If republicans would let go of the fringe right, that would pull a large amount of black people away from democrats...

[Ray From Cleveland]

I vote against Republicans because I'm largely opposed to Republican policy.

The border wall did nothing to stop illegal immigration and is a giant waste of money.

Well you should of thought about that before you believed Trump when he told you Mexico would pay for it.

For asylum seekers which aren't the same thing as illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants sneak into the country, asylum seekers are requesting legal asylum at our borders.

The statistics showed that over 90% of immigrants released showed up for their scheduled hearings. Housing these people uncessarily costs a lot of money.

China didn't send the disease here. They are currently dealing with it themselves.

So what policies are you opposed to by Republicans? Yes, border walls did work here, not only here, but they work every place they're tried across the world. Trump's policy of asylum applicants were to apply at the US embassy in your own country. That stopped people from coming here, children and adults dying, getting into the country never to be heard from again.

Homeland Security secretary: Border walls work. Yuma sector proves it.

A bipartisan effort resulted in a wall that has cut the number of illegal immigrant apprehensions to a 10th of what it was in 2006.

www.usatoday.com

Where do Walls Work?

After suffering a series of terrorist attacks — most recently the slaughter of more than three dozen mostly British tourists in the beach resort town of Sousse — the Tunisian government

www.commentary.org

Border Patrol agents back Trump wall, survey finds

In a new survey conducted by the National Border Patrol Council, the agents’ union, they overwhelmingly backed adding a “wall system” in new strategic locations, saying it will boost their ability to nab or deter would-be illegal immigrants.

www.washingtontimes.com

Homeland Security chief says 90% of asylum seekers miss court dates

The acting Homeland Security secretary said on Tuesday that 90 percent of asylum seekers are missing their court dates after being released into the US. Acting Secretary Kevin McAleenan told the Se…

nypost.com

 

[Curried Goats]

Sure. Post them. I want to see how banks discriminated against anybody of race and never got sued for it or fined by the federal government.

Banks have criteria for loans. The problem is many blacks didn't meet that criteria, or they wanted to purchase homes in areas where they were lowering property value. What do you think happened with the housing bubble and burst? They lowered qualifications so more blacks could get home loans because they didn't meet the minimum standards for prime loans.

The More You Know

 

[Mac1958]

There is a large number of black people that don't agree with abortion and a lot of the LGBT laws than most may think. Republicans could keep their core values and get those black people, forcing democrats to really work for their vote. Is that fringe right really worth it?

The fringe IS the party now. MTG is the base. QAnon and holy warriors are welcome. The party has its very own separate reality in which it operates. Those who don't fall in line within the party are on the outside looking in and largely impotent.

The minorities that the Dems have taken for granted for so long don't exactly have a great choice here. But the Dems have done enough spectacularly dumb things to make minorities at least consider other options.

If minorities are willing to move towards the party of QAnon and Autocratic White "Christian" Nationalism, that doesn't say much for the Dems.

We desperately need a strong third party.

 

[Curried Goats]

Have you? Let me give you an example:

One of the instances blacks bring up is a complaint about our justice system. A black and a white get busted with an ounce of cocaine. The white guy gets probation and the black goes to jail. RACISM!

Forget the fact the cases were heard by different judges in different states. Forget the fact that a judge bases his or her decisions on many other things, such as past criminal history, the suspects interaction with police. Yes, police do talk to the judge about the arrest. The suspects interaction with jail guard, the conduct of the suspect in court, the attire they wear, a whole host of things.

They only state the arrest and the sentencing, that's it.

In the meantime the white guy has no criminal history, not even an outstanding parking ticket, he cooperated and didn't run or struggle with police, he followed all orders by the guards at the jail, he dressed appropriately for court and didn't roll his eyes or shake his head while the case was presented, he or she showed remorse for their infraction.

Yes, these two people will likely get different sentences, not because of race, but because of criminal history and conduct. That's what I mean by an apples to apples comparison.

This seems to be a pattern with you. You make up your own arguments and scenarios to argue against rather than arguments I've presented and you make up claims like analysts not knowing how to compare similar instances except in reality that is not the case. The people who do this for a living obviously know not to compare the arrest of a dangerous gangbanger to someone who got pulled over for rolling through a red light. Everytime an independent study is done on one of America's police departments we find patterns of racial discrimination. The latest one if from the Minneapolis police dept.

 

[Kondor3]

There is a large number of black people that don't agree with abortion and a lot of the LGBT laws than most may think. Republicans could keep their core values and get those black people, forcing democrats to really work for their vote. Is that fringe right really worth it?

Yep... but given that the White Vote in this country is split... they can't afford to abandon their redneck trailer-trash element...

Too many bleeding hearts and Woke little snowflakes and Wiggers and pansies workin' the other side of The Fence for that to be practical at this time...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This seems to be a pattern with you. You make up your own arguments and scenarios to argue against rather than arguments I've presented and you make up claims like analysts not knowing how to compare similar instances except in reality that is not the case. The people who do this for a living obviously know not to compare the arrest of a dangerous gangbanger to someone who got pulled over for rolling through a red light. Everytime an independent study is done on one of America's police departments we find patterns of racial discrimination. The latest one if from the Minneapolis police dept.

Would you like me to go through each category of what they found? Again, results without apples to apples comparisons. I know you don't want to go through each one, but I'll use the first one:

USE OF FORCE

The report found that officers use “higher rates of more severe force” against Black residents than white people in similar circumstances. Since 2010, 13 of the 14 people killed by Minneapolis officers were people of color or Indigenous. Those groups comprise about 42% of the city’s population, but 93% of the city’s officer-involved deaths since 2010. And while only about 19% of the city’s residents are Black, 63% of all use-of-force incidents were against Black people.

So is this force needed because people of color fight with police more often than whites? Your assumption is these results are because of police and not the suspects, and of course in a Democrat led city, the politicians need to blame somebody, so why not blame the police instead of the criminals? And what do police do about the deaths? If a black guy is shooting at the police, what do you want the police to do, duck the bullets, find a white guy and kill him instead? Do they do the same when a black guy is fighting police while they're trying to place him under arrest; just let him run away, and next white guy that is in total compliance with police orders, tackle him to the ground and beat the shit out of him?

ALL police deaths are thoroughly investigated by not only the police, but by outside agencies such as the state troopers or the Sheriffs departments. How many of these deaths involved a police officer getting charged yet alone a trial and guilty verdict? Oh, we can't include that in the report. It defeats the purpose of publishing this garbage in the first place!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The More You Know

So I ask for evidence and you give me an article about what took place 80 years ago? You really are reaching for the bottom of the barrel, aint cha?

 

[Curried Goats]

Would you like me to go through each category of what they found? Again, results without apples to apples comparisons. I know you don't want to go through each one, but I'll use the first one:

USE OF FORCE

The report found that officers use “higher rates of more severe force” against Black residents than white people in similar circumstances. Since 2010, 13 of the 14 people killed by Minneapolis officers were people of color or Indigenous. Those groups comprise about 42% of the city’s population, but 93% of the city’s officer-involved deaths since 2010. And while only about 19% of the city’s residents are Black, 63% of all use-of-force incidents were against Black people.

So is this force needed because people of color fight with police more often than whites? Your assumption is these results are because of police and not the suspects, and of course in a Democrat led city, the politicians need to blame somebody, so why not blame the police instead of the criminals? And what do police do about the deaths? If a black guy is shooting at the police, what do you want the police to do, duck the bullets, find a white guy and kill him instead? Do they do the same when a black guy is fighting police while they're trying to place him under arrest; just let him run away, and next white guy that is in total compliance with police orders, tackle him to the ground and beat the shit out of him?

ALL police deaths are thoroughly investigated by not only the police, but by outside agencies such as the state troopers or the Sheriffs departments. How many of these deaths involved a police officer getting charged yet alone a trial and guilty verdict? Oh, we can't include that in the report. It defeats the purpose of publishing this garbage in the first place!

Your entire exposition is again made up out of whole cloth. Let's look back again at the the first part of the quote you sited.

The report found that officers use “higher rates of more severe force” against Black residents than white people in similar circumstances.

See those three words at the end there "in similar circumstances" ? Guess what they mean.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your entire exposition is again made up out of whole cloth. Let's look back again at the the first part of the quote you sited.

The report found that officers use “higher rates of more severe force” against Black residents than white people in similar circumstances.

See those three words at the end there "in similar circumstances" ? Guess what they mean.

What does that even mean? What is a similar circumstance? Not one example is given of this in the article. Similar circumstance is not the same as the exact same circumstance. As in my earlier comparison, if you and I go to court for having an ounce of cocaine, I get probation and you get jail time due to your conduct and past criminal history, are those not similar circumstances in your opinion?

Even you have to admit that his article was written to excite a group of people. It's not intended to report the truth. That's how the media makes their money.

For example the media reports of an unarmed black getting gunned down by police. They never explain that there are no laws that restrict police or armed citizens from using deadly force unless they were presented with an attacker attempting to use deadly force with a weapon against them. They leave readers to believe the police did something against the law, but nobody did anything to the cop. He got away with it.

By omitting facts, they get people riled up. They participate on the sites blog, they tune into the news channels, and if they're lucky, they can even get people to start protests that lead to riots. The more people they excite, the more they can charge for advertising. What they don't tell you is that police shoot nearly just as many unarmed whites as blacks, and more armed whites than blacks by a two-to-one ratio. They don't even report whites getting killed by police because nobody would care. If we whites read a report of a police officer killing a white, we just shrug our shoulders and say "the asshole must have deserved it!"

 

[Curried Goats]

So I ask for evidence and you give me an article about what took place 80 years ago? You really are reaching for the bottom of the barrel, aint cha?

Of course I knew your response would be flippant because despite demanding details from me, you lack the intellectual capability or the historical knowledge to challenge anything I say. Here's some history on housing discrimination and its lasting effects of segregation.

The Legacy Of The 1968 Fair Housing Act

Legal discrimination and segregation against Black Americans by the American government started in the 30s and continued on until 1977 with the passage of the community investment act that finally outlawed redlining, though without much authority it left the government (by design) with little authority to do anything to investigate or punish people and institutions who continue to carry on the practice.

In many ways, it is not surprising that the progress toward residential integration in the United States has lagged. The structures and processes that created the black ghetto were well institutionalized in private practice and public policy by the time the civil rights movement began. Abundant evidence suggests that racial discrimination did not end with civil rights legislation so much as go underground to become clandestine and less visible. To measure such discrimination, investigators employ audit studies in which white and black teams are assigned similar characteristics and sent out to inquire about the availability of housing advertised for sale or rent in a specific market, after which systematic differences in treatment by race are documented (Blank, Dabady, and Citro 2004). Audit studies show that whites continue to be favored over blacks in real estate transactions and that they are disproportionately “steered” toward segregated or racially mixed neighborhoods and away from white residential areas (Turner et al. 2002; Charles 2003: Ross and Turner 2004).

Audit studies likewise indicate the persistence of discrimination against African Americans in mortgage lending as well as the continued redlining of black neighborhoods (Ross and Yinger 2002; Hartman and Squires 2013), though in recent years redlining has given way to “reverse redlining,” or predatory lending in which black borrowers are channeled into high interest, high risk loans (Squires 2004; Hyra et al. 2013; Rugh, Albright, and Massey 2014). Research also reveals substantial “linguistic profiling” during phone calls to inquire about the availability of housing, such that callers speaking Black English Vernacular or having a “black” accent are not informed of opportunities that are made readily apparent to those speaking Standard American English (Purnell, Idsardi, and Baugh 1999; Massey and Lundy 2001; Fischer and Massey 2004; Squires and Chadwick 2006).

Housing discrimination is unfortunately not where the story ends when it comes to America's efforts to marginalize and disenfranchise black communities. It's not even the beginning. If slavery was the first chapter of American brutality towards black Americans then Jim Crow and the violence that lead to the Great Migration, white flight (often subsidized by the government) to the suburbs and legalized segregation of black Americans into urban ghettos are the second chapter. What came next in the 70s was the war on drugs and mass incarceration where the government invested in brutalizing poor black residents rather than investing in poor communities. At the same time public education was tied to property taxes which left schools in poor black neighborhoods severely underfunded. All of this is basic American history that white racists can only flippantly deny but are unable to mount an intellectual response to.

 

[Curried Goats]

What does that even mean? What is a similar circumstance? Not one example is given of this in the article. Similar circumstance is not the same as the exact same circumstance. As in my earlier comparison, if you and I go to court for having an ounce of cocaine, I get probation and you get jail time due to your conduct and past criminal history, are those not similar circumstances in your opinion?

Even you have to admit that his article was written to excite a group of people. It's not intended to report the truth. That's how the media makes their money.

For example the media reports of an unarmed black getting gunned down by police. They never explain that there are no laws that restrict police or armed citizens from using deadly force unless they were presented with an attacker attempting to use deadly force with a weapon against them. They leave readers to believe the police did something against the law, but nobody did anything to the cop. He got away with it.

By omitting facts, they get people riled up. They participate on the sites blog, they tune into the news channels, and if they're lucky, they can even get people to start protests that lead to riots. The more people they excite, the more they can charge for advertising. What they don't tell you is that police shoot nearly just as many unarmed whites as blacks, and more armed whites than blacks by a two-to-one ratio. They don't even report whites getting killed by police because nobody would care. If we whites read a report of a police officer killing a white, we just shrug our shoulders and say "the asshole must have deserved it!"

Again, you didn't bother to read the article did you? Or click the link in the article that would lead you to the pdf of the actual study. Either you're too lazy or too stupid to understand what similar circumstances means, because in your own made up example you described dissimilar circumstances with respect to conviction records, so I'll help you out and provide the relevant portion for you.

Despite the overwhelming disproportionality of force used by MPD officers against Black community members, some City and MPD leaders, as well as some MPD officers, claim that disproportionality in policing in Minneapolis is due to factors other than race.Therefore, to further determine if race is the likely reason that MPD officers use higher rates of force against Black individuals, and to control or account for common justifications for this disproportionality, a comparison of use of force incidents against Black and white individuals in similar circumstances was completed. This statistical analysis was also coupled with review of MPD’s use of force files and body worn camera footage. To complete this racial disparity analysis, MPD’s use of force incidents from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, involving Black and white individuals were compared. To ensure the analysis compared individuals in similar situations, use of force incidents were compared only if MPD officers recorded the same justification for the force (i.e., the individual’s recorded behavior, such as whether the individual tensed) and where the same primary offense was recorded (i.e., the alleged crime or event that led to the overall police interaction, or the alleged crime that ultimately occurred). This analysis and review of use of force files and body worn camera footage demonstrate that race is the likely reason that MPD officers use higher rates of more severe force against Black individuals compared to white individuals in similar circumstances.

MPD officers use higher rates of neck restraints or chokeholds against Black individuals than white individuals in similar circumstances. Prior to June 2020, MPD policy permitted the use of neck restraints, even to render someone unconscious. In June 2020, after an MPD officer murdered George Floyd, the temporary court order requested by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights required MPD to ban the use of neck restraints, without exception. MPD’s data shows that during the time neck restraints were permitted under MPD policy, MPD officers were almost twice as likely to use neck restraints against Black individuals than white individuals who MPD officers recorded as behaving in the same way when interacting with police and whose police interaction stemmed from the same alleged offense or event.

 

[sartre play]

Not black, so cant speak for them, Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it and regret it latter.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Again, you didn't bother to read the article did you? Or click the link in the article the lead you to pdf of the actual study. Either you're too lazy or too stupid to understand what similar circumstances means, because in your own examples you described dissimilar circumstances with respect to conviction records, so I'll help you out and provide the relevant portion for you.

So what are you telling me, that YOU DID read this 78 page report? Well if you did, then by all means, tell me the page of this study that makes your point. You see, I don't want to read 78 pages only to find out what I already know. You're not the first black blogger to post stuff like this. I've been reading them for years. They are all the same thing.

As to the article itself, what does it say that I didn't acknowledge? All they show are results instead of who was responsible for the situation.

 

[Curried Goats]

So what are you telling me, that YOU DID read this 78 page report? Well if you did, then by all means, tell me the page of this study that makes your point. You see, I don't want to read 78 pages only to find out what I already know. You're not the first black blogger to post stuff like this. I've been reading them for years. They are all the same thing.

As to the article itself, what does it say that I didn't acknowledge? All they show are results instead of who was responsible for the situation.

The article had a link to the pdf. and I provided the relevant portion which you can find starting on page 10 of the study. You really want to keep embarrassing yourself? You ask for details and you can't manage anything but the most simple of responses. You balk at educating yourself on subjects you want to pretend to be knowledgeable in but you obviously have very little education or historical understanding to even make a passing attempt at a coherent retort.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course I knew your response would be flippant because despite demanding details from me, you lack the intellectual capability or the historical knowledge to challenge anything I say. Here's some history on housing discrimination and its lasting effects of segregation.

The Legacy Of The 1968 Fair Housing Act


Housing discrimination is unfortunately not where the story ends when it comes to America's efforts to marginalize and disenfranchise black communities. It's not even the beginning. If slavery was the first chapter of American brutality towards black Americans then Jim Crow and the violence that lead to the Great Migration, white flight (often subsidized by the government) to the suburbs and legalized segregation of black Americans into urban ghettos are the second chapter. What came next in the 70s was the war on drugs and mass incarceration where the government invested in brutalizing poor black residents rather than investing in poor communities. At the same time public education was tied to property taxes which left schools in poor black neighborhoods severely underfunded. All of this is basic American history that white racists can only flippantly deny but are unable to mount an intellectual response to.

Thanks. Another 20 page article you never read that mostly discusses yesterday than today. In any case, how is it the banks fault that blacks ruin every place they move to? Who wants to lend money to an area where property values will fall and even plummet? I know, I live in a suburb that became segregated. I bought this place nearly 30 years ago, and my property value is about the same now as when I bought it.

In fact about six or seven years ago I applied for a home equity loan. In spite of my A1 credit, the banks refused to open up an account for this white guy. Why? Because my property was under water. It dipped so low that I owed more on it than it was worth. The banks refused to lend me money; not because blacks lived here, but because what they did to the property value due to crime, filth, and people moving in that didn't pay their property taxes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The article had a link to the pdf. and I provided the relevant portion which you can find starting on page 10 of the study. You really want to keep embarrassing yourself? You ask for details and you can't manage anything but the most simple of responses. You balk at educating yourself on subjects you want to pretend to be knowledgeable in but you obviously have very little education or historical understanding to even make a passing attempt at a coherent retort.

You didn't read shit. Like I said, if you read this 78 page report, tell me the page that makes your point. You can't because you never read it. You expect me to take a half-hour to read it to find out what I knew all along.

 

[Curried Goats]

Thanks. Another 20 page article you never read that mostly discusses yesterday than today. In any case, how is it the banks fault that blacks ruin every place they move to? Who wants to lend money to an area where property values will fall and even plummet? I know, I live in a suburb that became segregated. I bought this place nearly 30 years ago, and my property value is about the same now as when I bought it.

I actually did read it because unlike you I educate myself on the subjects I talk about. If course you have no data whatsoever for your racist claims.

In fact about six or seven years ago I applied for a home equity loan. In spite of my A1 credit, the banks refused to open up an account for this white guy. Why? Because my property was under water. It dipped so low that I owed more on it than it was worth. The banks refused to lend me money; not because blacks lived here, but because what they did to the property value due to crime, filth, and people moving in that didn't pay their property taxes.

 

[Curried Goats]

You didn't read shit. Like I said, if you read this 78 page report, tell me the page that makes your point. You can't because you never read it. You expect me to take a half-hour to read it to find out what I knew all along.

I told you and quoted it for you you fucking moron, it's plain as day for everyone to see. Page 10.

 

[22lcidw]

I actually did read it because unlike you I educate myself on the subjects I talk about. If course you have no data whatsoever for your racist claims.

Politicians caused the 2008 home ownership crash. Tens of millions of people playing by the rules were screwed over. Many knew it was coming and could do nothing do to family concerns. By 2010 most of the politicians involved got out. They deserve to hang. The games these morons play. We are having more fun with the games right now.

 

[BS Filter]

I suppose the OP means the deplorable Trumpers.