OT White People

From the wonderful state that gave us the Huckabees........big surprise.

 

I am. I'm very much liking what I see from the 1776 Unites Project and Woodson Center. They're promoting ideas that I believe in. Again, just because I'm not getting behind BLM certainly doesn't mean I'm not cognizant of the issues, nor not want to get involved in some manner.

https://1776unites.com/

https://woodsoncenter.org/about-us/

 

Fair enough. But some of the things these links want are also what BLM wants, from what im reading. So why not also support BLM, who is actually doing more to spread their word and gain support, than the two links you listed? Because they have fringe outliers that are more extreme than you are wanting to support?


Os if that's the case, then why do you support the republican party? They also have fringe outliers that are extreme...unless you support the republicans extremes? you know the white supremacist types?

Are you for the republican party draining the swamp of all of the racists?

 

I said that Obama could have been more than a catalyst than he was. But, no president, not governor, nor representative is gonna have all the answers. Yet another reason I'm supporting grass-root organizations such as 1776 project and Woodson Center. True change will happen from within. That's where the hope message needs to be shared and cultivated. That's what I believe in.

Hey, I had shared this once before in here. Kind of an interesting read:

 

I'm a right-to-life guy. As far as I know, no democratic politician supports this stance.

 

No. You aren't. You just want to regulate women's bodies. There's a difference.

 

So that one singular issue will allow you to dismiss all of the rascism within the fringes of the party, just to maintain a right to life?


But yet it seems you are basically denying approval of BLM, because some of thier fringe outliers dont agree with you? Wouldn't your only response then be...

"Well, if BLM supports black lives, I should dismiss anything else I disagree with, because Blacks lives matters just as much as the right to life?"

You do not see that as hypocritical?



Lets put it another way. You support racist republicans because you share the view of right to life, but you will not support BLM because they have some people not for right to life?


So your view on right to life trumps any racism or anything else and your okay with it as long as they are for right to life?


Wouldn't you think worrying about the humans already living on this planet would be more of a priority then those not born yet?

You are putting unborn children ahead of those who are suffering and alive now.



This doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I support all the rights of that unborn child that they should have.

 

I already had plenty to remark about that earlier this morning.

 

Yes, but you keep ignoring the point that it's not grassroots if it's being fronted by a large corporation. It doesn't matter whether you "care" about that corporation--your description of 1776 Unites as "grassroots" is not accurate.

 

No, you said you would have thought Obama would at least "get things in motion." Which, as I've pointed out to you every time you say that, he did. And then Trump, your picked racist President, killed it. I mean, you can now retreat to "Oh, I just thought he'd do even more" because "even more" is a standard can never be quantified. But you tell this lie specifically to act like government can't help--when it's clear that government can help if people like you don't elect racist Presidents.

 

I support the larger group(s) that supports and engages local (grass roots) proactive initiatives/action. It's not to say that I'm against BLM so much as it's that I like 1776 and Woodson Centers messages much better. I don't have to be behind every organization/movement.

 

You don't have to, but you have to accept that 1776 Unites isn't "grassroots" because it isn't, anymore than a Pizza Hut Task Force would be grassroots. It's simply facts.

 

But..That's like saying... I support the goodwill because they donate and help the needy. But im not gonna support the salvation army, because they donate and support the needy differently. Even though its a good cause, I dont need to support them because I support the Good will.

But yet the Salvation army does some things goodwill doesnt and vice versa. So you are going to dismiss the salvation army, who also does good things and not support them, because you already support the good will and the good things they do?



Or how about this then...I don't need to support the republican party, even though I agree with them, because I already support Trump. They both dont agree on everything, but I see them both as good, but im only going to support one of them.



ABM, its okay to support multiple facets. Why does one have to just support ONE and be content?

 

Read the link I shared. Check out the Atlanta situation. I'm not reading anything here that points to Trump killing their efforts:

Atlanta advertises its status as a model city for implementing your (Charles Ramsey from Obama's task force) recommendations. And yet it was police in that department who shot and killed Rayshard Brooks. There was a history of complaints against the officer [Garrett Rolfe] who's now been charged with murder. The police chief has stepped down. At least in this case, it seems like implementing the recommendations wasn't enough to present the serious issue.

Ramsey: Atlanta is a fairly large police department. You've got a lot of things going on there. And you're going to have some officers that don't always exercise the best judgment.

But other officers have called out sick as a protest against the charges against Rolfe. That does suggest that it's more than one or a few people.

Ramsey: I think that's a mistake for officers to do that. They swore an oath to protect the citizens of Atlanta, in good times and bad. And this is a tough time, but this is a time for them to actually be out there doing their job and doing it well.

But I think it's difficult to take that incident and then say that somehow that's a much larger problem. I think that police right now across the country are pretty demoralized because of what's been going on and what's being said. I think we need to have balance and be careful so that it doesn't appear that we're demonizing all police for the actions of a few.

At the same time, we need to recognize that we do have people in our profession that should not be police officers, and we have to do everything we can to get rid of them.

 

The CDC has recommended people stay home as the virus is spiking and not travel and expose themselves or others to the airborne risk of being an unknowing host spreading it without symptoms....if you care about protecting children's lives or any lives...now would be a bad time for a road trip so I can see you are not behind the main global health organization....I guess you think that's a smart move. My daughter cancelled a trip to visit us in August to protect us and our new grandson from any risk....the smart move is to stay home and help your local community on that grassroots level you like to talk about...now is a poor time to plan a vacation and travel interstate

 

I'm not degrading BLM. When you say support, what are you implying?

 

That has literally nothing to do with what I posted, that you replied to. I said Trump killed Obama's order that the Justice Department review and revamp police departments around the nation, which was underway when Trump took office. The very types of initiatives you pretend Obama didn't create.

Trump Killed Obama’s Police Reforms. Now He’s Getting What He Asked For.

Last October, Minneapolis Police Union president Bob Kroll appeared at a Trump rally. Clad in his red “Cops for Trump” T-shirt, Kroll (who has been alleged to be affiliated with white supremacists) gloated that the president had unshackled his officers from the restraints imposed by Trump’s predecessor. “The Obama administration and the handcuffing and oppression of police was despicable,” he told the crowd. “The first thing President Trump did when he took office was turn that around, got rid of the Holder-Loretta Lynch regime and decided to start takin— letting the cops do their job, put the handcuffs on the criminals instead of us.”

We will never know if that unshackling emboldened Derek Chauvin to murder George Floyd. But the line between the relief demanded by Kroll on behalf of Minneapolis police, and the naked assassination committed on camera by one of his officers, is quite direct. The world around us, in which the streets of every major American city are filled with protesters, is the result of Trump granting the wishes of the most retrograde police officers. They are getting what they asked for.

The last few years of the Obama administration were one of the most productive periods of criminal justice reform in American history. The Obama administration changed sentencing guidelines to reduce the disparity in the treatment of drug crimes that had disproportionately harmed black defendants. As part of an effort to inculcate a “guardian, not a warrior” mindset, it restricted the transfer of surplus military equipment to police departments. Most importantly, it formed consent decrees with more than a dozen police departments to force them to change their practices.

These reforms did not root out brutality and racism. They were mild both in form and intent, undertaken with the goal of conciliating police and their communities, believing that enhancing trust would ultimately create safer conditions for police as well as those who fear them. It was the epitome of evolutionary cultural change.

This was the context for Trump’s nightmarish claims in 2016 that cities were being overtaken by bloodshed and carnage. Whatever wisps of data he could cite to support his wild rhetoric, Trump was drawing a picture borrowed from the imaginations of resentful police who experienced Obama’s carefully drawn nudges as intolerable oppression.

He reversed them swiftly. Trump’s first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, ended the restriction on transferring military equipment to police, reviewed all consent decrees struck by his predecessor, and then restricted their use going forward. “It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies,” he insisted.

When William Barr took over for Sessions — whom Trump fired for refusing to violate Justice Department guidelines — there was nothing left of the Obama reforms to undo. Still, Barr continued to rail against the specter of criminal justice reform. Barr presented the reform movement, now confined to local officials, as a civilizational threat. “There is another development that is demoralizing to law enforcement and dangerous to public safety,” he railed last August, “that is the emergence in some of our large cities of district attorneys that style themselves as ‘social justice’ reformers, who spend their time undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook, and refusing to enforce the law.” (Letting criminals off the hook is only acceptable if Barr is doing it himself.)

In another, even more unhinged speech two months later, Barr warned, “If communities don’t give [police] that support and respect, they might find themselves without the police protection they need.” The enthusiastic assent of both Sessions and Barr indicates how broadly reflective Trump’s agenda is within his party. Trump’s hatred of criminal justice reform is not just bleating from an old racist who still thinks the Central Park Five were guilty. It is party doctrine.

And it was not enough for Trump and his supporters merely to uproot the seedling of criminal justice reform. Trump felt obliged as well to clamp down on peaceful protest. When Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality, Trump intimidated owners into blacklisting him from their rosters, even boasting of his success. Trump dispatched Mike Pence to stage a walkout from an NFL game when players kneeled, and prevailed upon the league to stamp out the kneeling altogether.

It probably gives Trump far too much credit to presume this is a strategy. But there is a crude logic to his actions. He has snuffed out the peaceful, democratic avenues for evolutionary change, while goading the most violent police officers and offering them unconditional support. He is all but calling forth into the streets the very brutality he claimed would be necessary. If a militarized and unshackled police seemed excessive to many Americans three years ago, Trump now has conditions that might make it appear necessary to some.

What Trump and Barr cannot say to the protesters now is that they should try working through the system instead. They snuffed out every avenue of bureaucratic and social change. They sowed the wind and now reap the whirlwind.​

 

Thanks for your insights, but I'm not missing my sister's 75th birthday. It'll be one flight out there...then a rented vehicle (ROAD TRIP, BABY!!) back to Nashville.