2016 Presidential Race AND POLL

[godfather]

This is not a silly question at all. Criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement often comes from the either ignorant or disingenuous statement that "all lives matter." Asking the candidates this question demonstrates whether they understand that there is a real problem in society where blacks disproportionately suffer from a wide variety of institutional harms.

It is an important question and I am glad they asked it.

It was politically laced question. You weren't supposed to get any honesty from it.

There are a lot more politically important questions to ask involving minorities, and African Americans in general, then just asking a silly question do Black Lives Matter.

You're not going to get any deep and meaningful answers, just politically correct ones that carry no serious weight.

If you listen carefully to some of the stuff Bernie was saying, he was actually addressing some of these problems.

And the large incarceration rate in our country, where majority of them are African Americans, is an even bigger issue that so many other candidates don't seem to address as much.

Bernie was trying to delve into real serious issues last night, ones I agree with. This is why I am supporting him.

The prison rate in our country is a serious problem right now. It's affecting a lot of people in a lot of ways.

I think the question just insults our intelligence to be honest. How do you think any candidate is going to answer that? It doesn't take much imagination, regardless of how they really feel.

 

[SalvadoranCavsfan]

Seems to work for Ivanka..

I mean, I'm not saying she's a gold digger, but...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It was politically laced question. You weren't supposed to get any honesty from it.

Well, you got some from Webb....

 

[NasstyNate]

I agree even though I'm on the opposite side of this.

The answer may show what a candidate truly believes about the underlying issue. Or, as a more cynical view, it at least shows how willing that candidate is to show respect/appease that particular interest group.

I don't mean that negatively, because it is an important point. You may have a candidate who doesn't like the verbiage, but understand that it is very important to a group with whom he is aligned, so he goes along with it because his sympathy for the group outweighs his objection to the verbiage.

I suspect Sanders may fall into that category. Webb, on the other hand, doesn't. He doesn't like the language, and is willing to say that even if it offends that group.

Republicans generally don't like the verbiage, and aren't willing to endorse it just to appease that group. That's probably important information to some voters, including me.

Good post.

Can you help me out with how one can be on the opposite side? If it is being against the tactics used by BLM, the shouting, protesting, etc., then I can understand. But as for the actual message and reason for the movement itself, what is the opposite side?

 

[godfather]

I definitely think they should have spent more time talking about racial issues, but I do believe that question was formed poorly. Just seemed like an easy way for CNN to condense racial issues into a single question. I would have liked to see them ask about police brutality, targeting of minorities in the criminal justice system, among other issues that minorities face specifically, not just that "Do black lives matter?" question.

Exactly!

I was not at all suggesting race should not be disgusted at all, but to form it just in a lazy ass question that provides no real detail at all? Seriously? How stupid are we supposed to be?

They answer yes, Black Lives Matter, give a short reasoning, and we are all supposed to burst up in excitement, and go "That guy gets it! Yes! The world will be saved!"

 

[godfather]

Well, you got some from Webb....

I honestly didn't listen to one word he said after his first few questions. I was in the room whenever Bernie and Hillary talked, and walked out after the rest of the group talked.

They were as irrelevant as it gets on a stage.

 

[gourimoko]

Help me understand.

I'll try but I make no guarantees.

Brandname said "What was the deal with Hillary's story about knocking down doors with Obama on secret Chinese meetings? What that an embellishment or what?"

You said "Lol..... she had to find a story that tied her to Barack Obama.

Her strategy is to run Obama 2016. Essentially the path of least resistance."​

And then "Paul Begala even betrayed this strategy twice on CNN. It's smart but it's unimaginative and shows she really will say or do anything to be president."​

Okay.

That's the context of your comments and my initial reply. That's all you said until your response below, so spare the I don't understand you line.

I don't think you understand. You say it yourself in this very post "is this what we're talking about?"

I think you go out of your way to be argumentative for no reason.

If you don't understand something just ask. If I haven't explained my point enough for you to understand my meaning, then just ask me to elaborate.

Accusing me of bias, outright, is an odd way to get me to respond favorably.

If I did before this post, that's because you didn't articulate your position,

I articulated well enough for everyone else and to my satisfaction. This is RealCavsFans. Get real man.

and certainly didn't support your claim that she's unimaginative or that she will say or do anything to be president.

Because it wasn't necessary. When people speak and make brief, concise, comments, they don't normally go out of their way to make cases to support claims unless asked.

I learned years ago on this forum not to overstate my case. Just ask some of the old timers around here about my old posting style.. It would go on for pages and no one read it.

Its better to just wait for someone who is interested to ask.

As I said, just ask.

You misunderstood my post talking about your bias against Clinton, which was very clear to the reader.

I'm the reader, it wasn't clear to me. You didn't say who this bias was toward. I assumed you meant bias towards Obama.

And again, your posts are often too combative, and for no reason.

I haven't cast any aspersions. If people have complained, it is because they take their position being challenged as an attack. If you can give it, then take it.

Give what? Take what? You haven't really made an argument. You've stated that I have bias towards Clinton. This is wrong, and I've explained why.

No. In the context of the conversation, you said that Clinton running as Obama's third term shows she will say anything to get elected.

Yes.

From that context, yes it is ridiculous to say that, because it is a sound political strategy.

This is a non sequitur. Regardless if it is sound political strategy, it still fits the narrative that she would say anything to get elected.

Do you understand what it means to "say anything to get elected," that means you will do whatever and say whatever if it is sound political strategy.

Your argument makes no sense whatsoever....

Sure, there are many examples that show Clinton changes her position based on political expediency, but that's not what we were talking about, was it?

That's exactly what we're talking about.

Obama and Clinton's positions aren't remotely close on a host of issues; they fought, constantly before and during her tenure in the State Department. Yet, she's explaining to the audience that over the course of time she has learned and Obama trusts her judgement.

All of this is false.

Obama appointed her secretary of state as part of a deal to close out the nomination cleanly. Her camp vehemently argued for her to be placed on the ticket, and the Obama camp turned her down as they had absolutely no desire to run with Clinton as VP. So to say "he made me Secretary of State because he values my judgement" is a bald faced lie.

She insulated herself from the rest of the Administration and wanted to largely do her own thing. She dislikes the Obamas and the feeling is mutual. It's absurd that she is claiming now that they worked hand in hand, and the story of he and her "hunting the Chinese" is a joke that elicited laughter and ridicule for good reason.

You bring that up now to support your claim, but that doesn't change the fact that your comment was just a biased barb.

No, you're being absurd and frankly wasting time with this back and forth.

I made a comment, you felt it was biased, I explained to you why I felt that way, and you're frankly upset about me not having said that earlier.

Let it go. I really can't bring myself to care about something so fucking petty man. For Christ's Sake...

I agree with you. I was particularly angered by the dog-whistle racism of the Clinton campaign in the south when Obama started pulling away in 2008.

I was there. So you can understand why I might not think of Clinton in the best light.

I don't think she has said enough at this point about her differences with Obama to make any meaningful statement on whether she is running to his left or right.

Huh? You realize Clinton is and always has been a centrist right? She and her husband both are. They are DLC'ers, you realize what that means, yes?

I don't disagree with much of this, but it is more of a rant against Clinton.

Calling it a rant to discredit my position is silly, this is a message board. Like I said before, it's a waste of time.

But seriously Nate, are you really so naive as to believe that Clinton is to the left of Obama? Do you really believe she isn't playing politics and changing her positions with the political winds? Do you really believe that she didn't support the Keystone pipeline prior to a few weeks ago?

I mean, seriously?

How does this show that her chosen strategy is unimaginative? What would be an imaginative strategy?

How about running on what you actually believe instead of what will get you elected for starters?

 

[DJTJ]

General question, anyone feel free to take this one.

Everyone talks about job creation, but seems that every project is low budget manual labor. Am I reading this right (aimed at unskilled job creation), or is "job creation" aimed at the increasing amount of college graduates unable to obtain jobs for reasons out of their control (large amounts of open positions in finance, for example, that can't be filled by a college student because of lack of expierence that end up going largely unfilled).

 

[NasstyNate]

I'll try but I make no guarantees.

...

You are completely flailing here. You said something that didn't make sense and I tried to have a conversation about it. That's ok. We all type without thinking sometimes.

How about running on what you actually believe instead of what will get you elected for starters?

Ok. Is running on what you believe enough to be imaginative? That's a pretty low bar. What else can she do?

 

[Brandname]

No.

That's not a "debate."

I used to debate competitively, and yelling back and forth and not actually presenting facts as premises to your arguments is not any form of "policy debate."

We don't have debates in this country.

"Debating" with Donald Trump reminds me of something...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Good post.

Can you help me out with how one can be on the opposite side? If it is being against the tactics used by BLM, the shouting, protesting, etc., then I can understand. But as for the actual message and reason for the movement itself, what is the opposite side?

In reference to the phrase itself, i believe it is racially divisive, and has hurt more than helped.

As to the first point, I have zero issue with the movement starting out as "black lives matter.". But in my opinion, "all lives matter" was the perfect springboard that would have broadened the focus of the movement into one that might actually accomplish something more than just venting.

The problem is significant, and to truly address it, you needed honesty and open-mindedneas from everyone. But I think BLM, and the name itself, have acquired a racial solidarity component that makes honest inquiry into shootings almost impossible. The social verdict of who is right and who is wrong occurs before facts are known, because black lives matter, and if someone black is killed, it is presumed to be unjustified.

I think with the highly publicized abuse of O'Malley and Sanders, there was a shark-jumping moment where a lot of support was lost. To a lot of people, if you can't show the broad-mindedness to expand to All Lives Matter, you are not likely to be reasonable.

On the second point, huge problems are developing between police and inner city communities because cops are assuming they won't be treated fairly if there is a shooting So, they step back, and murder rates are skyrocketing in Chicago and Baltimore. I've seen those "Blue Lives Matter" billboards, which clearly don't sit well with the BLM movement, but from the perspective of the cops, are a perfectly valid because their lives matter to them.

It's clearly divisive, or perhaps just reinforcement of a pre-existing division. But to the cops, "Blue Lives Matter" is simply the tribalist response to "Black Lives Matter", and something that may have been avoided had All Lives Matter prevailed. The result has been to make things worse.

I've also seen #BlackLivesMatter mocked with the #FactsDontMatter hashtag, implying that BLM doesn't care about the facts of an incident but only the race of the people involved. And again, I think that is a division that should have been expected when you prefer a racially-exclusive name, and aggressively reject a more inclusive one.

I just want to add that racism and racists makes me sick to my stomach. It is incredibly sad to me that we have people judging each other by skin color, and hatred based on skin color. And I think race-consciousness/racial solidarity is much more likely to make it worse rather than better.

 

[NasstyNate]

General question, anyone feel free to take this one.

Everyone talks about job creation, but seems that every project is low budget manual labor. Am I reading this right (aimed at unskilled job creation), or is "job creation" aimed at the increasing amount of college graduates unable to obtain jobs for reasons out of their control (large amounts of open positions in finance, for example, that can't be filled by a college student because of lack of expierence that end up going largely unfilled).

The low budget manual labor stuff is talked about most because it is the fastest thing we can do and would have immediate positive effects in the form of an improved national infrastructure. Further, it is sound economic policy because infrastructure spending is one of the best investments a government can make. For example, for every dollar a state government spends on infrastructure, it sees a two dollar increase in its GDP. There's also positive externalities such as reduced car maintenance costs and higher miles per gallon while driving. This is also interesting reading - the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1½ percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls (pdf).

This low level type of job creation directly feeds into what strengthens the economy - increased aggregate demand. Over time, this feeds into the higher level jobs that you are talking about. Of course, we can speed that up by making college more affordable and reducing the existing student loans...

 

[NasstyNate]

In reference to the phrase itself, i believe it is racially divisive, and has hurt more than helped.

As to the first point, I have zero issue with the movement starting out as "black lives matter.". But in my opinion, "all lives matter" was the perfect springboard that would have broadened the focus of the movement into one that might actually accomplish something more than just venting.

The problem is significant, and to truly address it, you needed honesty and open-mindedneas from everyone. But I think BLM, and the name itself, have acquired a racial solidarity component that makes honest inquiry into shootings almost impossible. The social verdict of who is right and who is wrong occurs before facts are known, because black lives matter, and if someone black is killed, it is presumed to be unjustified.

I think with the highly publicized abuse of O'Malley and Sanders, there was a shark-jumping moment where a lot of support was lost. To a lot of people, if you can't show the broad-mindedness to expand to All Lives Matter, you are not likely to be reasonable.

On the second point, huge problems are developing between police and inner city communities because cops are assuming they won't be treated fairly if there is a shooting So, they step back, and murder rates are skyrocketing in Chicago and Baltimore. I've seen those "Blue Lives Matter" billboards, which clearly don't sit well with the BLM movement, but from the perspective of the cops, are a perfectly valid because their lives matter to them.

It's clearly divisive, or perhaps just reinforcement of a pre-existing division. But to the cops, "Blue Lives Matter" is simply the tribalist response to "Black Lives Matter", and something that may have been avoided had All Lives Matter prevailed. The result has been to make things worse.

I've also seen #BlackLivesMatter mocked with the #FactsDontMatter hashtag, implying that BLM doesn't care about the facts of an incident but only the race of the people involved. And again, I think that is a division that should have been expected when you prefer a racially-exclusive name, and aggressively reject a more inclusive one.

Thanks. This makes sense.

My read of this is that people are mostly reacting to the BLM tactics and perceived threat to their own groups, which can be rational. It seems an empathy gap remains, and I wish people could see things from the perspective of others.

I think things break down because BLM supporters see All Lives Matter as either completely missing their point or a cynical statement to belittle their cause, and BLM detractors see All Lives Matter as a perfectly reasonable and all encompassing positive statement. Unfortunately both can be right and there's no meeting in between.

 

[gourimoko]

You are completely flailing here.

I can't think of a better example of someone flailing than reading these senseless, awful, posts that are about literally nothing.

Dude, just stop... Think about what you're arguing with me about.. It's like you're arguing for the sake of it.

You're not making any sense and you're embarrassing yourself.

You said something that didn't make sense and I tried to have a conversation about it. That's ok. We all type without thinking sometimes.

Are you kidding me? That's your response?

You wanted an explanation, I gave it to you, more than once. You call this a conversation?

Again, you accused me of bias. I explained to you why I hold my the position that I do and it is not out of bias. You double-downed on the accusation and are backed it up with nothing.

You then essentially stated that Clinton can run on any platform that will get her elected, which is exactly what I've stated she is doing and that is unethical, unimaginative, and beneath the position she hopes to hold.

You take exception to that.. And that's fine, but your opinion doesn't make any rational sense and I've explained why already. Instead of choosing to backup your words, you've resorted to ad hominem.

For the last time, I said Clinton would say anything to get elected, you call that bias; you then say, "well, that's sound political strategy."

I demonstrate how Clinton has changed her positions, repeatedly, you agree, and thensay "well, you say that now, but when you said it before it was just you being biased."



C'mon..

At the heart of this asinine "conversation," I can't believe you are really going back and forth with me because you dislike the use of the term "unimaginative" and my saying that Clinton is taking the "path of least resistance?"

Find something else to do with your time.

Ok. Is running on what you believe enough to be imaginative? That's a pretty low bar. What else can she do?

Given the phrase "for starters" was in the post, I think that's a good place to start.

Again man, you should step away from the keyboard.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Thanks. This makes sense.

My read of this is that people are mostly reacting to the BLM tactics and perceived threat to their own groups, which can be rational. It seems an empathy gap remains, and I wish people could see things from the perspective of others.

I think things break down because BLM supporters see All Lives Matter as either completely missing their point or a cynical statement to belittle their cause, and BLM detractors see All Lives Matter as a perfectly reasonable and all encompassing positive statement. Unfortunately both can be right and there's no meeting in between.

Seeing the whole thing develop was like watching a slow-motion accident. I thought there were a few moments where an actual opportunity presented itself, with the high point probably being the agreed-upon value of chest cameras for cops to film more arrests. But I think the biggest threat to addressing issues like that is tribalism, and that usually catches fire pretty quickly once there is a perception that's how things are breaking down.

To be fair, I think it is very difficult for a group that has been treated unfairly to rise above the somewhat natural desire to cling to the tribe rather than risking a broader alliance. Suspicions and grievances can run pretty deep.