deskthority

kbdfr wrote:

Redmaus wrote:
I think he is a joke because he said whites dont know what its like to be homeless or live in the ghetto. You know that. Its the title of the video. I didn't say a word about institutional racism because it is not the main point of the video.

There's one thing you forget to mention, or perhaps did not even notice: it is the title of the video because the video is just a 26-second extract from a longer statement. This extract was given that title by someone who put it on youtube, and the someone who put it on youtube untertains a youtube channel named "Patriotic Populism" backing Trump's campaign (including call for donations).

And you fell into the trap.
They gave you a crumb of biased info in form of a clumsy formulated sentence evidently meant otherwise,
and instead of laughing at them for thinking you are an idiot unable to discern the manipulation,
you thankfully took that crumb and tried to pass it on as a complete meal.

What he said is what he said. It doesn't matter if it was part of something else. He wasn't quoting anybody, so what he said was legitimate. It doesn't matter who posted it, he said it. Once again you cannot face facts. I'm sorry, hershey bar but you are being silly at this point.

OK, we have one presidential candidate who says things like

"I'm just talking about every day activities where police officers are bullying people.

So to answer your question, I would say, and I think it's similar to what the secretary said, when you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto. You don't know what it's like to be poor. You don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car.

And I believe that as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear. We will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system."

(source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _poor.html)

and one presidential candidate who say things like:

"Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

Clearly, it's the former who is a "bad joke", right?

Halvar wrote: "Look at those hands, are they small hands? And, he referred to my hands -- 'if they're small, something else must be small.' I guarantee you there's no problem. I guarantee."

Let's just say it's slightly off topic and quite awkward. But see that's also part of his strategy also, take it off topic.

vivalarevolución wrote: Yea, if we could have the full context of the segment shown in that video, that would be great.

Thanks for suggesting that. It was not very difficult to find.
During the debate on March 6, 2016, Clinton and Sanders where both asked "What racial spots do you have?"
Sanders answer starts on 3:09:19 (and ends 3:11:22 after the statement quoted in redmaus' link) in that (4-hour) video: What he said is referred (referred, not quoted in full) here:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clint ... le/2585105

In his answer, Sanders told a story of how an African-American congressman about 20 years ago decided against getting cabs because drivers would drive "past" him rather than picking him up. He also pointed out that members of the Black Lives Matters movement told him that police officers are "bullying" individuals on a daily basis, before talking about what white people don't realize goes on in everyday life.

"I would say ... When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto," Sanders said. "You don't know what it's like to be poor. You don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car."

"I believe as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear — we will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system," Sanders added.

The video makes it obvious he doesn't mean "no white person knows…",
but "this is what black people experience".

Redmaus wrote: What he said is what he said. It doesn't matter if it was part of something else. He wasn't quoting anybody, so what he said was legitimate. It doesn't matter who posted it, he said it. Once again you cannot face facts. I'm sorry, hershey bar but you are being silly at this point.

It is completely ridiculous to take just a few words and insist on "he said it! he said it!"
instead on reflecting on the content he was obviously trying to communicate.
And of course it's not the words that infuriate you, but the content.

kbdfr wrote: It is completely ridiculous to take just a few words and insist on "he said it! he said it!"

It's not just ridiculous it's incomplete and therefore without basis because it misses much of the argument.

kbdfr wrote: Thanks for suggesting that. It was not very difficult to find.
During the debate on March 6, 2016, Clinton and Sanders where both asked "What racial spots do you have?"
Sanders answer starts on 3:09:19 (and ends 3:11:22 after the statement quoted in redmaus' link) in that (4-hour) video:
What he said is referred (referred, not quoted in full) here:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clint ... le/2585105

In his answer, Sanders told a story of how an African-American congressman about 20 years ago decided against getting cabs because drivers would drive "past" him rather than picking him up. He also pointed out that members of the Black Lives Matters movement told him that police officers are "bullying" individuals on a daily basis, before talking about what white people don't realize goes on in everyday life.

"I would say ... When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto," Sanders said. "You don't know what it's like to be poor. You don't know what it's like to be hassled when you walk down the street or you get dragged out of a car."

"I believe as a nation in the year 2016, we must be firm in making it clear — we will end institutional racism and reform a broken criminal justice system," Sanders added.

kbdfr wrote: The video makes it obvious he doesn't mean "no white person knows…",
but "this is what black people experience".

He meant no white person knows. If he didn't then he would use different wording. Your candidate is actually racist unlike Trump. But he is racist towards white people. Of course liberals don't care about that though.

kbdfr wrote: It is completely ridiculous to take just a few words and insist on "he said it! he said it!"
instead on reflecting on the content he was obviously trying to communicate.
And of course it's not the words that infuriate you, but the content.

Like I said, the kind of content would be worded or said differently if he had a different meaning behind it. He did say it and he meant it. He did not follow up with "but really" or "consequently" he moved on to his next point.

He wasn't quoting anyone and he said it as a response to a question. That is about as clear as it gets.

Redmaus wrote: […] Your candidate is actually racist unlike Trump. But he is racist towards white people. Of course liberals don't care about that though. […]

I think I will follow the advice someone gave me per PM and stop discussing with you.
It's obviously useless.

Reply with all the smileys you want, but that does not make you right.

If you wish to discontinue this conversation about Sanders, very well

Racism requires both prejudice, and the pervasive societal power to weaponize that prejudice.

Therefore, in the US, it's impossible to be racist against white people, because we're the ones that hold that societal power. It's very possible to be prejudiced against white people, though.

In any case, I voted for the "refuse to vote" option, but that's not actually what I'm going to do. If it comes down to Trump vs. Clinton, I'll vote for Jill Stein. She won't win, and Trump probably will win, but I refuse to vote for Clinton (and she may well do some more lasting damage). Clinton dooms us to another 8 years of the rightward slide of the status quo. Trump may cause enough short-term damage that we get a "never again" attitude similar to Germany's attitude re: Hitler.

kbdfr wrote:

Redmaus wrote: […] Your candidate is actually racist unlike Trump. But he is racist towards white people. Of course liberals don't care about that though. […]

I think I will follow the advice someone gave me per PM and stop discussing with you.
It's obviously useless.

That's a very good idea...

bhtooefr wrote: Racism requires both prejudice, and the pervasive societal power to weaponize that prejudice.

So Black's have no societal power? I disagree.

So we gather.

I'm convinced that Trump is the greatest political troll in recent American history. I would love to see a Trump vs. Sanders race for president. Just to see America blow its collective top.

vivalarevolución wrote: I'm convinced that Trump is the greatest political troll in recent American history.

Yes, George Wallace and Ross Perot are whining pussies in comparison.

fohat wrote:

vivalarevolución wrote: I'm convinced that Trump is the greatest political troll in recent American history.

Yes, George Wallace and Ross Perot are whining pussies in comparison.

I'm too young to know exactly what those two were blabbing about. Although I have a pretty good idea what George Wallace stood for.

vivalarevolución wrote:
blabbing

You only need to know the single operative word.

fohat wrote:

vivalarevolución wrote:
blabbing

You only need to know the single operative word.

Haha.

They idea that Trump still has a good chance to win this is so scary.

Spikebolt wrote: They idea that Trump still has a good chance to win this is so scary.

There is a serious chance of that, it looks like it might end up being Trump vs. Clinton in the end. What I find scarier is that no one really knows Trumps agenda is apart from what he keeps saying now. He has zero political trackrecord.

seebart wrote:
What I find scarier is that no one really knows Trumps agenda is apart from what he keeps saying now. He has zero political track record.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carte ... -ted-cruz/

But I really want Trump on the ballot in November - as an independent - after the Party ditches him.

fohat wrote: ...after the Party ditches him.

Yeah I could see that happening, I wonder how often that scenario has happened in the past?

seebart wrote:
how often that scenario has happened in the past?

Several times. It is less common in recent years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokered_convention

Trump promised not to run as an independent if he was "treated fairly" at the convention.
Knowing what a narcissistic crybaby he is, if they shut him out, I would really hope that he would run on his own.

fohat wrote:

seebart wrote:
What I find scarier is that no one really knows Trumps agenda is apart from what he keeps saying now. He has zero political track record.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jimmy-carte ... -ted-cruz/

But I really want Trump on the ballot in November - as an independent - after the Party ditches him.

I agree with President Carter, in the sense that Cruz is consistent and predictable with his insane policies, while Trump says whatever works at the moment and will change his viewpoint or policy if it will gain more support and doesn't bruise his ego too much.

The only thing I'm sure that Trump stands for is his ego. In that sense, he is quite predictable. When criticized or attacked, he will protect and defend himself, or insult the offending party, before anything else.

vivalarevolución wrote: The only thing I'm sure that Trump stands for is his ego. In that sense, he is quite predictable. When criticized or attacked, he will protect and defend himself, or insult the offending party, before anything else.

Right, but imagine what bad situations could emerge, especially in international politics. I thought Mitt Romneys speech was pretty good in a sense that it emphasised that Trump does not have the proper character to hold that particular office. Of course Romney had his own motivations for even holding that speech.

Trumps reaction to that speech was just as Romney predicted, with Trump resorting to insults galore. Of course, I think Romney is jockeying for a brokered convention. All these guys are so slimy....

I do understand the potential consequences regarding international politics. History gives us numerous examples of big egos resorting to violence rather than opting for pragmatism.

vivalarevolución wrote: All these guys are so slimy...

It's no better over here trust me. It will be interesting to see how much Trump changes his ways if elected.

seebart wrote:

vivalarevolución wrote: All these guys are so slimy...

It's no better over here trust me. It will be interesting to see how much Trump changes his ways if elected.

And nobody can really predict what he will do if elected, considering there is no precedent of prior office. The only certainty is a large helping of the Trump ego.

Spoiler: Hillary wins.

Muirium wrote: Spoiler: Hillary wins.

Well, of course. But let us use our imaginations.