Hillary Clinton

[Delta1212]

 

 

But you don't actually know this. You certainly haven't supported your narrative with any facts or statistics, so it's just a story you made up, that's biased to support your position. You assume the answer.

 

If someone is convicted for drug possession, then all you know is that they were in possession of drugs.

Well, really all you know for certain is that they were convicted of possessing drugs, but that's a whole other conversation.

[Willie71]

Of course people in power know the drug deals are going on and aren't stopping them.

There is a rather large difference between knowing that a problem exists and having the resources to fix it.

Well, the DEA and one of the big banks laundering money for cartels suggests more than not having resources to fix it,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/world/americas/us-drug-agents-launder-profits-of-mexican-cartels.html

[swansont]

Well, really all you know for certain is that they were convicted of possessing drugs, but that's a whole other conversation.

 

 

Why is that a whole other conversation?

[tar]

That is not all I know. I also know they did something that got the police involved.

[Willie71]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/money-laundering-and-the-drug-trade-the-role-of-the-banks/5334205

[swansont]

That is not all I know. I also know they did something that got the police involved.

 

 

How do you know this? There are millions of people in jail. You know the details of every one? Even things that weren't involved in the trial?

[tar]

Swansont,

 

Most people arrested and incarcerated got involved with the police, by definition. What details do I need?

 

Regards, TAR

If I am smoking a joint (I have not touched a joint since I was 18, by the way) on my back porch and nobody calls the police, I am not going to get involved with the police. If I take some angle dust and climb in someone's car and beat on the inside of the windshield to get out, and the police arrive and take me to jail...then I did something to get the police involved.

[Delta1212]

Swansont,

 

Most people arrested and incarcerated got involved with the police, by definition. What details do I need?

 

Regards, TAR

If I am smoking a joint (I have not touched a joint since I was 18, by the way) on my back porch and nobody calls the police, I am not going to get involved with the police. If I take some angle dust and climb in someone's car and beat on the inside of the windshield to get out, and the police arrive and take me to jail...then I did something to get the police involved.

Just because you had a private space that the police were unlikely to insert themselves into doesn't mean everyone else enjoys the same privilege.

 

"Driving while black" and, in times and places where "stop and frisk" policies have been implemented, "walking while black" are enough to get the police involved in some areas. The police are also allowed to take evidence from residences that they mistakenly raid if they had a warrant for next door, and people in poorer, densely populated areas are much more likely to be subjected to such errors.

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

Very true, but these are dangers of living in a city, and knowing the place next door might easily be raided it would be pretty risky to then smoke your pot out on the front stoop.

 

However I completely agree with the unfairness of being stopped while walking while black. I had a black friend from work I used to drive home into a black area, and he told me all about the times he was stopped, for doing nothing. I get it, but I don't agree it is entirely unearned. Not in terms of the individual who can certainly be suspected, unjustly, but I go by the looks, I got, from the blacks in the area where I dropped the guy off, that wondered what this white guy was doing, driving in their neighborhood. Probably up to no good, or looking for drugs, or was undercover police or something. I don't know what they thought, but I did feel uncomfortable. Out of place. I have been looked at by police, when I was somewhere unusual. I tend to like to explore, and I will drive down streets, and down roads, where I have no business.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 16, 2016 by tar

[Willie71]

Stop and frisk in NY was over 90% black. Predatory ticketing in Ferguson was over 90% black. Just two examples. Is there any doubt that blacks would get caught with nonviolent offences more often than whites? Based on the number of convictions per capita based on proportion of those stopped, whites commit crimes at much higher rates than blacks.

[Delta1212]

Delta1212,

 

Very true, but these are dangers of living in a city, and knowing the place next door might easily be raided it would be pretty risky to then smoke your pot out on the front stoop.

 

However I completely agree with the unfairness of being stopped while walking while black. I had a black friend from work I used to drive home into a black area, and he told me all about the times he was stopped, for doing nothing. I get it, but I don't agree it is entirely unearned. Not in terms of the individual who can certainly be suspected, unjustly, but I go by the looks, I got, from the blacks in the area where I dropped the guy off, that wondered what this white guy was doing, driving in their neighborhood. Probably up to no good, or looking for drugs, or was undercover police or something. I don't know what they thought, but I did feel uncomfortable. Out of place. I have been looked at by police, when I was somewhere unusual. I tend to like to explore, and I will drive down streets, and down roads, where I have no business.

 

Regards, TAR

But everyone is, ultimately, an individual. So if lots of individuals are subjected to such treatment without having "earned" it, then isn't it, by definition, unearned?

 

You cannot say "Well, the community deserves it" and then ignore that there are lots of people in the community that don't deserve such treatment and that don't have the resources to leave that community.

 

Or, in cases where the community is not "regional" but simply "being black" where no such resources exist to allow you to remove yourself from it.

 

Now, imagine the looks that you got from the people there, or from the police during your explorations, were the looks you got everywhere you went and the way that police always looked at you no matter where you were or what you were doing. And that there was no way to modify your behavior to avoid getting those looks.

[waitforufo]

Would the moderator please move the drug use discussion to a new topic. It really has no place in this Hillary Clinton topic.

 

Clinton is a third way democrat. I've linked what that is about previously. We disagree with the republican lite policies. People supporting Clinton were against Reagan, and economically, they aren't that different. We don't believe Clinton is good for the world economy, or foreign relations. I have repeated over and over that I don't support trump. Why do you keep conflating that? If Clinton loses, she loses for being unlikeable, secretive, corrupt, and establishment. Even if she's no different from others like her, she has a public relations issue, and the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the primaries, and they may lose the election because of this. That is on the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They knew she has been attacked for decades, and was unliked, but they thought they could push her through. From the last e-mail leak, even Obama and Powell wouldn't be disappointed if she loses this because she is so damaged.She's not liked. Whether deserved or not, that is the reality.

The above is an excellent post.

 

Their have been several posts in this topic regarding the ethics of our current presidential candidates. Many of the pro Hillary folks out there seem to base their ethics on "well everybody does it." A country with such ethics cannot survive for long in my opinion. I believe the better way is to at least set some ethical standards a candidate should meet or exceed to earn your vote. Is their any ethical standard that should apply to Hillary Clinton? Should a candidate who put her personal convenience ahead of national security be elected president even if that conduct was not considered prosecutable by the FBI? Should a candidate who had her supporters within her party put their thumb on the scale in order to win her party's nomination be elected president? Should a candidate who won't disclose her speeches to banks and wall street be elected president? What did she tell them that she now feels important to hide from the general public? Should a candidate who tried to send an innocent person to prison, so she could provide a crony job to her political financial supporters be elected president? Should a candidate who promised to isolate herself from a charitable foundation her family controls, but then used her personal aides and agents to maintain contact with that charitable foundation, and then gave special access to foundation donors to lobby the state department be elected president? Should the answer to that question really be well we can't find any quid pro quo so its okay even though that same person destroyed over 30000 emails she considered personal? The list goes on and on. At what point do you say "not only will I not vote for this candidate, but this candidate has to be stopped?

 

I'm sure may who read this will want to respond by providing a similar list of ethical issues related to Donald Trump and then fall back on the "well everybody does it" ethical line of reasoning. Feel free to do that in the Donald Trump topic. It can be found here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/93445-donald-trump/page-32.

Edited September 16, 2016 by waitforufo

[tar]

I don't know why waitforufo wants the Criminal Justice reform issue moved. It is a central tenant of Hilary's campaign and it matters greatly whether the last 7 years of democrat control of the White House and most inner cities has been beneficial to our society, as Hilary is planning to carry on the Obama legacy.

[swansont]

Swansont,

 

Most people arrested and incarcerated got involved with the police, by definition. What details do I need?

 

 

Stop moving the goalposts. You said you knew that everyone arrested for drugs did something to get the police involved. How do you know it wasn't just by virtue of having the drugs? How do you know it wasn't "stop and frisk" (or something similar), where all they had to "do" was be not white?

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

I do not doubt there is white privilege in this country. I do not doubt that whites on the whole have more wealth behind them then blacks on average. That makes a difference. With how many books are on the shelves at home, or whether you even have a shelf at home. I can fully accept the idea that we are a country of immigrants and should open our hearts and shores to any and all huddle masses yearning to be free...but there is also the reality that wealth and success come from effort and a leg up. We have been offering a safety net and a leg up since the Great Society and Pell Grants. There are way more black faces as quarterbacks and coaches and news anchors and representatives and on the Music scene and in Hollywood and everywhere else in business, law, military and government than when I was young. The same victim thing cannot forever be the case. Part of the suspicion that people have for blacks is a result of witnessing the way certain blacks have acted toward them. Same way one selfish, spiteful woman a man might have run into will color his opinion of the next woman he dates, or the same way one overbearing, drunken, abusive male might color the way a woman looks at the next man she dates.

 

I don't like hearing a black person complain that their life is substandard because they have not gotten the right treatment from the government. They are owed nothing more from the government then I am. Not a thing more. Equal treatment, under the law, yes, but not special treatment. You break the law and the police are going to want to call you on it. As equal citizens, no black man should tell me I am not treating him fairly, as I am absolutely not his master, and he is absolutely not my ward.

 

Regards, TAR

SwansonT,

 

Have you ever been in an area where stop and frisk would have a reason to be engaged in?

 

Regards, TAR

[DrmDoc]

Clinton is a third way democrat. I've linked what that is about previously. We disagree with the republican lite policies. People supporting Clinton were against Reagan, and economically, they aren't that different. We don't believe Clinton is good for the world economy, or foreign relations. I have repeated over and over that I don't support trump. Why do you keep conflating that? If Clinton loses, she loses for being unlikeable, secretive, corrupt, and establishment. Even if she's no different from others like her, she has a public relations issue, and the DNC put their thumb on the scale through the primaries, and they may lose the election because of this. That is on the DNC and the Clinton campaign. They knew she has been attacked for decades, and was unliked, but they thought they could push her through. From the last e-mail leak, even Obama and Powell wouldn't be disappointed if she loses this because she is so damaged.She's not liked. Whether deserved or not, that is the reality.

 

This is still just so much sour grapes when we're talking about who could be the next leader of the free world. Unquestionably, there are only two major candidates in this political contest with any real potential to win. In those two candidates, the American voting public need to make a choice for the good of the nation and put aside petty political nonsense and allegations that don't serve the better candidate. It time to get smart, get over it, and get behind the only intelligent choice for POTUS. Most of us, including both Sanders and Republican supporters, agree who that intelligent choice is.

[tar]

At Temple, my daughter lived a block off campus. There was a guard house on the corner of the campus, about a block from where she lived. On campus you were safe, and there was a lot of lighting. Off campus you should not walk alone, as a young woman. At least that is the way it was when Obama was just elected. There was a murder in the subway a block off campus, two blocks from my daughter. A roommate's car was stolen from in front of the apartment. The security guards would not venture off campus as it was not their area and as it was not safe. It was not a jewish neighborhood, it was not and Italian or Irish neighborhood. The people that lived in the area simply did not go by my societal rules. If they had, I would not be talking badly about them now. Nor would there have been a 12ft high chain link fence around her cement back yard, with razor wire on top.

This is still just so much sour grapes when we're talking about who could be the next leader of the free world. Unquestionably, there are only two major candidates in this political contest with any real potential to win. In those two candidates, the American voting public need to make a choice for the good of the nation and put aside petty political nonsense and allegations that don't serve the better candidate. It time to get smart, get over it, and get behind the only intelligent choice for POTUS. Most of us, including both Sanders and Republican supporters, agree who that intelligent choice is.

DrmDoc,

 

You are forgetting the TAR 90 10 rule. 90 percent of the population are not in the top 10. If you are in the top 10, expect that there are 90 percent of the people that don't have what you have, may want to take it from you, or might not be interested in having it.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 16, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

 

SwansonT,

 

Have you ever been in an area where stop and frisk would have a reason to be engaged in?

 

 

Possibly. I do know people who were subject to DWB.

 

Why does that matter?

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I know people too, the point is there are black areas that are dangerous, where there is a good chance that the guy hanging out on the street corner, has a weapon, or has drugs, or both and stopping and frisking them is one way to encourage them to leave their illegal stuff home, and not take it into the street.

 

Regards, TAR

in other words, if you cannot break up the dealing going on at the bottom of the I80 ramp, because it would be a civil liberty violation if you did it, then there is going to be drug deals going on at the bottom of the I80 ramp

[swansont]

SwansonT,

 

I know people too, the point is there are black areas that are dangerous, where there is a good chance that the guy hanging out on the street corner, has a weapon, or has drugs, or both and stopping and frisking them is one way to encourage them to leave their illegal stuff home, and not take it into the street.

 

Regards, TAR

 

 

And?

 

It's unconstitutional to stop and search someone without probable cause. Being in a "bad neighborhood" doesn't qualify. (see Brown v Texas, and whatever ruling actually stopped the practice in NYC)

[DrmDoc]

The people that lived in the area simply did not go by my societal rules. If they had, I would not be talking badly about them now.

 

Yes, but you're judging a neighborhood on just a handful of individuals. There are thousands of individuals in those neighborhood who have jobs, pay taxes, and don't commit crimes. If someone committed murder in your neighborhood, would that make you a murder? There is crime everywhere in our society, which is why we should all be cautious everywhere. But you seem to have made up your mind about a group of people in our society who are frequently vilified unjustly and disproportionately prosecuted for similar crimes committed by every other group. It's apparent thinking like yours that has led to civil unrest and the rise of the BLM movement so many fear.

Edited September 16, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Delta1212]

Delta1212,

 

I do not doubt there is white privilege in this country. I do not doubt that whites on the whole have more wealth behind them then blacks on average. That makes a difference. With how many books are on the shelves at home, or whether you even have a shelf at home. I can fully accept the idea that we are a country of immigrants and should open our hearts and shores to any and all huddle masses yearning to be free...but there is also the reality that wealth and success come from effort and a leg up. We have been offering a safety net and a leg up since the Great Society and Pell Grants. There are way more black faces as quarterbacks and coaches and news anchors and representatives and on the Music scene and in Hollywood and everywhere else in business, law, military and government than when I was young. The same victim thing cannot forever be the case. Part of the suspicion that people have for blacks is a result of witnessing the way certain blacks have acted toward them. Same way one selfish, spiteful woman a man might have run into will color his opinion of the next woman he dates, or the same way one overbearing, drunken, abusive male might color the way a woman looks at the next man she dates.

 

I don't like hearing a black person complain that their life is substandard because they have not gotten the right treatment from the government. They are owed nothing more from the government then I am. Not a thing more. Equal treatment, under the law, yes, but not special treatment. You break the law and the police are going to want to call you on it. As equal citizens, no black man should tell me I am not treating him fairly, as I am absolutely not his master, and he is absolutely not my ward.

 

Regards, TAR

SwansonT,

 

Have you ever been in an area where stop and frisk would have a reason to be engaged in?

 

Regards, TAR

There may be more opportunities open to black people today than when you were younger, but that doesn't mean that the opportunities are the same as they are for white people. You can't switch from beating someone with a baseball bat to beating them with your fist and then respond to their pleas to stop hitting them by reminding them that the bat was worse and asking if they're going to complain forever.

 

It is easy, when the only time the issue intruded upon your daily life is when someone else complains about it, to see it as an annoyance that is mostly a result of the people who are complaining. The distraction and discomfort of the complaint is the primary problem that you have to deal with. If they do not complain, then the problem goes away, and so it is easy to blame them for complaining and wonder why they can't just get on with their lives like you do.

 

For the people complaining, it is not something that goes away when they are quite. Asking for help removing an obstacle that you have never faced and in some cases probably don't even know exists looks like asking for special favors from the outside.

 

From the inside, it asking for a rope when you are drowning and being told by someone who was born on a yacht that no one ever threw them a rope, and could you kindly stop splashing around so much because you are getting them wet.

[tar]

SwansonT,

 

I understand, but at some point you need to raid the compound, for the greater good.

 

My feeling is that part of the recent increase in crime in Chicago is because the police are afraid to confront the drug gangs, for fear they will be crossing some civil liberties line, and lose their jobs.

 

Regards TAR

DrmDoc,

 

Thinking like mine, responsible for the BLM movement. Really?

 

How so?

 

Delta1212,

 

Bad areas are not caused by a few people, they are caused by the people that live in the neighborhood that don't do the things that would make it nice.

 

Did you ever hear the saying that evil only prospers when good men do nothing?

 

Regards, TAR

 

There are areas that get better, when the population works toward making it better. If it is just two or three bad people causing all the crime and violence in the area, turn the bastards in, and be done with it.

Edited September 16, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

Making an area nice costs money, as does leaving an area that isn't nice.

 

An "area" in an inner city, even a relatively small one, can have a population comprised of thousands of people. A small percentage of those could behave in a way that makes the area "bad" and it would still be many, many more than "2 or 3" people.

 

In an area with a population of 10,000, even 100 people who are willing to do violence to anyone who tries to "clean up the streets" makes it extremely impractical for civilian policing of the community for anyone that particularly minds risking life and limb.

 

You are expressing a very naive view of how crime works.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Delta1212

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

Thinking like mine, responsible for the BLM movement. Really?

 

How so?

 

Honestly? You don't see how the kind of preconceptions of a people you've expressed have led to the unfair treatment of people of color, which has led to the rise of a movement and deaths of both police and civilians? There are, obviously, preconceptions on both sides of the issue but that shouldn't be an excuse for unequal justice.

Edited September 16, 2016 by DrmDoc