Random Politics & Religion #11

According to politifact, Trump(260 claims) was saying false-absurd things 69% of times, Clinton(255 claims) 28%.

No one impacts your sacred views of life and beyond. But you are forcing yours onto them by forbidding them from having same rights(homosexuals), or even worse rule their own body(women).

Yet here you are encouraging institutional racism

EL CAJON, Calif. (AP) -- A black man reportedly acting erratically at a strip mall in suburban San Diego was shot and killed by police after pulling an object from his pocket, pointing it at officers and assuming a "shooting stance," authorities said.

One of the officers tried and failed to subdue the unidentified man with a stun gun before the other officer fired several times, El Cajon Police Chief Jeff Davis said at a late night news conference. Davis would not say what the object was, but acknowledged it was not a weapon.

Before police announced the death, dozens of protesters gathered at the shooting scene, with some claiming the man was shot with his hands raised. Police disputed that and produced a frame from cellphone video taken by a witness that appeared to show the man in the "shooting stance" as two officers approached with weapons drawn.

The fatal shooting comes just weeks after black men were shot and killed by police in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and in Charlotte, North Carolina, where violent protests broke out.

The El Cajon protest was angry but peaceful. Several dozen people, most of them black, gathered and some cursed at officers guarding the scene. They chanted "black lives matter!" and "hands up, don't shoot!"

Davis urged the community to remain calm and said the investigation will be thorough.

"This will be transparent," he said. "This will be looked at by multiple sets of eyes, and not just ours."

The district attorney was on scene and also will investigate.

Police said they were called to the mall shortly after 2 p.m. by the sister of a man in his 30s who said he was "not acting like himself" and walking in traffic. They say the man refused "multiple" orders to take his hand from his pocket, then was shot after pulling out the object.

When detectives arrived police say a female witness came forward and voluntarily provided cellphone video of the incident. Authorities did not release the video, only the single frame from it. El Cajon officers do not wear body cameras.

Meantime, other videos quickly surfaced showing the aftermath. In one posted to Facebook, an unidentified woman is heard telling police at the scene that the man was ordered to take his hand out of his pocket.

"I said: 'Take your hand out your pocket, baby, or they're going to shoot you.' He said 'no, no, no,' " the woman said. "When he lifted his hand out ... he did have something in his hand but it wasn't no gun, and that's when they shot him."

Another woman on the video who was wearing hospital-style work clothing said she's the man's sister. She appeared distraught, repeatedly shrieking and crying, telling officers that she had called them to help her brother, who she described as mentally ill.

"I just called for help, and you came and killed him," she said.

Michael Ray Rodriguez was among the witnesses who said the man had his hands in the air. He said that he was driving out of his apartment complex past the shooting scene and saw a shirtless black man with his hands raised.

The officer "let go of the trigger and shot him again and again," Rodriguez told the San Diego Union-Tribune.

El Cajon is about 15 miles northeast of San Diego and has a population of about 100,000. It is 69 percent white and 6 percent black, according to 2010 census figures, and has become a home for many refugees fleeing Iraq and, more recently, Syria.

Studies have shown that there is a negative bias towards black people from officers under stress(and mind you, this included black officers too). That has to be a signal of cultural problems. Where to intervene to fix them though I can't really say as I'm too far from that reality.

Talk about ***.
Anyone with half a brain knows your post is completely idiotic in all forms. Keep trying, no one is noticing.

I think we also need to consider the aggravated crime rates of a certain race, and then consider the communities they are being raised in.

I am certain it is a large and complex multi-sided issue. And some of the problems are even circular, ie:
Community lives in poverty->
Poverty leads to crime->
Crime causes the community to not grow socio-economically
And the cycle stalls entire generations that struggle to come out of it. And this causes a bias in institutions as well(harsher punishment both from police and justice).
I know this type of climate very well, because where I live there are areas that are just like that, and people are indeed strongly biased towards those who are from those places - regardless of their actual status.

Education imo is a primary tool to improve lives. Then the state needs to invest to provide accessible jobs in the area. Give em education and give em opportunities and things will go better. Not in a day, but you can see large improvements between generations.

I know, trust me, I know.

According to politifact, Trump(260 claims) was saying false-absurd things 69% of times, Clinton(255 claims) 28%.

“All is fair in love and war” – where nothing is out of bounds and all the rules of ‘hard play’ are acceptable. The story of Muammar Gaddafi vs. West reminded me of this saying – it is one of ultimate betrayal and manipulation. Once upon a time, Libya was every Capitalist’s nightmare. Its people didn’t exist simply to pay the bills – there were no rental costs, there were no electricity and utilities costs, education and medical care was free. Much like the Soviet Union, for a number of decades Libya was a flourishing socialist state.

But the West has a serious issue with authoritarian leaders. Current democracies require disposable leadership, in order to obliterate responsibility. In a parallel reality however - a “leader” is not one who spends the most on an election campaign and wins. A leader is not one who comes into office for 4 years, to look important. A leader is not one who is cleared of any responsibility for the reforms or policies that were pushed through under their administration.

Democracies corrupt our terminology – using “authoritarian” and “dictator” interchangeably – when it’s not the same thing at all. A true leader comes around once in a blue moon – and when the people recognise it, he stays for a long time. Democracies go nuts trying to discredit him [unless they installed him themselves].

The US 1986 attempt to assassinate Gaddafi failed. In 1992, they took a different approach by imposing sanctions for being “a dictator.” We now know that sanctions are never about taking the moral high ground – it is about asserting force, it is about bankrupting a country, it is about attacking their revenue streams – in this case, oil – it is about freezing its financial assets, just so that they will do as they are told.

As Libya’s economy was so dependent on oil – the only option was to mend ties with the West, agreeing to dismantle the majority of Libya’s armed forces. Gaddafi wrapped up his military programmes and the oil trade resumed. However, as we continue to learn, the West’s appetite for control in countries not their own is insatiable. “The only mistake I made was trusting the Westerners” – Gaddafi is quoted as saying.

Sarkozy was the first to launch a blow against Gaddafi; the very man who had funded him, helping him to become the President of France. It is said that the Sarkozy campaign received around 50 million Euros from Gaddafi in 2007.

Having orchestrated the government coup, the Western coalition killed the Colonel and plunged the country into chaos. The authoritarian leader once ruled Libya’s many clans “with an iron fist”, providing the closest thing to anti-capitalist utopia. Today inter-ethnic conflict prevails and the country is in shambles. Hillary Clinton cackles wildly.

But that is where the Western ‘outwitting’ of Gaddafi stops. The Colonel had warned that Libya is the only real gatekeeper between Africa and Europe. Without a hard stance on human traffickers, Gaddafi prophesised that “the European continent will turn black.” The Libyan government used to patrol its coasts, often dealing to traffickers harshly. Gaddafi was criticised for this by predominantly Soros’ “human rights” NGOS. In 2016, traffickers do business uninterrupted, and can make up to a million dollars per boat load of refugees into Europe.

[Caution: The video gets loud at 12.10 – but watch for the Westerner who is probably US special forces. They should not have been in Libya at the time – this was against international law. As explained by Putin in the video after, the Western coalition, using the appropriate tools of international law – the United Nations - imposed a No Fly Zone over Libya. In complete and blatant contravention to it, they took out Gaddafi’s regiment using drones.]

International law is officially for honest suckers.

(at 7.48 is a typo - it should say 2003 not 2013)

Journalists got their wish. Presidential debate moderator Lester Holt hoisted Hillary Clinton’s campaign high in the air like Atlas. Holt repeatedly called out Trump, as both the Clinton campaign and the liberal media had begged him to do.

Holt reminded viewers he’s liberal – from pushing the birther issue to harassing Trump about his tax returns to a wildly biased question about Clinton as “the first woman nominated by a party” not having “the look.” Clinton skated by with a 15-second response on her emails while Trump was asked repeated follow-up questions while Hillary was not. There was no “deplorables” question and Holt promoted the birther meme without noting its origin in the Clinton camp.

Clinton discussed fact-checking three times, even imploring her media friends: “Well, I hope the fact checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard.” Holt sure was. He dragged the debate to the left in six major ways:

1. Jobs: Holt pressed Trump with two questions on how he was going to add jobs even though the first answer discussed renegotiating trade deals.

2. Taxes: He portrayed the tax plans from the left – Clinton wanting to tax the rich and Trump “calling for tax cuts for the wealthy,” forcing Trump to correct him.

3. Tax Returns: Trump got hit hard with tax return questions for “business conflicts” while Hillary got a slide on emails, her hidden speeches and Clinton Foundation business conflicts.

4. Birthers: Holt asked a “birther” question that lasted longer than Clinton’s email answer. He then added three separate follow-ups to jam up Trump.

5. Iraq: He hammered Trump for supporting the Iraq War, downplaying how Hillary had voted to do the same.

6. Hillary’s Gaffe: When asked about biased policing, Clinton said, “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police.” Holt ignored it, rather than challenge the idea everyone is bigoted.

The New York Times said Holt “Opted for Restraint,” and called him a “minimalist moderator.” The paper liked some of Holt’s approach, given the “news media tempest over how aggressively a moderator should fact check candidates.” Still, the Times called it “a split decision” for Holt.

USA Today summed it up with the magic words: “Holt fact-checked Trump.” Right-leaning HeatStreet called Holt the “third debater.” Media Research Center President L. Brent Bozell III (Hint: My boss), said, “Holt failed in his role as a moderator. Period.”

The news media have been shouting “fact check” in desperate cries for relevance. More than a dozen outlets fact-checked the debate as a result. CNN "Reliable Sources" host Brian Stelter, also formerly of the Times, focused on the fact-check strategy to target Trump during his Sunday show. “Does a unique candidate like Donald Trump require a different kind of moderating?” he asked a guest before being told, “No, no absolutely not,” by long-time debate moderator Jim Lehrer.

Bloomberg TV, owned by left-wing media baron Michael Bloomberg, ran on-screen fact checks for its tiny audience. The Times “assembled a team of 18 fact-checkers,” generating a 2,400-word fact-check. The paper even had a correspondent “watching for gender moments.”

The paper pushed hard for fact-checking while it pushed hard for Clinton. Its official endorsement dropped one day before the debate – as certain as death and taxes. It’s opinion page Twitter account oozed pro-Hillary headlines during the debate, such as: “What a fantastic moment, to see Donald Trump self-destruct.”

Left-wing Fusion was worse, calling out Trump for “MANTERRUPTING HILLARY CLINTON.” And The New Yorker complained Holt didn’t attack Trump enough: “CNN LAUNCHES MANHUNT AFTER LESTER HOLT VANISHES FROM DEBATE.”

Journalists have demanded their industry give up neutrality throughout the campaign. It’s a laughable conceit for anyone who recalls Candy Crowley’s 2012 bias or the 2016 CNBC GOP primary debate. Univision anchor Jorge Ramos turned from journalist to crusader with barely any professional criticism. Reporters might as well wear blue jerseys with “I’m With Her” on the back.

Back in August, Times media columnist Jim Rutenberg argued the paper had to sacrifice its alleged neutrality. If you think “Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies,” then “you have to throw out the textbook American journalism,” he wrote.

By Monday, that had escalated into an industry-wide demand for debate moderators to attack Trump misstatements. As Rutenberg explained, that would “require the debate moderators to interject with the truth.”

Journalists have skewered anyone soft on Trump. NBC' the "Today" show’s Matt Lauer faced a “Storm of Criticism Over Clinton-Trump Forum” because he didn’t play the fact-check game. Even "Tonight Show" host Jimmy Fallon was bashed for mussing Trump’s hair instead of smacking him upside the head.

I give 3 shits though.

Incoming denial posts from our usual liberal posters.

Ease up on the Taco Bell.

*Sniffles*

...

*Takes a drink of water*

No u.

*Stares blankly at the audience*
No u.

Interesting opinion piece about the debate on Monday:

You took a snippet of my post and replied with something that actually had nothing to do with my post.




I apologize, I did not mean to disparage your plight. I only the read the first line and figure the rest was going to be the liberal rhetoric that is repeated here in the states.

I disagree that you have to experience something to understand it and its severity. While experience helps, it is definitely possible to understand it.

The issue is that here in the Americas, Race really isn't a huge issue. Racism does exist but its distribution is equal on both sides and typically non-consequential. Nothing about it should be involved in a presidential debate.

The common theme is that people with "white privilege" can't understand the race problems. The problem is actually a lot deeper and it has to do with a race being constantly conditioned that they are discriminated against when they aren't.

I think the fact that the only argument against it is "You are dismissive because you haven't experienced it", is proof enough that race isn't an issue. Back when it was an issue it was very apparent that it was happening, it was just a few people didn't think it was a problem. This time is different because we know its a problem we just don't see it happening.

But I'm sure some liberal brain-washed robot will come here and spit out the normal diatribe.

What makes the situation even funnier is that the left has been pandering to minorities for a long time but has shown to do little to nothing to actually help them out and build up their communities, yet they keep voting for them like sheep. Hillary Clinton doesn't care about the black communities, or other poor communities she just cares about a vote.

After Monday’s debate, one thing remains crystal clear: Secretary Clinton believes that government can create the benefits of economic growth without any actual economic growth. Burdened by politically motivated policies that are incapable of producing genuine economic growth, what else could she believe?

Working and middle class Americans are unquestionably suffering economically. Economic growth is and has been anemic since the recession ended. Gross Domestic Product, which measures the full value of the goods and services our economy produces, should be averaging an annual growth rate of 3% to 4%, particularly coming out of a deep recession. In fact, in 2010, the White House projected that GDP growth would “accelerate in 2011 to 3.8 percent” and “exceed 4 percent per year in 2012-2014.” But, GDP has averaged about 2% since the recession ended, producing the worst economic recovery since World War II.

So far this year, the situation is even worse, with GDP is averaging about 1%. The Federal Reserve Board is projecting GDP growth going forward at a mere 2% annually. In fact, the economy is so weak that the Fed is afraid to raise interest rates even one quarter of one percent (0.25%). Despite all the hyperbole about the supposed economic recovery, this reticence speaks volumes as to the actual state of the economy. Whoever wins this election will be left with President Obama’s legacy of anemic economic growth that has widened the gap between the upper class and the working class, squeezing the middle class into near oblivion.

So, to get GDP back on pace, we need to understand why economic growth has been so anemic. According to the US Commerce Department, one of the primary causes has been a decline in investment. Faced with the world’s highest corporate tax rate and looking to a future of 2% growth, businesses are understandably reluctant to invest.

Trump’s solution is to incentivize business investment by lowering the corporate tax rate and encouraging businesses to invest their foreign earnings in the US. As Trump stated in the debate, “I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses.” He would also reduce the growth destroying regulatory burdens American businesses must bear, keep our energy dollars and jobs in the US by an “all of the above” energy policy, and negotiate more equitable trade deals to reduce our massive trade deficits. If the idea is to increase business investment, drive economic growth and create jobs, this is a “tremendously” effective approach.

Clinton, on the other hand, would raise taxes on “the wealthy” to “make the economy fairer”, further discouraging investment and condemning us to prolonged abysmal economic growth. She would also further enlarge the regulatory state and destroy energy industry jobs in the name of global warming. In her efforts to make the economy “fairer”, Clinton would sacrifice even the potential for economic growth.

Lacking that potential, Clinton turns to government mandates as the means to address stagnating wages, the decline in good paying jobs, the shrinking middle class, and growing income inequality. Her policy proposals include government mandates raising the federal minimum wage, forcing businesses to share more of their profits with employees, and increasing paid family leave and sick days. In other words, she would try to provide employees with the benefits of economic growth (increased wages and benefits) without any actual economic growth.

These proposals certainly have political appeal but there is a serious problem. When, as Clinton proposes, government attempts to create the benefits that come from economic growth without the underlying growth necessary to support the increased costs, businesses must act to reduce those costs. The simple solution is to reduce the number of their existing employees. Another solution is to reduce growth as increased labor costs decrease profit margins and discourage investment. In other words, fewer jobs. The minimum wage, if you don’t have a job, is zero (and there are no benefits).

Trump’s economic plan would produce employee benefits without government mandates as employers compete for employees in an expanding and job creating economy. I can guarantee that if employers are competing with each other for the best employees, they will pay more and provide more benefits to get them. Most importantly, there will be underlying economic growth to support increased wages and benefits, leading to more investment, more jobs and greater prosperity.

In a failed effort to be clever, Secretary Clinton called incentivizing business growth “Trump Trickledown Economics” and blamed this approach for the 2007 Recession. This is simply a false narrative. The recession began when the housing bubble burst. That bubble came about as a result of reduced lending standards due to government efforts to get poor people into the housing market, the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low for an extended period of time and Wall Street devising ways to take advantage of the situation. It had nothing to do with incentivizing business investment as a means to generate economic growth.

Clinton has acknowledged that she intends to “defend and build on” President Obama’s economic “legacy”. As clear a policy indictment as that is, in reality, she would make things much worse. Trump has a plan to generate real economic growth, create jobs, open paths to the middle class and reduce income inequality. Let’s hope the American people give him a chance to implement it.

Just think of how bad the republicans are then if the democrats have to do so little so bad and still keep the support... You'd think by now they'd have figured out a way to turn that around...

You say good ol hill dog doesn't care about these people or their communities... Can you tell me who does? Do you really think Trump does?

The saddest thing about the missed opportunity that was Sanders is also that politicians like that don't just come around often. It's not like you can say oh there will be another like that in 8 years! It's completely up in the air when another decent politician will roll around the presidential nominee.

Sanders was running as a Democrat but he's an Independent. He was our chance at something somewhat different.

It's not surprising that the DNC would favor the candidate who was actually committed to their party but it isn't right rigging things.