ADVERTISEMENT

If Anyone but Trump Were Elected POTUS

It's time to look at the system.
Agreed. Also time to take a hard look at those asking for help are putting in even the bare minimum on their end. Also, what do you do with those that refuse to help themselves. How do you separate the working with you, with the working against you.

When your asking for help and it’s truly needed, there needs to be a strong sense of self policing from those deserving.
 
Last edited:
Its not just police reform. There's much work to be done there. But not to acknowledge personal responsibility is failing to begin. Somehow that cycle has to be fixed.
One cycle I see is the broken record of returning to personal responsibility. It has been acknowledged. It has been addressed. It's past time to look at other factors.
 
One cycle I see is the broken record of returning to personal responsibility. It has been acknowledged. It has been addressed. It's past time to look at other factors.
Again. If it’s obviously building block number one and it’s getting zero response—how is it justified to move to another step if the bare ****ing minimum of being members of society isn’t met. How is that rational.
 
Agreed. Also time to take a hard look at those asking for help are putting in even the bare minimum on their end. Also, what do you do with those that refuse to help themselves. How do you separate the working with you, with the working against you.

When your asking for help and it’s truly needed, there needs to be a strong sense of self policing from those deserving.
One word then back to beating the same drum. Eyeroll
 
Again. If it’s obviously building block number one and it’s getting zero response—how is it justified to move to another step if the bare ****ing minimum of being members of society isn’t met. How is that rational.
If you've tried one thing and it didn't fix everything... why look at other things? Really?
 
If you've tried one thing and it didn't fix everything... why look at other things? Really?
You are so quick to dismiss people’s inability to do the bare minimum, and in the next breath chastise those willing to work with the aforementioned if they could show a hint of initiative. You help those that help themselves. There is no rationale to your thinking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treyforuk
The black community needs positive male role models. We have an issue when 54% of African-American children are raised in single-parent homes. It's not to say that black women are incompetent or incapable. But bearing the load of a 40 hour work week, plus meals, plus dishes/laundry, plus helping out with homework, plus taking the kids to extracurricular activities. Not sure how anyone could be fully invested in their kids if they're constantly taking care of the physical needs.. When there's a lack of emotional investment, and certainly single parent homes are at a much higher risk, then kids are much more likely to get involved in risky behavior...

The statistics for kids living without a father is overwhelming. They comprise 63% of youth suicides, 90% of runaways, 85% of behavioral disorders, 70% of juveniles in detention rates, 71% of high school dropouts, 75% of substance abusers, and 71% of pregnant teens ... all this coming from fatherless children.

If the biological father is not taking an active role in life of his child, then there needs to be some sort of alternative male role model. The most likely choice would be the stepfather. But it could also be another relative, a neighbor, a teacher, or a coach. Boys are wrecking machines. These kids need to learn how to be men, how to treat women, how to be disciplined.

Checkout the graphs below.. It's almost like there's a negative correlation between single parent homes and educational achievement. Shocking, right?

ST_2016.06.27_race-inequality-ch1-09.png


figure-coi-2.png

Average SAT Scores (Via College Board):
Asian: 1181
White: 1118
Hispanic: 990
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 986
Native American: 963
African-American: 941

The War on Drugs has been the single most damaging thing to the black community in this country since slavery. It's systemicly racist, feeds a vicious cycle of poverty, and has created a military environment around police work in poor communities.

It is horrific public policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dattier
The War on Drugs has been the single most damaging thing to the black community in this country since slavery. It's systemicly racist, feeds a vicious cycle of poverty, and has created a military environment around police work in poor communities.

It is horrific public policy.
It could be argued that crack has been the most damaging thing to the black community. I am not removing all fault from the war on drugs. But drugs destroy more lives and impede more progress than the war on drugs. Yet, we always seem to talk about one and not the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treyforuk
It could be argued that crack has been the most damaging thing to the black community. I am not removing all fault from the war on drugs. But drugs destroy more lives and impede more progress than the war on drugs. Yet, we always seem to talk about one and not the other.

Crack was invented to target the black community. And the fact that crack possession came with decade long+ sentences whereas as the same amount of cocaine possession came with a fine and slap on the wrist for a Wall Street guy is exactly why the War on Drugs has been so damaging.

The WoD ripped apart the black community, as the US government targeted black males to send to prison, making it supremely difficult to get a job, and ensuring that they can no longer take part in elections.
 
Crack was invented to target the black community. And the fact that crack possession came with decade long+ sentences whereas as the same amount of cocaine possession came with a fine and slap on the wrist for a Wall Street guy is exactly why the War on Drugs has been so damaging.

The WoD ripped apart the black community, as the US government targeted black males to send to prison, making it supremely difficult to get a job, and ensuring that they can no longer take part in elections.
Wow.
 
You are so quick to dismiss people’s inability to do the bare minimum, and in the next breath chastise those willing to work with the aforementioned if they could show a hint of initiative. You help those that help themselves. There is no rationale to your thinking.
What I am dismissing is the idea that most people haven't already done everything within their own means to deal with it themselves. It's like an emergency room intake doc advising someone to try stopping the bleeding themselves first... and then offering the exact same advice a second time.
 

I'm assuming that means you think I should put on a tinfoil hat or something. Idk.

The bottom line is, drugs impact people of all income levels and race. But the War on Drugs is systemically bias against blacks, hispanics, and poor people. It goes all the way back to the decision to make weed illegal and tobacco legal and regulated, even though both are just plants.

I've worked in a state attorneys office. I've seen kids get turned into hardened criminals because they were arrested with a few ounces of weed on them.
 
It could be argued that crack has been the most damaging thing to the black community. I am not removing all fault from the war on drugs. But drugs destroy more lives and impede more progress than the war on drugs. Yet, we always seem to talk about one and not the other.
Drug use is almost identical across races. Only black communities are being torn apart by drugs. That has a lot to do with deliberate targeting of black communities.
 
Crack was invented to target the black community. And the fact that crack possession came with decade long+ sentences whereas as the same amount of cocaine possession came with a fine and slap on the wrist for a Wall Street guy is exactly why the War on Drugs has been so damaging.
That first sentence is tin foil hat material.
Initially, the longer sentencing for crack than for cocaine was an attempt to help black communities, and by and large, black communities approved of it. It has backfired horribly, and is a perfect example of how systemic racism can result from even noble intentions.

The WoD ripped apart the black community, as the US government targeted black males to send to prison, making it supremely difficult to get a job, and ensuring that they can no longer take part in elections.
This is an understatement. You could keep going: it has contributed to the trend of absent black fathers, black poverty, racial profiling, white flight, health problems, poor school performance, poor school quality, housing discrimination, predatory lending, and more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big_Blue79
I'm assuming that means you think I should put on a tinfoil hat or something. Idk.

The bottom line is, drugs impact people of all income levels and race. But the War on Drugs is systemically bias against blacks, hispanics, and poor people. It goes all the way back to the decision to make weed illegal and tobacco legal and regulated, even though both are just plants.

I've worked in a state attorneys office. I've seen kids get turned into hardened criminals because they were arrested with a few ounces of weed on them.
This is a much more reasonable post. Still one sided, but better.

I do not deny that the WoD effected the black community disproportionately. I do not think that law enforcement is acceptably unbias. I just think that, today especially, drugs ruin more lives than the war on drugs.
 
the War on Drugs is systemically bias against blacks, hispanics, and poor people.

Drug use is almost identical across races. Only black communities are being torn apart by drugs. That has a lot to do with deliberate targeting of black communities.

Just curious . . . how can addiction be targeted? By who? I mean, aren't the dealers themselves achieving much more profit than Joe and Sally Punchclock? It would appear that dealing has improved the dealers' lives with wads of cash, so would they be considered targets that are benefitting from it?

Legit question.
 
Last edited:
What I am dismissing is the idea that most people haven't already done everything within their own means to deal with it themselves. It's like an emergency room intake doc advising someone to try stopping the bleeding themselves first... and then offering the exact same advice a second time.
If its Not important enough to make the first step themselves, how effective could any other measure be? How does it not reinforce that their actions are acceptable. What I find almost universal across the new progressive line of thinking is the simple fact that the majority who bang this drum always ask others to do what they are unwilling to do themselves.
 
The black community needs positive male role models. We have an issue when 54% of African-American children are raised in single-parent homes. It's not to say that black women are incompetent or incapable. But bearing the load of a 40 hour work week, plus meals, plus dishes/laundry, plus helping out with homework, plus taking the kids to extracurricular activities. Not sure how anyone could be fully invested in their kids if they're constantly taking care of the physical needs.. When there's a lack of emotional investment, and certainly single parent homes are at a much higher risk, then kids are much more likely to get involved in risky behavior...

The statistics for kids living without a father is overwhelming. They comprise 63% of youth suicides, 90% of runaways, 85% of behavioral disorders, 70% of juveniles in detention rates, 71% of high school dropouts, 75% of substance abusers, and 71% of pregnant teens ... all this coming from fatherless children.

If the biological father is not taking an active role in life of his child, then there needs to be some sort of alternative male role model. The most likely choice would be the stepfather. But it could also be another relative, a neighbor, a teacher, or a coach. Boys are wrecking machines. These kids need to learn how to be men, how to treat women, how to be disciplined.

Checkout the graphs below.. It's almost like there's a negative correlation between single parent homes and educational achievement. Shocking, right?

ST_2016.06.27_race-inequality-ch1-09.png


figure-coi-2.png

Average SAT Scores (Via College Board):
Asian: 1181
White: 1118
Hispanic: 990
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 986
Native American: 963
African-American: 941
People who died for the ideas represented by the flag knew those ideas were more important than mere cloth. Those ideas include freedom and justice, and if our country isn't living up to that, why should we be politically correct and honor the flag?
Next time you're upset, you're free to run away from your problems. Some prefer to stay and fight for the country they love to be the country it claims to be.
So tell me how you are so oppressed.
 
If you think only black communities are being torn apart, you are out of your mind.
If you mean the current opioid epidemic and the effect of drug abuse on communities, okay, but as it relates to the War on Drugs, black communities have been disproportionately damaged, considering approximate equality in rate of drug use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GE Nole
Just curious . . . how can addiction be targeted? By who? I mean, aren't the dealers themselves achieving much more profit than Joe and Sally Punchclock? It would appear that dealing has improved the dealers' lives with wads of cash, so would they be considered targets that are benefitting from it?

Legit question.
Clarification: Drug abuse harms people pretty equally; the War on Drugs disproportionately destroys black neighborhoods.

Addiction should be addressed as a mental health issue, not as a criminal issue.

Dealers are few and far between compared to the people who suffer as a result, and I wouldn't equate having more money to a higher quality of life, necessarily.
 
They HAVE. How many times do I have to tell you that?
I don’t believe you and I don’t believe it’s happening on any meaningful or measurable level. Link me something to change my mind.

I stand by my statement in this issue and a multitude of progressive issues. They keep asking people to do what they aren’t willing to do themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: treyforuk
This is a much more reasonable post. Still one sided, but better.

I do not deny that the WoD effected the black community disproportionately. I do not think that law enforcement is acceptably unbias. I just think that, today especially, drugs ruin more lives than the war on drugs.

Here's the difference: drug use ruining a life is often (not always, but often) a result of poor choices by an individual.

The WoD ruining lives and families is mostly a result of systemically bias policies that were born out of racism and a desire to keep minorities out of positions of power and influence.

The former is an example of personal responsibility, or lack there of. The latter is an example of oppression. Making matters worse, the War on Drugs has also been demonstrated NOT to be effective at curbing drug use, wastes billions of dollars a year, and has significantly increased the violence around drugs, resulting in unnecessary civilian and police casualties.

So yeah, it's a pretty terrible policy that has ripped apart hundreds of thousands of lives.
 
Just curious . . . how can addiction be targeted? By who? I mean, aren't the dealers themselves achieving much more profit than Joe and Sally Punchclock? It would appear that dealing has improved the dealers' lives with wads of cash, so would they be considered targets that are benefitting from it?

Legit question.

People from the Nixon administration have admitted to funneling crack into black neighborhoods. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon

But more to the point of the statement of mine you quoted, its the enforcement and punishment that is systemically bias against blacks. Numerous studies demonstrate that a black kid arrested for the same type and amount of drug--and with the same criminal history--will be given a harsher penalty than a white kid. On top of that, you have actual And significant differences in sentencing guidelines for possession of a drug like crack (historically a black community drug) vs possession of a drug like meth or opioids (historically a white community drug).

The white guy addicted to pain pills goes to rehab and does community service. The black guy with a crack pipe goes to prison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KYtotheCore
Here's the difference: drug use ruining a life is often (not always, but often) a result of poor choices by an individual.

The WoD ruining lives and families is mostly a result of systemically bias policies that were born out of racism and a desire to keep minorities out of positions of power and influence.

The former is an example of personal responsibility, or lack there of. The latter is an example of oppression. Making matters worse, the War on Drugs has also been demonstrated NOT to be effective at curbing drug use, wastes billions of dollars a year, and has significantly increased the violence around drugs, resulting in unnecessary civilian and police casualties.

So yeah, it's a pretty terrible policy that has ripped apart hundreds of thousands of lives.
You can thank Reganomics and his shite policies for that. His WoD is so ****ing laughable. If only Ronny were still alive to get his dong stroked by Jeff Sessions.
 
Addiction should be addressed as a mental health issue, not as a criminal issue.

Bingo. This would radically change this country for the better.

It's asinine to me that people continue to treat the drug problem in the same way and expect different results.
 
Bingo. This would radically change this country for the better.

It's asinine to me that people continue to treat the drug problem in the same way and expect different results.
I don't blame the dealer for the user's addiction. I blame the dealer for exploiting and benefiting from their addictions. I think simple possession should not result in jail time, ever. I think people should be placed into programs that help them with their addictions instead of having convictions that go on their record making it harder for them to succeed further in life even after they have bettered themselves. I stop supporting that when their issues become habitual, though.

As far as dealers go, pot not included, I think the book should be thrown at them. They are scum who scavenge for weak minds and prey off of people in their darkest hours for self gain.
 
...I think simple possession should not result in jail time, ever. I think people should be placed into programs that help them with their addictions instead of having convictions that go on their record making it harder for them to succeed further in life even after they have bettered themselves. I stop supporting that when their issues become habitual, though.

As far as dealers go, pot not included, I think the book should be thrown at them. They are scum who scavenge for weak minds and prey off of people in their darkest hours for self gain.
On the first bold, what do you mean? Peripheral issues like theft to support a habit? Increasingly strict measures for "repeat" addicts?

On the second, I don't recall, but I would guess you favor some form of legalization. Do you know the history of marijuana criminalization?
 
On the first bold, what do you mean? Peripheral issues like theft to support a habit? Increasingly strict measures for "repeat" addicts?

On the second, I don't recall, but I would guess you favor some form of legalization. Do you know the history of marijuana criminalization?

The doc Grass (1999) is great about explaining it's origins.

 
On the first bold, what do you mean? Peripheral issues like theft to support a habit? Increasingly strict measures for "repeat" addicts?

On the second, I don't recall, but I would guess you favor some form of legalization. Do you know the history of marijuana criminalization?
On the first. I mean that if someome is given another chance through a program that gives them help without having a conviction on their record and they continue to get arrested for the same thing, I think they should be charged and convicted. I still support putting them in rehab type facilities over jail.

When I left pot dealers out, it is because I find them to be simple criminals. Not scum. I don't think they are contributing to the destruction of lives the way coke, crack, meth and heroin dealers do. I am all for at the very least, the decriminalization of marijuana. I do not know the history of it, no.
 
On the first. I mean that if someome is given another chance through a program that gives them help without having a conviction on their record and they continue to get arrested for the same thing, I think they should be charged and convicted. I still support putting them in rehab type facilities over jail.

When I left pot dealers out, it is because I find them to be simple criminals. Not scum. I don't think they are contributing to the destruction of lives the way coke, crack, meth and heroin dealers do. I am all for at the very least, the decriminalization of marijuana. I do not know the history of it, no.
Yeah, eventually tougher measures have to be taken. I agree completely on the first, especially the (involuntary) rehab over jail part.

Decriminalizing it is certainly a step in the right direction, and it's okay to take it one step at a time and see if further steps are necessary or/and wise.

Two factors I've heard in connection to criminalization are (1) the nylon industry's interest in snuffing out hemp as a competitor, and (2) you guessed it... racism! Mexicans and blacks were among the earliest recreational users, and it supposedly made them uppity. Well, it made the blacks uppity. It made the Mexicans steal American jobs.
 
Yeah, eventually tougher measures have to be taken. I agree completely on the first, especially the (involuntary) rehab over jail part.

Decriminalizing it is certainly a step in the right direction, and it's okay to take it one step at a time and see if further steps are necessary or/and wise.

Two factors I've heard in connection to criminalization are (1) the nylon industry's interest in snuffing out hemp as a competitor, and (2) you guessed it... racism! Mexicans and blacks were among the earliest recreational users, and it supposedly made them uppity. Well, it made the blacks uppity. It made the Mexicans steal American jobs.
Mexicans were the primary reason mj became illegal. Nothing to do with stealing jobs.

Also, it's hard to pinpoint the earliest users as it's an old drug that's been used by everyone for centuries.

...or so the docs/books say.
 
Last edited:
People from the Nixon administration have admitted to funneling crack into black neighborhoods. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon

But more to the point of the statement of mine you quoted, its the enforcement and punishment that is systemically bias against blacks. Numerous studies demonstrate that a black kid arrested for the same type and amount of drug--and with the same criminal history--will be given a harsher penalty than a white kid. On top of that, you have actual And significant differences in sentencing guidelines for possession of a drug like crack (historically a black community drug) vs possession of a drug like meth or opioids (historically a white community drug).

The white guy addicted to pain pills goes to rehab and does community service. The black guy with a crack pipe goes to prison.

It wasn't people, it was one person. And the quote attached to Ehrlichman is disputed by his children, as it didn't come to light until more than 20 years after the alleged interview... and he died several years ago. This is from CNN:

Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.

"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.

"The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way."

A couple other items:

1. It was the Congressional Black Caucus that demanded a federal response to the 1980's crack epidemic, including more severe penalties for crack trafficking.
2. Only 16% of state prisoners are serving time for drug offenses
3. In 2014, less than 1 percent of sentenced drug offenders in federal court were convicted of simple drug possession; the rest were convicted of trafficking.
4. Check out some of the drug statistics from the 70's til the early 90's. Drug use went down across the board on just about everything. It wasn't until the early 90's that drug use rose again.
5. Blacks actually use drugs at a higher rate than whites. That is the primary reason why they are prosecuted at a higher rate. Check out the table below. In the past month, 11.3% blacks have used illicit drugs compared to 9.2% of whites. That may not seem like much when you look at the numbers side by side, but it's actually a 23% increase. That is significant.

pic_corner_071014_samhsa-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wrong. It is rightly slammed when proposed as the only step. When someone is addressing inequity and you interrupt to shout, "Personal responsibility!" you're not accurately addressing whether it is missing or what other steps are needed. Too often it's an ironic way for the speaker to avoid their own personal responsibility to care about anything other than themselves.
Does personal responsibility go both ways, or is it onesided? One side holds out hand , other side hands over? How does this personal responsibility thing work?
 
I was corrected on that number and acknowledged it. It's 200K.
What was my rationale for saying why it would be systemic racism?

I'm not sure what you rationale was. It's unfair for minorities because they have a harder time getting ID? I don't know. Honestly, if you don't have government ID, you're imposing a lot of grief upon yourself. You can walk down to your local DMV and pay $13 for ID. If you're lower income, you can even apply for a free ID card. And guess what? Black voter turnout was higher than white turnout, even in states with strict ID laws.
 
ADVERTISEMENT