lostfan

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:52 PM) So Chicago's issues are because of White people not Democrats? The 50 Aldermen in Chicago have 1 Republican. The South Side is a problem still. Not really where I was going with that, but if you are going to go all the way back to the 60s, then yes, absolutely it's because of white people. This was back when white mobs of hundreds of people would attack black families who moved into the neighborhood for essentially just trying to live there. The racial component there is bright as the sun.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:38 PM) I don't really know what you mean you say conservatives aren't really listening. As you said, big cities and Democratic. On a nationwide level, Republicans don't have a lot of policy concerned with the black vote. I think the new wing of the Republican party will change that. The problem is Democrats offer free stuff and Republicans are nonexistent. I'd take the free stuff too. I think the blacks know that they are being policed in a way that's unfair compared to the rest of the country. I am not talking about police shootings. I am talking about the pay to play legal system, the microscope on their communities and the rules on drugs and felonies. The less people there are with felonies, the less people there are in jail and then there's less kids with no fathers. This is a Libertarian policy that should be bipartisan as it's so obvious the imprisonment and destruction of the family is the root of the problem. Just testimonial but I got in trouble all the time growing up. Between going to the principals/deans and then a little bit with the police too. When I'd come home and my mom would go, "I am disappointed in you, what were you thinking, yada, yada, yada." I would just shrug it off. Then when it was 6:05 and I knew my dad would be home in the next half hour I would start to get nervous. I am a proud momma's boy but my mom couldn't scare me on her worst day. When I got in trouble and my old man was on his way home... I started fearing for myself. I slept in on a Friday, couldn't get a ride to school because my parents were at work and I just stayed home. I had a party that night so I didn't tell my parents until Monday when the dean called. My Dad pulled me off the basketball team. If it was just my mom and I, she would've complained, and the behavior would have continued. When I messed up at home or at school growing up, I paid a price. When I got picked up by the cops, I never paid a price with the law, just at home after my parents got me out. In inner city communities with a high concentration of single parent households, the opposite happens. That's a problem. This adds nothing to the conversation. They don't. I mean... occasionally you'll see something like Newt Gingrich, totally out of the blue, acknowledge systemic racism is real, or Glenn Beck agree with black people (probably because of his libertarian streak) but by and large that's the exception and not the norm. The rest of them are the people who comment on Fox News posts after police shootings - Republicans do this awkward tap-dance aware these people exist and they're a large part of their constituency but trying not to offend them. Trump's pretty much blown the door off that in this election and turned on the light to show all the cochroaches. But anyway as a black person, best to just pretend those people don't even exist and work around them. TL;DR one party is at least semi-responsive to the priorities of black people, if imperfect and frustrating, the other either ignores them or actively resists them, with a handful of exceptions. That's still a relatively easy choice. Republicans haven't done anything since maybe the early 70s to even try to make inroads.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:29 PM) They did the same thing in NYC, too. s*** like intentionally building overpasses *just* low enough so that public buses, which black people relied on much more heavily, couldn't easily leave different neighborhoods while cars had no problem. Racial segregation as public policy was the whole thrust of TNC's "The Case for Reparations" article a few years ago, and that focused on Chicago's awful legacy. Yeah, this exactly. Like the way they have built public transportation in Baltimore. We'll build highways that are good for getting OUT of the city, and fine, we'll build public transportation, but only if it's a park and ride so *they* can't get out here where we've moved to. It's not a coincidence that Chicago's trains go into the north suburbs and on the south side it only goes to 95th.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:23 PM) I don't know how you can say that when the Republican policies in black communities and major cities are nonexistent at this point. Inner cities under Democratic rule have a bunch of people on welfare, inadequate schooling and Democrats going there every election year to tell them they are victims and that race is the biggest problem in America. There were almost 6,000 blacks killed by other blacks in 2015 and only 258 deaths by police gunfires. Stop locking them up for selling weed, stop ruining their employability with a flawed legal system and make an emphasis of stopping single mother households instead of race. Maybe then we'll see progress. Democrats in Chicago built the highway system to keep black people contained in certain neighborhoods and have since just locked them up, given them horrible school systems (Bush's plan certainly shares blame there) and given them welfare while calling the Republicans racist for having no part in their fate. It's a shame. Rahm Emanuel doesn't even make a point of making a difference until some thugs come up to the Lakeview and Lincoln Park and start wreaking havoc where the money is at. *white Democrats in Chicago. The distinction is not insignificant. This happened in every city with a large black population around the country in the 60s. (again, this is all local-level stuff, not federal)

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:15 PM) This is obviously a problem Repubs have, and for good reason give a segment of the Repub constituency, but it's also the nature of the two positions. Dems want to directly provide things, Repubs want to fix the system so that government doesn't have to. Which sounds more appealing if you're in the poorer areas of Chicago? What does "fix the system" mean? For people who live in cities, this means invest in public transportation, housing development, access to jobs (which is always promised through tax cuts to the wealthy but never come), public investment in schools. Those are actually mostly municipal and state-level things, actually. That's what I meant earlier. People who live in cities are Dems because Dems live in cities. When I hear a conservative talking head talking about how Dems are pandering to minority voters I chuckle to myself because the answer to their question is actually pretty obvious. It's not pandering, the minority voters are the people actually saing it, because they ARE the Democrats. White liberals are just one part of them.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:09 PM) Republicans are casted as racists to the blacks to the point where they won't even hear out the candidates who are actually trying to make a difference to them. Democrats aren't doing anything for the inner city impoverished people but indoctrinating them into a welfare state. Welfare has gone up with Obama in office and race relations have gotten worse. The Democrats just brag about income support programs and affirmative action and most Republicans ignore them because they don't expect to pull them over anyways. The only noticeable politicians out there with any inkling of a plan to help the disenfranchised black youth in major cities are Cory Booker and Rand Paul. They put together a bipartisan plan based on the facts and still nothing happens because it wouldn't help the money being made off of the flawed "justice" system and prisons. Along with that, the destruction of the family is a huge problem in America. The white demographic has had a huge increase in single parents households. As a whole, it's a result of America's ridiculous policies to imprison everyone and disproportionately imprison blacks specifically. Frankly, this shouldn't be a Republican or Democrat issue. It's a people issue. How about instead of locking everyone up and indoctrinating more people into the welfare state we do away with non-violent policing for profit? That drops the number of felons, improves employability of the disenfranchised and in turn, fights against single parent households. EDIT: And in bible thumping states, get over it and allow abortions/sexual preventatives to be free. They almost never try in in any significant way that's worth discussing. Like "Hey, Allen West is black, let's put him in charge of outreach." Most black people, and I mean most, like 80-90%, hate people like Allen West for reasons white conservatives seem incapable of comprehending. A little empathy goes a long way, but it's seriously lacking. Something like "we have concerns about the criminal justice system and urban policing" is met with "you're all violent anyway, the ones who get killed had it coming. And here is the black guy we found who agrees with us, so there." That really goes nowhere. And black voters DO criticize Democrats all the time but the conservatives aren't really listening - they don't actually care. They've made that clear numerous times.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:06 PM) Link to these 90% of polls lol. The Drudge poll has Trump at 90%. But that's Drudge. They look more or less like Saddam Hussein's poll numbers used to look like in Iraq.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 11:00 AM) Something that's not been getting a lot of play but really, really should was Trump saying that blowing up other nation's military boats over taunting wouldn't lead to a war. Multiple wars started literally that exact way (or at least that was the cause given on the surface). Or in the case of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, a war started even though the incident DIDN'T happen and it was just claimed to have happened.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 11:49 AM) Repubs don't run because it's a waste of time. They have no chance. That's the point. There is no alternative option. So you've got a city and county with a myriad of problems, all created by democrats, and the fixes are all promised by democrats but never happen. So why is not ok to question whether democratic policies are working/are the answer? Republicans could try actually talking to black voters and finding out what they want and how they want it done instead of telling them what's good for them. Black voters tune Republicans out because 90% of the time they vacillate between talking down to them and being outright hostile.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 11:28 AM) Chicago isn't a prime example of this or anything... Where are the Republicans in Chicago who would "fix" the numerous issues layered on top of one another that have piled up on the black community over the course of multiple decades? Seriously. They simply do not exist. There is no such thing. People seem to fail to understand this for some reason. Chicago is run by Democrats because Democrats live in Chicago. Additionally, municipal-level politics really have nothing to do with national parties.

Jenks: Hillary has said she f***ed up with the e-mail server a lot of times, for some weeks now. She's been asked about it over and over. She didn't break new ground last night.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) I guess I just find it hard to believe that the guy hasn't encountered others who get under his skin in his business dealings. Maybe he is so frequently in a position of power due to his resources that others rarely challenge him, but quite frankly, I am shocked by how easily he gets angered and frustrated. I'll be honest - I don't care for Clinton - but I found her to be condescending behavior to be a turnoff as well. The countless times where she responded to him by laughing or had a big smile on her face, or with this act of 'wow, Donald how can I possibly respond to the steaming pile of bulls*** you just served up' isn't going to win over anyone she has't already won over anyways. She needs to focus on those voters that don't care for that typical and predictable response either. There are a number of voters who are sick of the political status quo, and are considering voting for trump simply because he isn't that. Mocking him isn't helping to gain their votes. Rather than waste her time making him look silly, which he already does very well all by himself, she should continue to juxtapose her plans which have substance against his which do not. Simply continue to hammer him on the substance and the facts and abstain from coming off as elitist and condescending. 1. Trump does encounter people like that, but he's typically dealt with them through some combination of bluffing, bluster, and outright bullying by threatening lawsuits or screwing people over. I was pretty familiar with Trump before he started running for president and this is a pretty consistent pattern. 2. So many women recognized that pursed-lips smile Clinton had on her face most of the night, because they've been trained to do that from birth. The "patiently smile while a ridiculous man who isn't that bright talks down to you" look.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:25 AM) Also what year are we trying to go back to to make America Great again? Can anyone tell me that target? Thought I was on Facebook, tried to "like" this

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:26 AM) I ended up watching MSNBC because of CNN's ABSURD 20 person panel. Whenever I watch those panels I'm like "I hate these f***ing people. The election really is coming down to dumb people exactly like this."

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 10:21 AM) He isn't able to execute because she got under his skin immediately. He was expecting another Jeb! or Rubio, not a shark out for blood. On the Republican side, the only one with debate chops like Clinton is maybe Cruz, but Cruz was a punk ass b**** and never really challenged Trump until it was far too late. Or maybe Fiorina, but she wasn't a serious candidate.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) Yeah but like I said mid-debate, it ain't about convincing his core supporters that give him a floor of 35-40%. It's about making sure people remain energized for Clinton, peeling away some of the soft millenial voters saying they're going to vote Johnson or Stein or not at all, and deenergizing some of the soft Republican supporters. If she keeps him in the 40-42% range and keeps herself 45%+, she coasts. Yeah, Trump didn't lose any votes last night. He won't... he can't. Years ago I used to say that 40% will vote for a Republican no matter who it is or what they do, and Trump is really putting that theory to the test. But Clinton isn't the one who really needs to move the needle (although she is trying to, obviously), Trump's the one who's been trailing in the polls. This election really isn't following normal rules.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 12:09 AM) I also forgot that Hillary let him off the hook for the racist housing practices. He first started with "well lots of other people were doing it", but then kept saying "We settled with no admission of guilt." Well, thats most of those investigations go when they settle. Also, she now has better footing with any of the allegations against her cause she never was even investigated, which is better than "settling". Any lawyer who makes their client settle with an admission of guilt is a dumbass.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:17 AM) He actually bragged about it, said "that's called being smart." I'm thinking that Trump's going to spend a decent chunk of the next debate relitigating this one because he can't let anything go. It doesn't really matter though. Trump just pretends he didn't say it. He denied saying not paying taxes was smart when Jake Tapper interviewed him later. He's Orwellian af, but his supporters don't care.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 27, 2016 -> 09:13 AM) I'm surprised she didn't manage to hit him on the "I took advantage of the laws as they are" line in response to her bringing up him stiffing small business owners/working class people for decades. "You took advantage of the little guy for your own gain" popped into my head immediately, but she never really went after that. She didn't really need to. That stood on its own.

Trump was trying to follow a general script - he didn't really do much preparation and that was obvious - and got Clinton a couple of times (she really doesn't have an answer for why she reversed her position on the TPP), but she started talking (factual) s*** after a couple of rounds and she IMMEDIATELY got in Trump's head. He never actually denied that he didn't pay taxes or that he shafted all those Atlantic City contractors, and if anything, he bragged about it. He got visibly angry and started melting down. He started interrupting her and talking over her, audibly sighing (one time he did this after she said he was painting an overly negative picture of black communities), grunting, etc. His answer to the first use policy question was gibberish, he clearly had no clue what that was. After about 20 minutes into the debate, Clinton was in Trump's head and everything he did or said was at her will. I think he's dumb enough to fall for this at the next debate too.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 04:38 PM) Considering hte lead problems in Chicago, she damn well should start a lead initiative that can bring fed borrowing to states for removing lead pipes. Considering the side effects of lead it is a MORAL and ECONOMIC issue. Crazy how tepid the response has been. Yeah, regulation could have helped, but capital to improve dangerous infrastructure is more important. That's a big part of gov't. That's the whole source of crises like Flint. Obama has basically screamed this at every one of his State of the Union Addresses.

Since I don't really like talking out of my ass I'll mention specifically what Clinton talked about in that speech -Support Rep. Clyburn's 10-20-30 poverty plan (direct 10% of federal resources to the 20% of the population that's been in poverty for 30 years or more) -emphasize STEM education -Paid family leave, make childcare affordable -Equal pay for women -Increase access to capital for entrepeneurs -Reinvest in neglected urban communities, improve transportation for rural communities -Criminal justice reform, gun reform -Mentioned Flint, didn't say anything specific -Expand Social Security -Restore VRA

Mark Cuban earlier today on Twitter said he'd give Trump 10 million to charity if he agreed to let Cuban interview him for 4 hours specifically on his policies and their substance, just them, no handlers (then threw shade, and said he'd make the check out to Trump personally, if Trump needed the cash). Trump won't, and can't, accept this challenge, because he has no actual policies to speak of. He didn't offer a similar challenge to Clinton because 1) it's not actually necessary, she already has comprehensive policies, 2) Clinton would take that deal in a heartbeat before Cuban even finished his tweets.

idk where this thing comes from that Hillary doesn't talk policy, she does, it's damn near all she does (when she is not directly attacking Trump, which is something that gets more air time), it's actually her entire persona as a politician. Hillary literally just talked about policy at the BWA symposium this morning. CNN even covered it this time! But what are media people and consumers of media (who somehow think they are exempt from this equation) talking about? Trump's birtherism, because of course.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Sep 16, 2016 -> 03:53 PM) Like I pointed out, right or wrong, the Anthem is a big part of military life. I said I heard some military guys on the radio very upset because of the Colin protest. Some gave their lives; others limbs for our freedom. You watch the military during the anthem ... there is so much respect. How can it not be a slap in the face to many military when some rich ballplayer is sitting or kneeling during an anthem treated with so much reverence by the Army, Navy, Marines, etc? If some military are not offended by Colin, that is great. I respect whatever position any military man or woman wants to take on this issue. I respect Ezio's take and Jesse's. But I'm saying I can see why many are flat out pissed off. They gave limbs for us and we sit during a song that is treated with reverence and respect by virtually all military outlets. That said ... kill it. It's jumped the Shark. Colin ruined it. The Twitterverse ruined it by ripping poor Gabby Douglas. Get rid of it at sporting events NOW. I'm completely ok with getting rid of it at NFL games, considering the NFL only started having players stand outside during the anthem in 2009 and before that they were still in the locker room, and they only do this because it's good marketing. The NFL does close to *nothing* for veterans, and it's all phony. In the case of the Olympics, that's appropriate, because in that case the actual country is being represented.