***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[Upptempo]

I wish I could go to a job interview and just refuse to answer questions

"What would you do if you saw a coworker stealing"
Hmm well I can't really answer a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

The first step act was bipartisan. As was the Fair Chance Act.

Senator Scott had a police reform bill that was blocked by Democrats. But don’t take my word for it:

Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill

Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill

Democrats wanted Republicans to agree to bipartisan talks before beginning debate on the GOP police reform bill. GOP leaders argued Democrats should have allowed debate to try to amend the bill.

www.npr.org

wasnt this the bill that did pretty much nothing to ensure police could be held legally accountable for misconduct? remember how hard it was to get simple legislation done regarding body cameras?

Trump Falsely Claims Obama ‘Never Even Tried’ to Address Police Misconduct (Published 2020)

The president has reversed or limited efforts at reform that his predecessor enacted.

www.nytimes.com

In 2015, Mr. Obama issued an executive order that placed limits on the Pentagon’s so-called 1033 program, which has sent excess military equipment to the police since the 1990s. It prohibited local police departments from obtaining track armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft grenade launchers and bayonets, at the recommendation of the task force.

Months after Mr. Trump took office, he rescinded those restrictions — keeping a promise he made to the Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police union, during the 2016 election.
“He and his staff are very familiar with our efforts because the F.O.P. lobbied them to limit the work we were doing,” said Roy L. Austin Jr., who was deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration. “The task force could not have produced a more powerful document in changing policing around the country. Immediately upon President Trump taking office, he made it clear he was eliminating those reforms.”
The Justice Department under Mr. Obama also opened 25 investigations into whether police departments were engaging in a “pattern or practice” of misconduct (an authority granted to the attorney general by the 1994 crime bill). It enforced 14 consent decrees, which are court-approved agreements to overhaul police departments, including in Ferguson.
In comparison, the Justice Department under Mr. Trump has been far less active. So far, it has opened one investigation and signed two agreements, which were based on an investigation opened in 2015, while Mr. Obama was president. (Whether consent decrees are effective is another matter.)
Sixteen law enforcement agencies also participated in the Justice Department’s collaborative reform initiative, a voluntary program started under Mr. Obama. The program assessed a police department’s practices and made recommendations for change.
In 2017, the Justice Department significantly scaled back the program over the objections of some Republican lawmakers.
Echoing the frustrations of many activists, Mr. Vitale said that the previous administration’s overhaul efforts had not produced significant results, but he added: “I don’t think Trump has done more. I just don’t think it’s that different.”
Mr. Obama himself in 2016 acknowledged that “change has been too slow and we have to have a greater sense of urgency about this.”

 

[dwalk31]

More details....



They wanted to pass the more progressive...

The House just passed a sweeping police reform bill

It’s not expected to go anywhere in the Senate, however.

www.vox.com

Which all but three Republicans voted for it in the House. And which Mitch McConnell refused to hold a Senate floor vote on.

Activist mainly preferred the Democrats' Bill, as it is more progressive.

So please ****ing spare us this bad faith nonsense.

So in your world lipservice and no bill is better than a bill that doesn’t go far enough.

I think that is the fundamental difference in our approaches.

 

[RustyShackleford]

So in your world lipservice and no bill is better than a bill that doesn’t go far enough.

I think that is the fundamental difference in our approaches.

Please ****ing spare me you no morals having Uncle Ruckus

I wanted real progressive bills to be passed. The Dems passed one, the GOP didn't even try to write one.

You stay acting like black people should take whatever scraps bigots give them, instead of joining to push for real reforms.

If the Dems get enough power, all signs to them passing a progressive reform bill. You want people to hope and pray Trump one day tells the Senate they can water down one of the Dems bills, and he'll sign it. All while he. his judges and his Attorney General undermine civil rights for black people all over America.

 

[dwalk31]

Please for the love of god stop responding to this disingenuous **** bag who is voting solely for Trump because of money and they allowed him to steal a grand for a non-existent business

@Methodical Management can we do something about this blatant trolling? It's getting old constantly derailing this thread with obvious troll attempts. It's almost unbearable to be in here and its solely due to one poster. This is past the point of where its even a discussion, but more just a constant pivot to other ridiculous claims to keep sidetracking the thread.

It isn’t trolling just because you disagree.

You ignore pages of memes, gifs, etc to call my posts articulating a particular view as trolling.

You want to extinguish discussion from any point of view that you deem to be the right.

It wouldn’t matter what I said, or how I said it. Any poster who you think supports the GOP or Trump will be deemed a troll based on your standard.

News flash: this is the political discussion thread. There will be differences of opinion.

 

[TURBO UNO]

This thread is entertaining. I see the insults coming out too? Crazy.

 

[elpablo21]

and you got Goofy *** ppl like Haberman sharing that **** and now trying to walk it back

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

They couldnt even vote on criminal justice reform that republican's agreed with

Why the Senate Couldn’t Pass a Crime Bill Both Parties Backed (Published 2016)

The major bill seemed destined to be the bipartisan success story of the year, meant to provide a second chance for nonviolent offenders. Then the election got in the way.

www.nytimes.com

Why the Senate Couldn’t Pass a Crime Bill Both Parties Backed


WASHINGTON — A major criminal-justice overhaul bill seemed destined to be the bipartisan success story of the year, consensus legislation that showed lawmakers could still rise above politics.
Then the election, Donald J. Trump’s demand for “law and order” and a series of other political calculations got in the way.
Senate Republicans divided on the wisdom of reducing federal mandatory minimum sentences. Other Republicans, unhappy that President Obama was reducing hundreds of federal prison sentences on his own, did not want to give him a legacy victory. A surge in crime in some urban areas gave opponents of the legislation a new argument.
Now, the Senate authors of the legislation say it is effectively dead.
“I do believe it is over,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, who put considerable effort into difficult negotiations with Republicans to strike a compromise. “We missed an opportunity.”
What remains is a stunning display of dysfunction given the powerful forces arrayed behind legislation meant to provide a second chance for nonviolent offenders facing long prison sentences while also saving tax dollars on prison costs.
Speaker Paul D. Ryan is on board. The quarrelsome Senate Judiciary Committee passed its bill on a strong bipartisan vote with the imprimatur of Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman. Mr. Obama considers the issue a top priority.

The conservative Koch brothers were behind it. So was the liberal Center for American Progress and just about every advocacy group in between. Polls show the concept has broad public support. States both red and blue already have moved ahead with successful parallel programs. A cross section of law enforcement groups backs it.
Still, the legislation foundered.
“It is one of the things that makes this a frustrating place to work,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, who became a believer in a new approach to criminal justice after seeing the benefits in his home state.

Mr. Cornyn concedes the tumult of this election year was a major factor given sharp disagreement among Senate Republicans reflected in the decision by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, to not allow a vote on a proposal most believe would pass easily.

 

[blastercombo]

"What would you do if you saw a coworker stealing"
Hmm well I can't really answer a hypothetical situation that hasn't happened yet.

“Tell us about your past experience”

“at the moment, without the correct documentation in front of me I cannot speak on previous rulings”

 

[junglejim]

It isn’t trolling just because you disagree.

You ignore pages of memes, gifs, etc to call my posts articulating a particular view as trolling.

You want to extinguish discussion from any point of view that you deem to be the right.

It wouldn’t matter what I said, or how I said it. Any poster who you think supports the GOP or Trump will be deemed a troll based on your standard.

News flash: this is the political discussion thread. There will be differences of opinion.

It's trolling when you post the same exact **** every day to elicit a response. It's trolling when you constantly bury any form of rational discussion in hypotheticals, whataboutisms, and semantics. There's no clear, articulate path about what you even talk about. It's just a constant winding of mud that gets covered in a thick layer of bull**** that lacks any real discussion.

We get it. You hate the crime bill. You enjoy the first step act. You like HBCU funding. Despite having no second term platform, you will continue to support because of those things. Every ****ing day you post the exact same stupid **** like is groundhogs day. Every time someone asks you about something of substance, you pivot without fail to one of the three aforementioned items. Nothing you bring to the table adds any substance to this thread and it makes it ****ing unbearable. Its a constant loop of ****ery and you keep playing the same, tired track.

 

[boris]

The first step act was bipartisan. As was the Fair Chance Act.

Senator Scott had a police reform bill that was blocked by Democrats. But don’t take my word for it:

Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill

Senate Democrats Block GOP Police Reform Bill

Democrats wanted Republicans to agree to bipartisan talks before beginning debate on the GOP police reform bill. GOP leaders argued Democrats should have allowed debate to try to amend the bill.

www.npr.org

So much for that unique ability to pass "meaningful" legislation.

 

[had pants]

 

[blastercombo]

I wish I could go to a job interview and just refuse to answer questions

the whole point of a hearing is to distinguish how she would rule on certain situations. She’s made it clear that she won’t answer any questions.

“Fill out this job application”

*draws giant no on paper*

“You’re hired!”

 

[RustyShackleford]

 

[had pants]

 

[had pants]

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

and to be clear, the GOP didnt pass the obama era criminal justice reform bill solely for politically advantageous reasons. Not because it wasnt substantive enough, not because it didnt have bipartisan support, hell not even because they thought it was particularly bad. but because republicans "didnt want to rock the boat". only to get a watered down reform in the form of the first step act to score minor political points.

 

[had pants]

 

[gry60]

“talking the talk” isn’t the issue... walking the walk is.

See Crime Bill

So now, it is time to put them in charge and hold them accountable if they don't execute.

Takes the two parties to govern, and when one of them (the one you want to vote for) continuously and unapologetically obstructs legislation that addresses Black issues because it comes from the other side, that party needs to be moved out of the way by voters to let those who want to solve problems do just that.

 

[deuce king]

I saw this earlier. I would need to see the facts of the case, but the hostile or abusive work environment standard is generally pretty high. And it is generally not met with one instance of outrageous conduct.

She did acknowledge how wrong the use of that word is. I would need to read the case get a better sense of the reasoning she applied to the facts of that particular case.

Bless your heart.

If you get a chance you should do some research on the hostile work environment standard under Title VII.

Right now champ I’m more concerned about the hostile environment that you have created towards the black community in this thread. It’s as if you are taking direct orders from Trump on how to antagonize black people.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The Republican Party thought the Crime Bill was weak on crime.

They were promising to push for an even more draconian bill, with none of the good policies, if the won power in the midterm.

Delk conveniently always leaves that part out.

 

[gry60]

The logic is:

Don’t be a reliable voting block for either party so that they are forced to do more to earn your vote.

Yeah, that's the logic of someone who hasn't been following how US political parties have shifted their stances depending on which group was more likely to support them.

Don't be a reliable voter? It's no wonder the GOP operatives don't take Black conservatives who vote republican serious.

 

[junglejim]

This supposed to be the 2020 version of "but her emails" that they were planning as their October surprise?

 

[had pants]

 

[dwalk31]

It's trolling when you post the same exact **** every day to elicit a response. It's trolling when you constantly bury any form of rational discussion in hypotheticals, whataboutisms, and semantics. There's no clear, articulate path about what you even talk about. It's just a constant winding of mud that gets covered in a thick layer of bull**** that lacks any real discussion.

We get it. You hate the crime bill. You enjoy the first step act. You like HBCU funding. Despite having no second term platform, you will continue to support because of those things. Every ****ing day you post the exact same stupid **** like is groundhogs day. Every time someone asks you about something of substance, you pivot without fail to one of the three aforementioned items. Nothing you bring to the table adds any substance to this thread and it makes it ****ing unbearable. Its a constant loop of ****ery and you keep playing the same, tired track.

The majority of my posts are in response to other posters asking me a direct question or links to articles posted without comment.

Are the posters asking me questions trolling as well?

Are the people posting memes trolling?

Are you trolling by engaging in this back and forth?

People in here continuously post about their disdain for Trump. Yet you don’t come in and say they are posting the same thing or “we get it, you hate Trump.”

At the end of the day, if I made the same type of posts—only praising the Democratic Party or bashing Trump, instead—you’d have no issue with them.

Your bias is showing