
It goes without saying that these thousands of protesters are not looting or rioting.
It goes without saying that millions of fair minded voters in heartland of the US are sick and tired of these left wing organized and financed media events.
Democrat mayors and governors have shown that they less concerned with the rights and safety of the majority of their citizens, what
with their ongoing inaction to stop the looting and rioting long, long, after the point has been made. The "protestors" seem to have no solutions to offer other than street theater.
The only polls I have seen show the sizable majority of Americans agreeing with the protesters. Fox News viewers are not a majority Greg.
Greg,
You might want to look at this map:
Kind of looks like to me, that there were plenty of red states involved, too. Instead of trying to blame this on the media, why not get what Pres. Bush was saying?
Those are likely protests, not riots or looting. What constitutes a protest by their measurement by the way? One person on a street corner with a sign? I haven't seen any protest in my county in Michigan where I see red dots.
There have been major protests in Michigan. I even posted photos of it, in my other article. I find it amazing that you will twist yourself into a pretzel to deny what is going on here.
In Wayne county. I can tell you that is not "heartland America", that is big inner city progressive utopia land.
Well, the map tells a different story. You have yet to actually present anything other than your opinion and anecdotal accounts.
We've had riots in Little Rock and NW Arkansas. Arkansas is hardly a blue state is it?
Perrie,
The map lies. Yes, there are conservative states; but there are also major cities- liberal bastions of stupidity in most cases- within those states. Detroit, Flint, and even downtown Grand Rapids are leftist blocks.
Trying to lump conservatives in with these leftist blocks just doesn't work.
Most conservatives support peaceful protests until they do any of the following riot, arson, looting, or blocking major roads or highways.
John's picture of the mighty mental midgets blocking bridge in Portland, that is a complete non starter. Commerce takes precedence over protests.
I have first hand experience with the affects of the "protests". Just the threat of protesters blocking I80/I79 heading into Chicago was enough to shut down traffic into and out of the area. Yes, it was called off at the last second; but the damage was already done. Truck drivers refused to go into the rail ramps to p/u loads for delivery. Chicago also has the National Guard called out, a curfew in place, and not so peaceful protests going on. Makes for a toxic mix that is destroying commerce. The protesters' rights end were ours begin. Time they learned that.
I understand their anger; but there methods of getting their message out suck.
I never thought you'd ask!
So...here's a great opportunity for you to "Get Smarter Here" (to coin a phrase):
3 days of protests in Michigan: Here’s what happened
You must have amazing magickal powers! (Its amazing that you can tell which couny each of those dots is in!!!)
But what about Trump?
He a man of honor.
And also a devout Christian. He's always regularly attended church (just anyone in NYC who knows him).
He reads tThe Bible every single day-- and can quote it accurately Chapter and Verse!
Has always been faithful to his wives-- all of them!
He's never lied-- not once in his entire life.
So how can you not trust him? (Don't you watch Fox News?)
Agree with the protestors and their grievances absolutely we do. When it devolves into rioting, violence, destruction, and looting/ theft we do not.
It's a good thing for George W Bush to acknowledge racism in America. "How do we end systemic racism in our society?"
I don't think he has much influence on conservatives anymore, but it is good that a former president speaks out.
Where is your evidence of this "systemic racism" in the US, particularly in the ranks of LE.
Does this occur in the military also. Or do you just rely on some biased and suspect years old poll of dubious origin to present some propaganda to us as fact?
A poll from 8 years ago about race is very relevant to today. Masses of people dont change their attitudes that easily or that quickly. Many of the cops today were cops 8 years ago also.
Here are three graphs to show you:
Please keep in mind that blacks make up 13% of the US population and whites make up 76%. Now tell me that there isn't a problem nationwide with LE.
During his tenure the left called him a "Nazi.' Suddenly, now he has acquired considerable stature because he says something the left chooses to use. I like the tradition of former presidents staying out of a national crisis (as you've called it) that the current President has to deal with.
Vic, I posted the article and I am not left nor did I call him a Nazi. I actually like the guy and voted for him once. And why should he stay out of national politics? Trump had no problem taking out full-page ads trying to undermine and influence people because he could afford to do so. And while we are talking about that and systemic prejudice in this nation, let's not forget that he took out a full-page ads in 4 NY newspapers including the NYT (which he now calls 'fake news"), asking for the death penalty for 5 black boys who were totally innocent and railroaded into prison and that he will still not apologize for doing this and still believes they were guilty, even after the actual murder admitted it and the DNA matched. Here he is actually talking about it then:
So tell me, how is he sending a unifying message at this time. That is what Bush is asking for.
I understand, Perrie. I was responding to JR suddenly giving credit to George W Bush. Isn't that remarkable?
And why should he stay out of national politics?
First off, there is the tradition I mentioned. Up until Barak Obama, we simply didn't have former presidents criticizing current ones. Can you imagine Dwight Eisenhower coming out and criticizing president Kennedy for claiming there was a "missile gap" when there wasn't one, or for allowing the Soviet Union to put up a wall in Berlin?
Second is the fact that George W's brother Jeb was savaged by Trump during the GOP primary election. For George W to come out now and give what is essentially ammunition to the hapless democrat Joe Biden, just plain looks bad.
let's not forget that he took out a full-page ads in 4 NY newspapers including the NYT (which he now calls 'fake news"), asking for the death penalty for 5 black boys who were totally innocent and railroaded into prison and that he will still not apologize for doing this and still believes they were guilty, even after the actual murder admitted it and the DNA matched. Here he is actually talking about it then:
We will leave the "5 black boys", as you call them for another day. That is a story in and of itself. The point there is irrelevant. Trump wasn't even a candidate. We are talking about former presidents!
I did a fact check on that and it isn't true:
In April 2015, former president George W. Bush was seen as criticizing Obama, who took office after Bush served two terms, during a closed-door Republican Jewish Coalition meeting. Bush argued against Obama lifting sanctions in Iran and quoted the words of Sen. Lindsey Graham to denounce Obama’s policies in the region: “Pulling out of Iraq was a strategic blunder.”
Former President Clinton criticized the administration of his successor, George W. Bush, for failing to develop any political or democratic progress in Iraq. During a July 2007 interview, Clinton told Good Morning America, “The point is, that there is no military victory here.”
Former President Jimmy Carter ripped former president Ronald Reagan , who he lost the presidency to in 1980. Carter criticized Reagan for sending arms to Iran in hopes that Americans held captive in Lebanon would be released. Carter said Reagan mishandled the Iran-Contra affair and is ″making believe he’s telling the truth″ to the American people about it.
President Theodore Roosevelt criticized William H. Taft in a series of speeches , even though Roosevelt promoted Taft as his successor. Roosevelt referred to Taft as a traitor of reform, and criticized him for not advancing his progressive policies.
This is what happens when with disinformation. Trump tweeted this and no one fact checks it.
You said:
I disagree. I don't think that one thing has to do with the other.
No, it is not irrelevant. It goes to the point of Trump's overall opinions and why Bush made his statements.
That is not disinformation. A closed door meeting is not a public pronouncement! Nor is an opinion stated on "Good Morning America". Carter criticizing Reagan would be the exception to the rule.
That is what happens when people go on searches in an effort to try and contradict someone. FORMER PRESIDENTS DON'T DO THIS. It is classless!
I don't think that one thing has to do with the other.
You can disagree, but many would think that George W has an axe to grind. Like I say - It looks bad.
No, it is not irrelevant.
Please don't force me to go over the NYPD findings. (BTW, The CNN propaganda clip was a nice touch)
This makes for good reading:
Perhaps you should look at recent data, not between January and MAy 2015 (talk about cherry picking);
In 2019, nine unarmed blacks were shot dead by police. 19 unarmed whites were killed.
The idea that the police are systematically killing blacks is insane.
Clinton on Bush - 6 years into the latter's term
Bush on Obama - 6 years into the latter's term
Carter on Reagan - 6 years into the latter's term
We are talking 3 years in and this isn't the first time Mr. Obama has spoken out on Trump. Bush, yes (without veiling the discussion with obscure terms)
“During his tenure the left called him a "Nazi.'”
they’ve done the same thing with romney and mccain. Have they no idea how foolish it makes them look? Apparently not.
Some of them actually believe it!
I never thought you'd ask!
Here's a soldier ( a highly respected general, in fact!) who has spoken on on the subject...in no uncertain terms!
Four Stars....Marine Corps (ret'd)
No so-called "Bone Spurs" for him...!!!!
That is simply not true. Here is full explanations of other presidents who did it:
And I don't see Geroge W as having an ax to grind, but this is a difference of opinion. Now we also have Gen Mattis speaking out today and it was not about his decision to resign over differences of opinion about leaving Syria.
The NYPD findings were that the boys were not guilty. Hence the huge amount of money paid to them. And how can a clip of Trump talking be propaganda? Even actual footage is now called "fake news". It's not edited. He is speaking freely. How much can you defend the undefinable like wanting to see 5 boys being put to death?
How about backing that up, and while you are at it, figure in that as a percentage of the population.
And again.... I am not going there anymore. That is not what this article is about. It is about what George Bush said.
This is too funny. Now we are going to nitpick how far into the president term it to be able to speak out against them. Hey, Trump made this brand new world where you can say anything and it's OK. He tweets it all day long every day from day one of his presidency. If you didn't approve you should have spoken up then. He set the tone for this presidency. Just remember that.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
And I'm not questioing your vast expertise.on these matters!
But I feel the opposite way
You are going to attempt to label our former Presidents as "classless!", in some sort of twisted attempt to attack them, and/or defend Trumpp in some way????????
WTF !
Trump is the highest CLASS of CLASSLESSNESS,
NO ONE EVEN CLOSE !
If they don't understand that it's one president at a time, I have no choice.
This 'president' is a tragic failure in every way.
I marched in protest in the late 60s at what would (in the distant future) become my Alma Mater.
So does that mean the ones that are rioting/looting under the guise of protesting get a free pass by you?
Good. I totally support peaceful non violent MLK Jr. styled protests/marches. I went to a healing and unity one yesterday that unfortunately was postponed at the last moment. What happened to Floyd was wrong and inexcusable. Bush got it exactly right here: "We know that lasting justice will only come by peaceful means. Looting is not liberation, and destruction is not progress. But we also know that lasting peace in our communities requires truly equal justice. The rule of law ultimately depends on the fairness and legitimacy of the legal system. And achieving justice for all is the duty of all," https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/50501/former-president-george-w-bush-it-is-time-for-america-to-examine-our-tragic-failures
A 2012 AP story concluded that roughly half of Americans held a racial bias against blacks.
If that story was even close to accurate, there are tens of thousands of racist cops in the United States. We have to change this, that is all there is to it.
You just believing that JR, facts or reality seem to have no effect upon your misguided opinions.
You have said the same thing, and little else, hundreds of times on this forum, perhaps thousands. I have written and posted comments on a large range of topics related to politics and the government. You say the same thing over and over and over like a drone.
I assume you could say more if you wanted to, but you dont want to.
By the way, it is very easy to conclude that there are tens of thousands of racist cops in the US.
There are 650,000 or so full time law enforcement in the US (2018), per the link I posted yesterday . If just 10 % of them had racist beliefs, that would be 65,000 racist cops.
The AP survey I also linked to says half of Americans held prejudiced attitudes toward blacks.
The figure of racist cops is likely higher than 65,000.
You say the same thing over and over and over like a drone.
And you don't!
Your personal insults continue to have no effect. I will continue to point out when and where you are wrong.
But it sure seems like you have a gripe against LE. The very people you would call if one of these thugs were to accost you
there in Chicago...city of my birth.
I have written and seeded hundreds of articles to this forum. You have written and seeded zero. You mainly offer two or three sentence rote defenses of Trump and attacks on liberals that amount to right wing talking points.
We are not remotely the same Greg.
I have written and seeded hundreds of articles to this forum.
Well, that's without question, but your essentially say that same stuff over and over and over.
I'm not sure that seeding and posting unadulterated and untrue opinion and left wing BS on a daily basis
can be construed to amount to anything of value. At least to educated and intelligent adults.
That's funny Greg, I don't ever remember you seeding a single article. That statement is backed up by visiting your NT members page which is empty.
Cold it be that you have your facts wrong..... again?
I think his first sentence was quoting me but he forgot to indicate it as such.
It was John, but I'm on my fourth cup of coffee this morning..... Please forgive the intrusion.
it wasnt an intrusion
Yeah...sometimes I forget.
What Greg, no response to 2.1.6?
That's predictable...
Making false statements and being called on them is standard practice here on NT. It speaks to character.
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
The Shrub got us into what has turned out to be endless war, and not all that long ago he wasn't as adored and admired by the left for his lack of wisdom as he is now.
[ deleted ]
I don't know any liberals who adore GWB. I didn't vote for him and didn't approve of many of his policies. However, It was pretty obvious that he was a good person who cared about this country and its people. Trump is a horrible person, by any measure, and only cares about himself. What you see is really just a relative reaction. I can't imagine any liberal wouldn't take GWB over Trump.
I know (and have known) a lot of liberals...from the moderates to some pretty extreme ones. And I have never, ever, heard any of them praise GWB.
But that's just me-- perhaps I don't hang out with liberals as often as you apparently do!
In physics, all motion is relative.
The same is true in politics. I doubt that you would consider that you are seeing Dubya being more aligned with the left, simply because your and your savior Trump have moved so far to the right. Enough said [removed]
Enough said as I'm sure the concept is beyond you Greg.
When you're losing the argument, resort to personal attacks and putdowns. Is that all that you have?
Anyway, Trump isn't that far right [removed]
If he was, the troops would be marching into these Democrat strongholds by now.
You know, those left wing led cities, many of them designated as "sanctuaries", that the inept powers that be have lost control of.
I'm sure you got lost with the statement.... "In physics, all motion is relative."
If Trump hasn't taken the GOP even further to the right, how do you explain prominent republicans like George Will, The Lincoln Project, and the former GOP chairman Michael Steel all coming out against the party direction?
Do you accept the Trump criticism of John McCain, a man I was ready to vote for until he changed his tune on waterboarding and then selected Sara Palen as a running mate? McCain was a center right republican.
Can't defend your 5.1 statement.
I can see your point in not trying to defend it either.......
I hate to be the asshole, but maybe it is not us who needs to listen to african Americans, maybe they need to listen to the rest of the country.
Stop committing so much crime
Stay in school
Care about school and actually try to pass
Care about your community and don't let people destroy it. THIS INCLUDES THE MEMBERS OF YOUR OWN COMMUNITY
Address rap culture and the "fuck the police" movement that plagues your communities.
I'm sorry but until I see these issues addressed, I do not give a crap what the African American community has to say. Asians and Latinos do just fine in this country. Maybe African Americans should try to emulate their communities if they don't want to do what white folks do.
After treating black Americans like shit for over 400 years, enslaving them, abusing them, lynching them, discriminating against them, I'm sure it would seem to the "peace" loving bigots that it's the black Americans who need to sit down and shut up.
" White supremacists frequently like to manipulate crime statistics in order to claim that nonwhite minorities, particularly African-Americans, are far more crime-prone and the source of most violent crime against whites. Indeed, it is a core belief that this is the case, and many white nationalist ideologues."
" The BJS study demonstrates plainly that this is simply not the case. Some 57 percent of crimes involving white victims were committed by white perpetrators, while only 15 percent were committed by blacks, and 11 percent by Hispanics." "“ the rate of white-on-white violent crime (12.0 per 1,000) was about four times higher than black-on-white violent crime (3.1 per 1,000)."
It's tough to care about anything when the majority around you don't care about you. You act as if this is just something that those who have had the knee of bigots on their necks for centuries should just be able to stand up if they want to breathe.
The killing of George Floyd represents the plight of so many black Americans from the time they are born. Sure, only one "bad cop" had his knee on his neck, but there were three other cops sitting on his body keeping him oppressed as he begged for his life. Those other three cops represent the piece of shit bigoted white's in society that blame blacks for their own plight and sarcastically act as if it's got nothing to do with them. It's the blatant racial bias in our justice system.
" For drug crimes disparities are especially severe, due largely to the fact that blacks are nearly four times as likely as whites to be arrested for drug offenses and 2.5 times as likely to be arrested for drug possession. This is despite the evidence that whites and blacks use drugs at roughly the same rate . From 1995 to 2005, African Americans comprised approximately 13 percent of drug users but 36% of drug arrests and 46% of those convicted for drug offenses."
When you have cops killing unarmed black men on a regular basis I guess it's easy to feel adversarial towards them. And that "rap song" is over 40 years old, it is only supposedly "plaguing" our communities to worthless piece of shit bigots who bitterly whine about "rap culture".
Clearly. Not much else to say to a "Jung" "Konservative" "111".
"Although Jung’s overall approach was symbolic, his thinking becomes racist when he equates primitive states of mind (unconscious process) with so called ‘primitive’ people, seeing the psyches of black people as less developed and inferior to those of white people."
"Konservative" - the German spelling of "conservative". The Conservative Revolution ( German : Konservative Revolution , lit. 'Conservative Revolution'), also known as the "neo-conservative" or "neo-nationalist" movement, [1] [2] [3] was a German national conservative movement prominent during the Weimar Republic (1918–1933), in the years between World War I and Nazi Germany . The movement held an ambiguous relationship with Nazism from the 1920s to the early 1930s, which led scholars to describe the Conservative Revolution as a "German pre-fascism"
" 1-11 is a numeric symbol used by the Aryan Knights, an Idaho-based prison gang, to identify themselves. Substituting letters for numbers, 1 and 11 mean A and K, i.e., Aryan Knights."
I seriously doubt that.
Blacks are over-represented among offenders in each category of aggressive crime: in homicide at a level 315% greater than their representation in the general population, in sexual assault at a level 404% as great, in aggravated assault at 274% greater than their representation in the general population. Whites and “others” are under-represented among offenders.
African Americans score lower than European Americans on vocabulary, reading, and math tests, as well as on tests that claim to measure scholastic aptitude and intelligence. The gap appears before children enter kindergarten and it persists into adulthood. It has narrowed since 1970, but the typical American black still scores below 75 percent of American whites on almost every standardized test. This statistic does not imply, of course, that all blacks score below all whites.
Closing the black-white test score gap would probably do more to promote racial equality in the United States than any other strategy now under serious discussion.
Oh, wow! Thank you so much for that comment! It explains a lot and confirms what I have been thinking
They seemingly don't want racial equality. Nothing the left does benefits minorities in this country. It appears that the left wants to keep blacks dependent so they can pander for votes with empty and broken promises
No it's rather convenient to have a under educated, emotionally unstable group of people you can just rile up at the snap of a finger and a built in excuse for their terrible behavior.
Many of these under educated and poor people have lived in these democrat run, large cities who have promised to destroy poverty with handouts. And generations later they still have not wised up that that is not the solution. Insanity is trying the same thing over and over again with the same results. Seeing a lot of insanity lately
Are you reading for ''Birth of a Nation''?
Don't shoot the messenger. I didn't do the studies. Facts are facts. You want to fix problems then you need to face up to the issue instead of crying about "racism". I'm not forcing blacks to commit crime or perform terribly at school. That sure does not benefit me in any way.
what would have been your excuse when they were having crime waves in dickensian England, where they had huge crime waves with no black or colored population to speak of, or for all the crime in ancient rome , or many other places and eras. Their being black is not the reason they are criminals, poverty is.
I would never shoot the messenger. It's much more enlightening to see your commentary. It gives one a good look into you what you stand for.
I like how people can find "facts" that suit their agenda and then base whacked out theories on so-called facts
I would give them the same advice. I would give that advice to any struggling community. From the stats I posted and these protests it seems the black community are the ones who need to hear it now. I would go into a white trash community and give them the same advice if they were trying to blame white suburbia for their issues.
The post I made at 7.1.1, is what you progressives would describe as "white privilege". When the reality is, if anybody follows that advice, they will make it in this country. It's not white privilege it's whole communities who made good choices. Those communities happen to have a majority white demographic. Maybe communities with different demographics should try it out and see if they see improvement.
I'm glad you see that I stand for obeying the law and educating yourself. You really exposed me
We got jung's # a long time ago. So transparent.
He exposed himself quite a while ago. Doesn't take much to see through him
"We got jung's # a long time ago. So transparent."
I didn't see that statement in the article. Can you "Highlight it" for me.... and Others ?
I was a teacher in one of the toughest NYC neighborhoods for over 20 years. Because I ran the breakfast program, I know exactly how much the families make and who worked. Over 80% of our families worked. Over 30% served in the national guard, sometimes both parents.
But even then, the huge economic disparity means that poorer students do not have access to things like computers at home, and spend more time alone, since usually both parents are working or that there is only one parent in the home, and they work.
This chart shows how income affects graduation rate:
That’s clear in the data: Black students are much less likely to graduate from high school and attend college than white students with the same family income.
From your article:
The black students from my kids' school all went on to college (the school has a 97% college rate), which shows it is more than just cash, but the quality of the school system.
Yes the neighborhood they grew up in. I would like to know about these neighborhoods. The demographics and culture. There is more to it than the socioeconomic of the neighborhood. You have to also consider culture. Is being smart considered something good to the majority of kids in those neighborhoods? Or do most of them prefer to act like gang members or actually join gangs, and beat up smart kids for being smart and therefore rich.
Here is another study to reinforce your own point.
So as a teacher, why do you think that is?
Also I agree about the quality of the school system. Most of these systems where the kids are dropping out are in cities with black school teachers, black principals, blacks mayors, black governors, and democrat congressmen. So why is there school system my issue? Especially when they destroy their own cities.
Wrong. My school the teaching staff was 1/3 white, black and Latino. When I taught there we had a white Gov, a white Mayor.
OK you kind of jumped the shark there. Did I ever say that to you?
Some like to think of themselves as "intellectual white supremacists" who try to hide their vitriolic bigotry behind supposed facts and figures. They act as if it's not their fault other races are inferior to them, it's just a fact or law of nature. These folk have been around a long time and sound much like the Vice President of the confederacy when he said "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." "It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws." - Alexander Stephens March 21, 1861
Face facts... Conservatives have been gutting public school funding since the 1960s simply because they didn't want their kids to have to go to school with all them "darkies". Education and knowledge levels the playing field. Give them substandard education, and you end up with the desired substandard results conservatives can point to and say.. "Look, see..... they aren't good enough."
And this comment......:
I'm not forcing blacks to commit crime or perform terribly at school.
.....speaks volumes as to your mindset, values, and what you stand for.
I guess we should worry about your school system as well by the looks of things.....
In the 80s, manufacturing moved out of the cities and those that had the resources to leave did, but many were too poor. They were mostly black, and whites said it was there own fault for not finding work, they were just lazy.
Now, automation, globalization, and newer technology(e.g. fracking) have devastated the job market in the midwest. Millions have left the workforce because the have no marketable skills. They get doctors & judges to get them on disability. 60-70 thousand white people die of drug overdoes each year. What happened to the cities has happened to the midwest. Guess what, they've rebelled against coastal elites -- "white suburbia". Go give them advice.
LBJ has been dead and gone for a long time. There is a whole new generation of college-educated blacks and middle-class blacks that can think for themselves. And again, this has nothing to do with the topic does it?
Yes, he was a Southern Democrat, but he was never a liberal or progressive, he fought to conserve the status quo of slavery in the South. He was a conservative through and through just nearly like every one of those sick fucking piece of shit treasonous confederates who fought to keep owning humans as cattle. He was also formerly a member of the Whig party and later the Unionist party and then a member of the Constitutional Union party and even called himself a Christian like virtually every one of those bigots who attacked our nation. Which one of those labels define him? Which label truly describes his character? Bigoted white conservative Christian is about as close as you can get to how he must have seen himself, which is no doubt why the bigoted white conservative Christians of today are so desperate to deflect attention away from that obvious fact.
The term "Blue Dog Democrat" or "Dixiecrat" is appropriate for a Southern Democrat of the day like Johnson.
While true of later Southern bigots, the term Dixiecrat wasn't used until 1948 when Southern Democrats seceded from the Democrat party in opposition to its policy of extending civil rights. I was referring to Alexander Stephens who became a Georgia House member in 1836 and Vice President of the confederacy in 1861, long before either "Blue Dog" or "Dixiecrat" were in use. But the point is clear, there is a HUGE gap between what Southern Democrats and Northern Democrats thought about race back then, and an even larger gap today which is why virtually every current white supremacist, KKK member and wannabe Nazi in America identify with and support the Republican party that has been welcoming their bigoted brethren since the 1960's. It wasn't an immediate switch (which is often the retort heard from Republicans, as if the Southern Strategy didn't happen because not all bigots converted in the 1960's) but a gradual shift over decades until you have what we see today, former confederate States, all still run by mostly white male ancestors of confederates, still vehemently protecting their confederate monuments, marching in streets waving confederate flags along with swastika flags, who now call themselves Republicans.
Excellent historical clarification DP...... please keep them coming.
Common math shows this country has only been in existence for 244 years, so where do you get 400 years of mistreatment by Americans? Just curious.
First slaves arrived in 1619 and I believe that is the reference
per America's History of Slavery Began Long Before Jamestown
America existed well before the United States of America was founded. Slaves in America goes back at least 400 years.
Sorry, I have to disagree from a purely technical point of view. Who primarily colonized the Eastern Continent of North America? That would be the British, the French, and the Spanish. They brought slavery to the New World with them in the early 1600's. The United States of America did not come into being until the late 1700's. That is the historical context. While on one hand it can be said that slaves were mistreated for 400 years, how can it be said that Americans were the ones doing the mistreatment that whole time? Prior to the founding of this country, the majority of non slave inhabitants were in fact British citizens.
I explicitly covered that purely technical aspect in my comment:
DP was speaking of the history of slavery in America, not the history of slavery in the USA. From the perspective of those enslaved, they were slaves in America regardless of the national status or its system of government.
My apologies. I did not see your comment as I had stopped typing for a while and went back to it. In retrospect I can see your point of view.
[deleted]
Well, then stop doing it!
I love it when all these past "Leaders" come out of the wood work and say …… "We should do" !
What the hell were they doing when they were supposedly ……. "LEADING" (Obama and Now Bush come to mind) ?
My Fav. Was Obama. The one that got the "Fry them Like Bacon" started, and the more than usual cop killings happening because of his ever so humble...."Beer (SAY YOUR SORRY WHITE COP) Summit". It was just fantastic the way that "bust of a party" brought folks "Together?" !
If by some miracle Old Joe gets elected, I wonder what his plan is fix it will be.
[deleted]
Let it all burn. It seems to be working so well for Democratic governors and mayors.
This article is about Bush and not Obama. I find it amazing that you can dismiss someone that you probably voted for.
I noted that
, and added another. There were more I coulda added over this "Nonesense" that is happening, but I figured "I'd use the "Kiss Method". Makes folks happier.
36 Years in D.C. Joe, coulda come up with no qualms on my part too.
Just because I may have voted for one, doesn't mean I can't disagree with one..... right ?
What the hell does systemic racism mean? Any meaningful discussion about systemic racism seems to always devolve into gaslighting about slavery, segregation, and white privilege. We can't seem to get past the pointing fingers stage.
The political arena isn't the place to discuss systemic racism. Politicians take the path of least resistance. The political narrative that has emerged over the last seven decades has become that all problems in the black population have been caused by white people. The black population is not responsible for any actions or behaviors because of systemic racism. What the hell does systemic racism mean?
The politics of race is being handled in the same manner as the politics of gun control. The worst example defines all. The politics of gun control has created an overwhelming fear of guns; guns are dangerous, guns cause crime, guns should be removed from society. The politics of race have created the same fears and the same divisions. And politicians, following the same path of least resistance, have been accommodating guns and have been accommodating race in the same manner. Politics creates problems and then politics addresses those problems with accommodation. Politics isn't very good at solving problems. The problem of systemic racism, whatever that means, won't be solved in the political arena.
Any politician talking about systemic racism isn't searching for a solution, they are searching for the path of least resistance. Following that path of least resistance hasn't led us to solutions over the last seven decades.
Racism, like anything else, has more than one side to the story. Listening to only one side of the story may be politically expedient, may be the path of least resistance, but won't lead us to solutions. What the hell does systemic racism really mean?
And , finally, we get to the money shot.
Actually there is only one side to racism.
Nerm,
I almost agree with you 100%, but President Bush is no longer in the political arena. He just has an inside view from his past experience, so I do think his opinion is valuable.
Systemic racism means that it runs through our country, no matter who you are.
There has been long standing prejudices against Catholics since the United States was founded. Those prejudices persist. Yet that prejudice must be addressed outside the political arena, politics cannot involve itself in religion. So, the long standing prejudices have not received very much public attention.
Jack Kennedy was the first Catholic elected President and that was viewed as being as historic as the election of the first black President. But the prejudices against Catholicism persists. Are the persistent prejudices against Catholicism systemic?
That's just it. "systemic racism" as Perrie is using it, is just prejudice as you point out. People's opinion. I think the classical use of the term would be to describe the Jim crow era. That's my understanding of "systemic racism". Now there is no system in place to enforce racism, so I don't know what the hell current SJWs are talking about. Apparently if everybody doesn't just love blacks to death, they will fail in society and it's our fault.
Systemic racism means it pervades every area and strata of society and every geographical region and is transmitted from generation to generation . It is "the system". Not legally, since 1964, but that hardly ended racism.
Absolutely. Also, we have not had another Catholic president in over 60 years, which is very telling.
There is systemic bigotry in this country across the board. Nerm is right. We just happen to be talking about what happened here and now.
In the use of racism, yes.
Really? So you totally ignored my chart that showed clearly that there is a bias against blacks in the police forces across the country. And save the SJW tag for someone else. Just because I think that disliking someone is wrong based on race, creed or faith, doesn't make me an SJW, it makes me ethical.
The chart could be indicating that blacks commit crimes at a much higher rate than whites.
Which is why I posted 7.1.1. Stats like hers are disingenuous. All they do is state a fact and don't consider what factors that might lead to that. Over representation in crime, a culture that hates cops, and a culture that rejects academic achievement as important. These are things cops in those areas have to deal with on a regular basis.
It's just like people who say "whites use more welfare than anybody". They state that without pointing out they are the majority of the population and the rate they use is lower than their percentage of the population, unlike other minorities like blacks. Disingenuous crap that many people far for
So blacks represent 29% of crime, when they are 13% of the population. Understand how rates work?
I am showing who commits crimes and yes, white people commit more crime.
All you are doing is casting blame and trying to show black people in a negative light.
That is his M.O.
Yes because we are the majority at 69% of the population. Nearly 5 times as many as blacks. Also note on your little graph there, whites and hispanics are lumped into the same category. Pretty convenient huh?
It sounds like you want the police to ignore a large percentage of black crime so that arrest records are in accordance to the population percentage.
Should the police just arrest alot more whites just to make the numbers more proportionate to the white population?
The 'system' cannot address persistent prejudices against Catholics in the political arena. Catholics cannot protest to force government to provide artificial means of overcoming longstanding prejudice and bigotry and no legislation can be passed to achieve equality or justice. It's unclear if Catholics even have a right to assemble and petition government because of the separation between church and state.
The government can't bus protestants, Muslims, Jews, and Catholics to intermixed churches as a way to end prejudice. The government can't require equal accommodation. The government can't celebrate Catholic history and culture. The government cannot require teaching about inequalities and prejudices against Catholics as part of public school curricula. All these political paths of least resistance are unavailable.
So, I suggest that it's necessary for society to confront the prejudice directly. And that means it's necessary to understand all sides of the story of prejudice. Catholics cannot use government to try forcing an end to prejudice while ignoring why the prejudice exists in the first place. Catholics can tell their side of the story but Catholics do not have the luxury of ignoring the other sides of the story.
Perhaps prejudice persists because of a failure to listen. Airing one's grievances while ignoring the grievances of others is the political path of least resistance, after all.
Because there are far more whites in the country than blacks. Now, if you take crimes by percentage of population, then blacks disproportionately commit far more crime.
I pointed out to our biggest Trump hater on here the other day that a person is just under 4 times more likely to be killed by a black person than a white person. Blacks commit 50 percent of all murders in the country and are 13 percent of the population. 13X 4=52.
I know where you stand. Have at it.
I read a report that black people are more likely to be killed by a black person and white people are more likely to be killed by a white person.
Dean,
Which chart are you referring to? I have posted many.
That is true, however, in my post, I stated a PERSON is almost 4 times likely to be killed by a black person than a white person.
And I don't agree because me as a person, being white, I am more likely to be killed by another white person.
The charts in 1.2.3
Sure do.. so let's try this:
Do the math: in 2019, 370 white people and 235 blacks were shot to death by cops. So proportionately, more blacks are being shot by cops even when you adjust for the percentage of crime. If it was balanced, then the number of blacks being killed should be 175, not 235 per percentage of crime. So blacks are killed by cops more than white people. But we know that every black person shot is not involved in crime, so that number becomes even worse.
Hi Dean,
Check out the post above.
not if you're white.
Bugsy your stats are wrong as is your math.
This from the FBI:
Whites commit more murder than blacks but blacks commit a higher percentage of murder and no it's not 50% but rather 45% of murders. Furthermore if you look at these numbers you will see that blacks tend to kill blacks and whites tend to kill whites. But here is the most interesting fact. When you cross racial boundaries, it is whites who kill more blacks as a percentage (16.14%) while blacks kill whites at a lower percentage (8.8%). So white people should fear their own more than any black person.
You are making a big mistake in your reasoning Bugsy. A catastrophic mistake. You are saying what a victims chances are of being murdered by a given race of the offender, but you are not basing your calculations on the victims, you are basing it on the perps.
Blacks do commit 4 times as many (roughly) murders than their share of the population. But its still only half of the murders, so if you are a victim, its statistically a coin flip as to whether your murderer is white or black. This is a stone cold fact and is not open to interpretation. However, we do know that the vast majority of whites are killed by whites, and the vast majority of blacks are killed by blacks. So if you are white, there is only a slim chance you will be killed by a black, and the same is true for black victims, it is much more likely they will be killed by another black.
John you are right. Look at post 9.3.25
you are right too.
Norm,
Our leaders should be leading by example. You can't change what is in the heart of an individual, but society can punish those who are outwardly biased. And I think that everyone needs to be able to listen to one another about their experiences. Our police should be able to adjust how they treat people. That is what this is all about.
Gee, thats interesting.
So im doing the math for 2017
986 total deaths if I can read the numbers correctly as they are very blurry
457 of them are whites so that's half of all deaths right there
222 of them are black so that's less than a quarter of them there
Blacks commit 29% of the nations crime in 2016 and are 13% of the population. So...... It's really not that far off from what I can tell given how much crime they commit. It might be higher than whites, but it helps to know how often blacks and whites resist arrest. The graph doesn't mention that. Cops might be killing them because they are used to being resisted by some groups more than others. That is speculation but that's why I would like numbers to see if it checks out. What you presented is incomplete data for the whole problem. Presenting data that's one sided is unfair to the cops who have to deal with these people all day
Per your post, 802 people whose race was known were shot to death by police. Per the FBI, 37% of violent crimes were committed by blacks. If blacks were shot to death in proportion to the amount of violent crimes they commit, you would expect 298 blacks to be shot to death by police. Instead 235 were.
You would expect 470 white and Hispanics (who are grouped together by the FBI ) to be shot to death as they commit 58.7% of violent crime. Instead, per your own chart, 528 whites and Hispanics were shot to death by police.
Whites and Hispanics are actually shot to death at a higher rate than that which they commit violent crime. Blacks are lower.
You are not factoring in percentage of population again. Blacks are at 13% while whites are at 69%. That's why rates are more important than raw numbers because it paints and inaccurate profile.
Also consider that most black murders are black males that likely only make up 6% of the population. So when you look at it like that, 6% of the population is committing 45% of all murders. That number is staggering Perrie. Can't you agree?
And whites should fear blacks more than blacks fear cops. If that's the game you want to play.
You have moved goalposts. I gave you accurate stats and now you want to talk sociology. Maybe you should consider the stats here: 9.3.25 and tell me who has the bigger problem?
That part is true. But again, it doesn't take into consideration who is living under the poverty level despite working. 4.2% of whites are unemployed while 7.8% of blacks are unemployed which is slightly higher, so you might think you have won points there. But the average income made is totally disproportionate, with whites making an average of $70.6K a year and blacks making $41.4K median income, so that would be the reason they get some government welfare. In fact going by that, they should be getting a lot more, Btw, Asians make the most amount of money and cause the least amount of crime. How do you feel about them?
I already proved that cops kill more blacks than whites. Pay attention. 9.3.22
That chart is incomprehensible. Please take a screenshot.
The discussion was murder white vs black. You can't change the discussion or charts midway in a discussion.
Why are so many unemployed? Could it be because they drop out of high school and get caught up in crime and destroy their local communities so there are no jobs around to be had and no employer who wants to move into their high risk neighborhood? And that is somehow evidence of white supremacy to you?
I was using the latest numbers from 2019 which is 370 white people and 235 blacks.
If it was balanced, then the number of blacks being killed by the police should be 175, not 235 per percentage of crime. So blacks are killed by cops more than white people while committing a crime.
Btw, I am not sure where you got your 29% figure from. I just checked the latest figures and this is what they are:
By race, more than half (53.9 percent) of known offenders were white, 27.4 percent were black or African-American, and 2.2 percent were of other races. The race was unknown for 16.5 percent of reported known offenders.
First of all, do not put words into my mouth. This is the second time you have done that. I never said that there was evidence of white supremacy. I never talked about that, since that is a whole different subject. I was talking about police bias towards blacks.
And none of that has anything to do with what we are facing here. Hunt up some stats on "unarmed" and see what you come up with. Please
What is the appropriate example?
The stated goal is make racial and cultural differences superficial. Ending prejudice is supposed to be about making differences irrelevant. Is highlighting and celebrating racial and cultural differences an appropriate example?
It seems to me that treating a group as distinctly different would only strengthen and reinforce prejudices. Ending racism would require eliminating recognition of distinct racial differences.
I have my own ancestral grievances against Catholicism that serves as a bias. I don't care to know, understand, or celebrate Catholicism. Giving voice to Catholic grievances only strengthen my own grievances. Expecting me to set aside my grievances against Catholicism to achieve some sort of social justice for Catholics is an expectation for me to give up important parts of my heritage and cultural history. My ancestors were forced to flee the injustice of European Catholicism. Why should I not be allowed to celebrate my story just so Catholics can achieve some sort of social justice?
Why is listening to the story of prejudice toward Catholics more important than listening to my story? Is the appropriate example to highlight Catholic grievances and forcing me to remain silent?
What is the appropriate example?
You hunt that up, if that is what you are interested in. I'm not even sure you can find that number.
Yeah, I guess so in a perfect world, but it isn't that and you know that.
Well, Norm, given the long history of my people with Catholics I could hold on to mine, but I don't. And no I don't have to celebrate Catholicism. All I have to do is respect their right to exist here.
Well guess what Nerm, so were my people. But we live here in America. No one is expecting you to give up your story. Just to recognize here and now that you have no grounds to be biased against Catholics.
I never said that. Celebrate your own, but understand the other.
Yes Nerm, you can have a historical grievance and talk about it, without casting it onto the current world.
Nerm, as a teacher I was supposed to teach about the Spanish Inquisition. I had a large minority of the class who was Jewish. They were told by their parents that they didn't have to learn about being Catholic, so they left the class. But without the context of the Catholic faith, it means nothing. In fact, I would say, it was the one class they should have stayed for, since in reality, it was discussing Jewish persecution. This is what happens when people are close-minded. They don't even get past the starting gate.
Loki,
I saw that chart earlier and it doesn't say unarmed anywhere. It just says killed by police.
I don't think so. Let me put this in a laymany terms as I can. Say you live in city "A". City A suffered 1000 deaths in a year. The population of city A is exactly the average population of the country, 76 percent white, 13 percent black.
Table 21 of the FBI files show 52 percent black arrests for homicide and whites are responsible for 44 percent.
Since blacks commit 52 percent of homicides, that means out of that 1000 deaths, they are responsible for 520 of those deaths.
Whites are responsible for 440 of those deaths. Keep in mind that in table 21, it appears hispanics are also covered as white.
So, 13 percent, 520 murders.......76 percent, 440 murders.
Blacks are 4 times more likely to kill a PERSON, regardless of race of the victim, than any other race.
Sean, where do you get that 37% of violent crimes were committed by blacks? Can I see a link?
I already proved that cops kill more blacks than whites. Pay attention.
You really should pay attention. Try and read what I actually wrote and respond to that..
Second, no you didn't. Your math was wrong, again.
That isnt what you said before. You said you are 4 times more likely to be killed by a black, and that is not true.
A large percentage of murders in black areas are in turf wars over drugs. Legalizing drugs would likely bring the murder rate down everywhere.
he discussion was murder white vs black. You can't change the discussion or charts midway in a discussion.
I'm sorry Perrie, I made the mistake of relying on what you wrote, "proportionately, more blacks are being shot by cops even when you adjust for the percentage of crime." Since you wrote crime, I used crime. If you want to use murder, then the numbers swings even more dramatically, since the percentage is now 53% and not 37%.
So, using your preferred numbers, blacks should have been shot 469 times by police. Instead, as you point out, they were only shot 235 times.
where do you get that 37% of violent crimes were committed by blacks? Can I see a link?
No Sean you are changing the rules to the game and I am not playing.
And nice nasty snipe there. I made a mistake once and admitted it and now you are just being nasty and petty.
Sean, I am looking at your chart and I do not see a total for violent crimes. I see one for total crimes and the number is 27.4% and not 37%.
Some make stuff up as they go along.
It's right under arson.
Perrie, I explained that "your rules" make your argument even worse. I'm not changing anything, just using FBI data and math. Not sure why that's a problem..
Sean,
That is a subset of Arson, hence why it is indented. Arson can be property damage only or to cover up another crime (using the vague term violent), hence the subset.
Sean I don't even know what chart you are talking about now.
I've always maintained that a PERSON, regardless of race of the victim, are 4 times as likely to be killed by a black person, and I continue to be correct in that regard.
Why you brought up legalizing drugs is nothing more than a diversion of the truth.
Again, 13 percent times 4 times equals 52 percent.
That is a subset of Arson, hence why it is indented.
No, it's not. The number of violent crimes is 70 times higher than the numbers of arsons. It's impossible for the larger number to be a subset of the smaller number.
Plus, the term is literally defined in it's attached footnote. I quote " Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson."
Is that the appropriate example? The question was what constitutes an appropriate example.
You see, one of the go-to solutions that has been touted is that our leaders should set an appropriate example. But is that a solution or is that a path of least resistance?
So, people of today are not responsible for prejudices of the past. That seems to be a reasonable conclusion. One could extend that to an idea that ending prejudice would require letting past grievances remain a part of history. We can tell our history (including historical grievances) without assigning blame or guilt in the present. The guilt of our ancestors is not our guilt.
We are not the past's conscience. We are responsible for the future; we are not responsible for the past.
Wouldn't an appropriate example be that we are not responsible for actions of others in the past just as we are not responsible for the actions of others in the present?
What is the relationship between systemic prejudice and systemic guilt?
At what link?
Well, that is one way.
Leaders are supposed to lead. People learn by example. Parents are supposed to lead, their children learn from them. Religious leaders are there to lead. Thier flock learns from them. The path of least resistance is doing nothing.
I don't believe in the guild of the father is the guilt of son. But on the other hand, if the son does the same thing as his father, he is guilty.
Define by the past's conscience. If you are saying we need to forget the past, well that can only happen when there has been meaningful change now. We are responsible for the future
Germany facing up to the Holocaust, something, on the other hand, Turkey refuses to do.
I have never seen a case of systemic guilt Nerm. Have you?
I see what they did. They separated white-collar crime from other crimes and then did a tally on violent and property crime.
And Sean you did change the game. The question was never the percentage of crime attributed to blacks, it was the percentage of blacks that commit crime. There is a difference. One person can commit a lot of crime, events shall we say, but it is still one person.
But beyond this, this was a total derail of the article that I allowed myself to get sucked into. This was about what George Bush said and nowhere do I see you addressing that. And not just you but some others.
So what is your point? Please explain it to me.
Yes, I did. My math is right, but in my stress to try and answer a whole pile of people with the same agenda, by myself, I inverted the outcome. But then I also realized something over dinner. This has been a whole derail of the topic and I am not going to entertain it any longer.
Right from the start, it's been a derail. The fact is that it was George Floyd that was murdered. That is the topic.
Its not off topic. What bush says is that we as a country have failed blacks when it comes to law enforcement and that systemic racism is running unchecked. I think the stats and discussions we have had here does not reflect that. Many races experience police violence at the same rate as their rate of crime. Which to me seems pretty just.
I think if you want to have a more constructive conversation, maybe we should investigate how many total police encounters turn violent without the racial angle. Maybe you would find more universal support for police reform
shootings are only a part of the problem. There is a lot of data on blacks and other people of color receiving too much unwanted "attention" from the police. One example, blacks get pulled over and have their cars searched at a far higher rate than whites.
Now you are making up stats. Well done.
While what you say is basically true, it is mostly black on black crime, usually gang related. And that was never the issue. The issue was unarmed or unwarranted shootings if I was indulging this thread, but the actual article was about what President Bush said. So given that:
That's odd, because I don't even think you found the issue, so I guess we are even.
What the hell does systemic racism mean?
Google is your friend . . .
Whoops...my bad! Apparently its not.
But you should really try using it, rather than staying uninformed.
Seriously, you should try it...it won't bite you!
Here’s some interesting numbers from the Washington Post and their research...https://www.instagram.com/tv/CA_sWXrHxh3/?igshid=2hsic8zns0dy
I can only shake my head. Bush actually comes out and says something decent and is attacked for it...
What I find also interesting is that these are probably the same people who voted for him.
Of course, we can all disagree with a president sometimes. But that wasn't my point. It was how now all the conservatives who voted for him, are in 100% agreement against him now, and that is a bit odd.
Kathleen, ask yourself, why would this ex-president say something? What does he gain politically to speak out at this moment? The answer is nothing. But here is why I think he said it.
Think back to 9/11 and how he addressed the nation during a time of distress. Let me remind you all how a president brings a nation together:
Well, you can't blame him for not liking what Trump said about his brother, but the man has not said anything about Trump before, so maybe he just feels this way. I think the left has been softening towards Geroge, since he started to do the talk show circuit and showing off his paintings. It's also easier to be liked when you are not the president anymore.
The answer is he has his own massive dose of TDS.
He managed to keep his yap shut for 8 years of a President literally blaming him for everything under the sun; but now feels the need to speak up? WTF happened to only one President at a time. It is about the only thing I respected out of Bush; well toss that little respect out the window.
Hey, wasn't his younger brother running against Trump; and didn't Trump dump all over him- much to the joy of the media who gave Trump unlimited coverage? Yes, yes he was.
When I read the head line "Former President George W Bush it is time for america to examine our tragic failures." I thought he was going to talk about his own presidency. That would have been just as accurate, and far more insightful.
exactly. I feel the same. Though even though Trump said and did a bit I disagree with he’s so much better from a national defense, economic, energy independence, judiciary, and religious liberty issues vantage points than Biden is that Trump with all his warts and prior to running for officiate moral failings is the only real choice though where I live Biden’s getting all the electoral votes from my state. I will not have a vote for the racist misogynistic Biden who also disagrees with me on every majo issue I can think of on my conscience. So if people are saying from the other direction that both are or have said racist things and both have instances of touching or saying wrongly toward women, then the vote is about the actual issues. Thus I am almost certain to vote for Trump and even if he somehow sours me toward him till by November I still wouldn’t support biDen.
I suppose you could say the same thing about General Mattis as well:
Amazing how the statistic on Native Americans is ignored. It's like we don't exist.
I would agree based on stats like these.
The stats are well known among NA's. It's sad that no one else seems to care.
I had no idea these stats are so much higher for NA's.
And our abysmally poor education system ignores the abuse and suffering that NA's have dealt with.
That is true pat. There was a study done where for each native that is killed by police there is only 1/2 of one story about it in the news. Most have no articles/stories about it.
Amen Brother.
Its just another exampleof the long standing racism in our country..
As long as we are talking about statistics, how about some facts and figures that are not necessarily related to death, but rather , how police treat blacks.
Here are excerpts from a longer article
===========================
A controversial working paper by Harvard professor Roland Fryer Jr. found that police officers are more likely to use their hands, push a suspect into a wall, use handcuffs, draw weapons, push a suspect onto the ground, point their weapon, and use pepper spray or a baton when interacting with blacks.
==============
A study by the Center for Policing Equity found, as characterized by a preview in The New York Times , that “African-Americans are far more likely than whites and other groups to be the victims of use of force by the police, even when racial disparities in crime are taken into account.” The study looked at 19,000 use-of-force incidents between the years 2010 and 2015
=================
In cases of mistaken identity, 9 out of the 10 off-duty officers killed by other officers in the United States since 1982 were black or Latino. “Inherent or [subconscious] racial bias plays a role in ‘shoot/don’t-shoot’ decisions made by officers of all races and ethnicities,” the report found.
=================
A Stanford study of police practices in Oakland, California, found that officers were disproportionally handcuffing blacks. “Regardless of the area of the city, disproportionate treatment by race was similar and the raw totals were stunning,” according to a Washington Post summary of the findings. The Post continues: “2,890 African Americans handcuffed but not arrested in a 13-month period, while only 193 whites were cuffed. When Oakland officers pulled over a vehicle but didn’t arrest anyone, 72 white people were handcuffed, while 1,466 African Americans were restrained. ”
=====================
A 2013 ruling by a New York Federal District Court judge found that the New York Police Department’s “stop and frisk” practices violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens of the city. Between January 2004 and June 2012, the city conducted 4.4 million stops. Eighty-eight percent of those stops resulted in no further action, and 83 percent of the stopped population were black or Hispanic, despite the fact that those minority groups, together, made up just over half of the city’s overall population.
================
A 2015 analysis by The New York Times found that in Greensboro, North Carolina, police officers “used their discretion to search black drivers or their cars more than twice as often as white motorists—even though they found drugs and weapons significantly more often when the driver was white.” That pattern held true for police departments in four states. In Greensboro, “ officers were more likely to stop black drivers for no discernible reason. And they were more likely to use force if the driver was black, even when they did not encounter physical resistance.”
================
In Chicago, a 2016 Police Accountability Task Force report found that “black and Hispanic drivers were searched approximately four times as often as white drivers, yet [the Chicago Police Department’s] own data show that contraband was found on white drivers twice as often as black and Hispanic drivers.” The police department’s own data, the report found, “gives validity to the widely held belief the police have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color.”
There's more, but thats enough for now.
I wonder why bush didn’t see the need to examine our tragic failures during his presidency? That, bush, is a tragic failure in itself.
“How do we end systemic racism in our society?"”
damn good question. Nobody knows the answer. I suspect it will never end because no matter how much we despise the actions or thoughts of others, we cannot control the actions or thoughts of others. We only have control over actions and thoughts.
He had good and bad in his presidency. He came in and almost immediately had a crisis called 9/11.
And tell me who did you vote for?
True, but as a society, we don't have to accept it either.
I didn’t vote for bush, in ‘00 or ‘04.
We don’t have to accept it, what does that mean? We just don’t like it? We go out and loot and destroy the property of others that have nothing to do with police brutality? Like i said, nobody has an answer and it will not go away.
Like i said, nobody has an answer and it will not go away.
Actually, like I said--- I have an answer.
And the answer is-- most people have the erroneous notion that you have to end racism to solve these problems. But you can never totally change what people think.
But that's faulty reasoning (that you have to eliminate racist thoughts to solve the peoblem).
You don't.
Peoplecan still have racist thoughts. But you can still solve the problem.
How?
But changing their actions (even if they still are racists).
If choke holds and other physical abuse of innocent suspects is bannned-- and enforced!-- racists will learn they can't engage in that behaviour.
Even if they have racists thoughts!
Apparently some mentally challenged folks here are not aware of the fact that's there's a difference between thoughts...and actions! But you already jnew that... (or did you???)
Thanks for that very rational comment, Krish.
Thanks for that very rational comment, Krish.
Pearls before swine...
(On social media sites, pearls before swine rational comments are).
Pearls before swine...
Actually I was wondering where that came from (so I did something that's very politically incorrect on social media-- I googled it. Oh-- the horror!)
Turns out if from...Tada...The Sermon on the Mount.!
A quotation from Matthew 7:6 in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."
Now, now Krish... that might be some other place... but not here.
Now, now Krish... that might be some other place... but not here.
OK-- I stand corrected!
No, wait-- (I prefer to sit whilst being corrected!)
Its true-- the participants in discussions here are quite rational...and willing to listen to opposing views. They are relentless in their pursuit of the true facts!
“Peoplecan still have racist thoughts. But you can still solve the problem.
How?
But changing their actions (even if they still are racists).“
Thoughts lead to actions. You admitted you cannot control thoughts, but you think you can control their actions? Here’s an idea, go to a white supremacist rally and try to control their actions. Let me know how that works out for you. And you seem to think some here are mentally challenged? Lol.