Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

How Anti-Racist Are You Poll

How to be an Anti-Racist Poll  

6 members have voted

  1. 1. Check all of the below that you DISAGREE with:

    • Denial is the heartbeat of racism.
    • Saying one is "not racist" signifies neutrality: "I am not a racist, but neither am I aggressively against racism." 
    • The opposite of "racist" is not "not racist." It is "anti-racist."
    • Racist and anti-racist are not fixed identities. We can be racist one minute and an antiracist the next. 
    • A racist is one who is supporting a racist policy through their actions or inactions or expressing a racist idea. 
    • Racism is a marriage of racist policies and racist ideas that produce and normalizes racial inequities.
    • The fact that 71% of White families live in owner-occupied homes, while only 45% of Hispanics and 41% of Blacks do is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed.
      0
    • There is no such thing as a race-neutral or nonracist policy, as each policy produces or sustains racial inequity or racial equity. 
    • We all have the power to discriminate. Only a few have the power to make policy.
    • The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination
    • The most threatening racist movement is not the "Alt-Right" but the regular American's drive for a "race-neutral" country. 
    • Racial groups are equals in all their apparant differences--there is nothing right or wrong with any racial group.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: White people are more likely than Black and Hispanic people to sell drugs, and the races consume drugs at similar rates; yet, Blacks are more likely to be jailed for drug offenses. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Non-violent Black drug offenders stay in prison for about the same length of time as violent White drug offenders
    • High unemployment corresponds with violent crime; racial minorities do not correspond with violent crime.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black people comprise 13% of the population and at least 26% of those killed by police. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Unarmed black men are twice as likely to be killed by police as unarmed white men. 
    • There is no such thing as a dangerous racial group; there are only dangerous individuals. 
      0
    • Colorism is a serious issue among blacks and whites, creating inequities between light color blacks and dark color blacks. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Lighter skin people are more likely to receive good paying jobs and get accepted to better schools than dark skin people. 
    • Racist ideas suspend reality and retrofit history, including individual histories
    • Increased voter suppression in the states is making it harder for minorities to vote out people who are not promoting anti-racist policies.
    • A large percentage of black people hold anti-black racist ideas. That is, ideas that sustain or increase racial inequity. 
      0
    • Black people can be racist because black people do have power, even if limited. 
      0
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Only 27% of white cops think the issue of blacks being killed more often than whites by violent cops are signs of a broader problem, compared to the 57% of black cops. 
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The black poverty rate is 3x the white poverty rate
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black unemployment is 2x that of white unemployment
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: The median net worth of white families is 10x more than black families
    • To love capitalism is to end up loving racism
    • The idea of the dangerous black neighborhood is the most dangerous racist idea.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women with college education make the same or less as a White woman with a high school degree.
    • The following is an issue of concern that needs to be fixed: Black women have to earn an advanced degree to earn as much as a white woman with only a bachelor's degree. 
    • The United States is a racist nation because its policymakers and policies have been racist from the beginning.
    • Racism has always been terminal and curable. Racism has always been recognizable and mortal. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  2. 2. Kendi lists 11 things that should be done to make America more anti-racist. Check those that you DISAGREE with:

    • Admit racial inequity is a problem of bad policy, not bad people. 
    • Identify racial inequity in all its intersections and manifestations. 
    • Investigate and uncover the racist policies causing racial inequity. 
    • Invent or find anti-racist policy that can eliminate racial inequity. 
    • Figure out who or what group has the power to institute anti-racist policy
    • Disseminate and educate about the uncovered racist policy and anti-racist policy correctives
    • Work with sympathetic anti-racist policymakers to institute anti-racist policy
    • Deploy anti-racist power to compel or drive from power the unsympathetic racist policymakers in order to institute the anti-racist policy. 
    • Monitor closely to ensure the anti-racist policy reduces and eliminates racial inequity.
    • When policies fail, do not blame the people. Start over and seek out new and more affective anti-racist treatments until they work. 
    • Monitor closely to prevent new racist policies from being instituted. 
    • [Check this if you don't disagree with any of the above]
  3. 3. After considering the above, Ibram X. Kendi would likely consider me......

    • Anti-racist, because I actively support anti-racist policy and anti-racist ideas.
    • Racist, because even if I am not actively supporting racist policies and ideas, I am indirectly sustaining these ideas through my inaction in supporting anti-racist policies and anti-racist ideas.
    • I disagree with Kendi that being neutral on race is racist and that being just "not racist" is racist. Thus, not being "anti-racist" does not mean one is racist.
  4. 4. Will the United States ever have approximate equality/equity among different races, ethnicities, gender, etc.?

    • Yes, but it will take a lot of effort and determination by federal, state, local governments and the citizens and companies therein.
    • No, our country was founded on an inequality/inequity that will be impossible to shake.
    • I don't know/don't have a hunch
      0
  5. 5. Is capitalism and/or Socialism helping or harming the quest for racial inquity

    • Capitalism is absolutely anti-racist; Socialism is absolutely racist
      0
    • Capitalism is more anti-racist than Socialism
    • Socialism would be more anti-racist than Capitalism
    • Socialism is absolutely anti-racist; Capitalism is absolutely racist
      0
    • It is unclear to me if any of these systems have any impact on racial inequity or not.


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

@servo75 @ThePotatoWalrus @SilentLiberty Kendi would probably say y’all are racist if you’re too uncomfortable to take this poll or if it makes you angry. :)

Hey man, you know what, sure. I've typed up a couple different responses, but I figure I'll just bite my tongue and play along. That being said an FYI, I didn't like the poll because it's outrageously baity and serves no purpose but to divide. And of course when people didn't respond the way you wanted, but maybe believed they would, you jumped at the chance to call them racist and further the divide. Rather than try and show them the warm embrace of socialism, you just played a "gotcha!"...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CPE said:

I thought that I was the only one who saw so many parallels lol.  It truly does seem that the United States is splitting between "East" and "West" in the sense that it seems that the two sides of the political spectrum have irreconcilable visions of what America should be.  I always noticed in the past that no matter what, whether you were a D or R, you were always considered an American first and foremost.  Nowadays, it seems that there is a lacking sense of cohesion and national pride, and that your political affiliation is somehow more important than your nationality.

I have spent time thinking about a post-America world before, it would be only be natural when comparing other nations documented in the written records of human history; every empire eventually falls.  Think that even during the Victorian Era, Great Britain used to be considered the premier world power; it wasn't until the 1900s that the United States rose to the heights where it currently exists today.  The sun eventually did end up setting on the British Empire, and America rose up in its place.  I sometimes think about who will rise up in America's stead when the eventual fall occurs.

Is an example of what you mean like why incarceration rates between the races are different in the States?

Yes. Look at the poll in regards to those rates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Hey man, you know what, sure. I've typed up a couple different responses, but I figure I'll just bite my tongue and play along. That being said an FYI, I didn't like the poll because it's outrageously baity and serves no purpose but to divide. And of course when people didn't respond the way you wanted, but maybe believed they would, you jumped at the chance to call them racist and further the divide. Rather than try and show them the warm embrace of socialism, you just played a "gotcha!"...

All I’m doing is saying what I think he would say. I think we should own up to the inequity in this country, especially if we come from a white middle class (or better) background. I’m sure Kendi is off on things but he raises points worthy of consideration and worthy of action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, servo75 said:

I'm not responding to this poll. "How anti-racist are you?" Seriously? The presumption of the title is bad enough. I am not racist and I'm not going to stoop to taking some quiz to prove it. There is NO systemic or "institutional" racism in this country. Full stop. There hasn't been since 1870 in most parts of the country, and at least since 1965 in the South. I'm sick and tired of people taking every individual isolated case and using it as an excuse for mass protests, riots, taking down statues, making everyone bend their knee and swear that "they're not racist."

Racism isn't born, it's taught. And to all those white people who put BLM stickers on their cars and logos on their profile pics, SHAME ON YOU! By even giving in to this narrative, you're not helping racial harmony, you're actually harming it. If you want a sore to heal, stop picking at it. If you want to solve racism, then I agree with Morgan Freeman  - STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!

yikes...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

Hey man, you know what, sure. I've typed up a couple different responses, but I figure I'll just bite my tongue and play along. That being said an FYI, I didn't like the poll because it's outrageously baity and serves no purpose but to divide. And of course when people didn't respond the way you wanted, but maybe believed they would, you jumped at the chance to call them racist and further the divide. Rather than try and show them the warm embrace of socialism, you just played a "gotcha!"...

Or... hear me out... we as conservatives begin to make our case.

America is a nation infected by racism. This cannot be denied. Our government uses its authority to deprive constitutional liberties to people of color systematically. I could give you a list of every section of the constitution and how it's been perverted to deny liberty to underserved communities of color. Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem!

So how about we as Republicans stop whining about how black people are taking a stand against the systematic murder and oppression of their people and start recognizing it is the same federal government we all dislike and want to shrink that is the root of systemic racism! 

Republicans and conservatives need to realize that our ideology isn't just for white people and that people of color face serious adversity and systematic discrimination in our nation. It all boils down to expanded government power. The remedies to all of our woes can be found in the Constitution. And I'd be happy to discuss how we can dismantle systemic racism through conservative/libertarian thinking and principles and actually use *gasp* Capitalism as a tool to help people of color get ahead. 

White people are privileged in this country. Full Stop. People of Color are discriminated against in this country. Full Stop. It's time that we as conservatives get with the train before it leaves the station and we're relegated to a hopelessly irrelevant position of the past.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Or... hear me out... we as conservatives begin to make our case.

America is a nation infected by racism. This cannot be denied. Our government uses its authority to deprive constitutional liberties to people of color systematically. I could give you a list of every section of the constitution and how it's been perverted to deny liberty to underserved communities of color. Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem!

So how about we as Republicans stop whining about how black people are taking a stand against the systematic murder and oppression of their people and start recognizing it is the same federal government we all dislike and want to shrink that is the root of systemic racism! 

Republicans and conservatives need to realize that our ideology isn't just for white people and that people of color face serious adversity and systematic discrimination in our nation. It all boils down to expanded government power. The remedies to all of our woes can be found in the Constitution. And I'd be happy to discuss how we can dismantle systemic racism through conservative/libertarian thinking and principles and actually use *gasp* Capitalism as a tool to help people of color get ahead. 

White people are privileged in this country. Full Stop. People of Color are discriminated against in this country. Full Stop. It's time that we as conservatives get with the train before it leaves the station and we're relegated to a hopelessly irrelevant position of the past.

👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are two of Kendi's thoughts on the 2000 and 2004 election in which he believes voter suppression resulted in Democratic losses in the EC. He doesn't mention Trump's victory, and likely thinks the same may have occurred in WI, MI, PA, and FL --- all which were closer than the 2004 Ohio margin, I believe. 

  • 2000:
    • GW Bush won Florida against Gore by 537 votes. Florida, governed by Bush's brother, purged 58,000 voted by alleged felons. Blacks were 11% of Florida's registered voters but 44% of those on the purged list. In all rejected ballots in Florida, Blacks were 10x more likely to have their ballot rejected. In all, 179,855 ballots were invalidated in Florida. 
  • 2004:
    • In 2004, GW Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes. Ohio opted to only accept voter registration on expensive 80 pound stock paper, a sly technique to exclude newly registering voters, most of which were black. Ohio falsely told former prisoners that they could not vote. County boards allocated fewer voting machines in heavily Democratic cities. Black Ohio voters waited 52 minutes to vote, while Whites waited 18 minutes to vote when at the polls. There were much more registered voters that walked away before voting than the number of Bush's margin of victory. 

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Here are two of Kendi's thoughts on the 2000 and 2004 election in which he believes voter suppression resulted in Democratic losses in the EC. He doesn't mention Trump's victory, and likely thinks the same may have occurred in WI, MI, PA, and FL --- all which were closer than the 2004 Ohio margin, I believe. 

  • 2000:
    • GW Bush won Florida against Gore by 537 votes. Florida, governed by Bush's brother, purged 58,000 voted by alleged felons. Blacks were 11% of Florida's registered voters but 44% of those on the purged list. In all rejected ballots in Florida, Blacks were 10x more likely to have their ballot rejected. In all, 179,855 ballots were invalidated in Florida. 

 

Re: Florida -- were they felons, or not?  It says alleged, but surely over the past 20 years we've had the opportunity to figure out whether they were actually convicted of crimes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Re: Florida -- were they felons, or not?  It says alleged, but surely over the past 20 years we've had the opportunity to figure out whether they were actually convicted of crimes?

Are you a proponent of people being stripped of the vote permanently and irrevocably for being convicted of a felony or worse crime, even after incarceration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Re: Florida -- were they felons, or not?  It says alleged, but surely over the past 20 years we've had the opportunity to figure out whether they were actually convicted of crimes?

https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/florida-voters-mistakenly-purged-in-2000/1235456/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Are you a proponent of people being stripped of the vote permanently and irrevocably for being convicted of a felony or worse crime, even after incarceration?

My own feelings are a separate issue (which I will address), but the idea that Jeb purged 58,000 records of "alleged" felons calls into question whether it was legal to do so or not.  

From 1838 - 2018, felons did not have the right to vote in Florida.  So...assuming they were indeed actual felons...Governor Bush was upholding state law that had been enforced for more than 150 years.

Now, if they weren't actually felons?  Then he was definitely in the wrong.  That's why I questioned whether they were actually felons (in which case, Jeb was following the law) or not felons (in which case, Jeb was breaking it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Interesting!  Looks like out of the 58,000 removed, 108 were not felons at all and approximately 1,000 were indeed felons...but that their felonies were from other states and therefore by law they should still have been allowed to vote in Florida.

As the 2000 election was decided by about 500 Florida voters, that could indeed have potentially swung things.

On the other hand, allowing 57,000 people to vote when they were forbidden by law from doing so also would have swung the election, illegally (at the time.  That law was dropped in 2018).

I've been asked for my own thoughts on the topic:  As a general principle, yes, I am ok with felons being denied the right to vote.  However, I would want more clarity on how exactly we are defining felon, which crimes, etc.  Ideally, I would want the voting ban to be limited to just our worst felons, and with zero errors.  I am aware that that is certainly not the reality right now, and is probably not achievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I've been asked for my own thoughts on the topic:  As a general principle, yes, I am ok with felons being denied the right to vote.  However, I would want more clarity on how exactly we are defining felon, which crimes, etc.  Ideally, I would want the voting ban to be limited to just our worst felons, and with zero errors.  I am aware that that is certainly not the reality right now, and is probably not achievable.

There's also the fact that among the very worst criminals in the nation get away Scott free with their crimes, and are never even indicted - or realistically indictable - put de facto, and by fiat of political power and nepotism, alone, completely above the law of the common person. An issue I know you're very prickly about even acknowledging, but is nonetheless there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Patine said:

There's also the fact that among the very worst criminals in the nation get away Scott free with their crimes, and are never even indicted - or realistically indictable - put de facto, and by fiat of political power and nepotism, alone, completely above the law of the common person. An issue I know you're very prickly about even acknowledging, but is nonetheless there...

I don’t know why you’d assume that I’m prickly about acknowledging the fact that guilty people get away with committing crimes.  I agree entirely.

It is true that your threshold for “crime” is sometimes different than mine, such as your belief that literally every US President was a war criminal.

But as a basic statement, I agree entirely that guilty people get away with crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I don’t know why you’d assume that I’m prickly about acknowledging the fact that guilty people get away with committing crimes.  I agree entirely.

It is true that your threshold for “crime” is sometimes different than mine, such as your belief that literally every US President was a war criminal.

But as a basic statement, I agree entirely that guilty people get away with crimes.

I don't believe that EVERY U.S. President is literally a war criminal, or a traitor by Unconstitutional legislation and seditious activity to their nation. But, you seem to believe that such a crime is not APPLICABLE or POSSIBLE to legitimately be laid upon a U.S. President - that U.S. Presidents are, by nature, not capable of legally being war criminals or traitors by the sort of legislation and activity involved domestically in those affairs - or at least you've never been willing to admit a U.S. President as guilty of such crimes, or the belief they can even be legitimately indictable for such crimes. Even the very possibility is dismissed off-hand by you. You seem to view them, in that regard, as "legally inviolable," in seems, like a monarch - but the U.S. is supposed to be a republic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't believe that EVERY U.S. President is literally a war criminal, or a traitor by Unconstitutional legislation and seditious activity to their nation. But, you seem to believe that such a crime is not APPLICABLE or POSSIBLE to legitimately be laid upon a U.S. President - that U.S. Presidents are, by nature, not capable of legally being war criminals or traitors by the sort of legislation and activity involved domestically in those affairs - or at least you've never been willing to admit a U.S. President as guilty of such crimes, or the belief they can even be legitimately indictable for such crimes. Even the very possibility is dismissed off-hand by you. You seem to view them, in that regard, as "legally inviolable," in seems, like a monarch - but the U.S. is supposed to be a republic.

So, I recalled that we did have this conversation about whether every President is a war criminal before, so I went looking for it.

Fun fact: in the history of this forum, the exact phrase "war criminal", has only been mentioned 36 times.

24 were in your own posts.  

7 were responses to your own posts.

And most of the remaining 5 posts were in the role-playing thread.  ;c)

By the way, I did find the post I was looking for.  The search phrase turned out to be "war crimes", not "war criminal."  But you're right -- you didn't apply that phrase to "every" President.

It was just every president in the past 87 years.

On 10/6/2019 at 1:51 AM, Patine said:

Every U.S. President after Herbert Hoover is actually indictable for war crimes and violations of the U.S. Constitution, frankly. Bush was just more aggregiouss and blatant than the others in that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Patine said:

But, you seem to believe that such a crime is not APPLICABLE or POSSIBLE to legitimately be laid upon a U.S. President - that U.S. Presidents are, by nature, not capable of legally being war criminals or traitors by the sort of legislation and activity involved domestically in those affairs - 

Absolutely not true.  I have said all along that Trump is committing an endless list of crimes, and that he will continue to do so for as long as we continue to allow him.

I just don't agree that every President in the past 87 years is a criminal, and therefore in your mind I am incapable of thinking anyone is a criminal.

There's actually a lot of ground to cover between "zero" and "87".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Absolutely not true.  I have said all along that Trump is committing an endless list of crimes, and that he will continue to do so for as long as we continue to allow him.

I just don't agree that every President in the past 87 years is a criminal, and therefore in your mind I am incapable of thinking anyone is a criminal.

There's actually a lot of ground to cover between "zero" and "87".  

Thanking for bringing up the Trump thing. Graft and corruption, which is the core of the Ukraine issue he was attempted to be impeached for, is another very serious issue of high crimes commonly committed by elected and appointed Federal political figures intolerably frequently, and also, like the crimes I'd mentioned earlier, but also involving powerful plutocrats who are also fully criminally complicant in these affairs. The criminal acts committed by many (not all, but many) elected and appointed U.S. government officials, as well as the unaccountable terrorist organizations and secret police agencies that are the "alphabet soup agencies," and the corrupt plutocrats who buy government policy and bribe politicians to ignore their own constituents for corporate and moneyed special interest group desires instead, have stacked up so immensely high, that too continue with "business as usual," would a complete and utter moral failure, a total abdication of any sense of justice at all, and a betrayal of the voters and taxpayers who are constantly lied to, kept seditious secrets from, and have the trust they put in their elected officials violated and day out. The government figures, plutocrats, and "alphabet soup," vile criminals on the government (and, through seditious hiding from scrutiny and consultation from them) the taxpayers', payroll, should be - not all summarily hung, like you seem to fear me believing - but having full, open, and public investigations done - with all evidence, including documents "classified for national security purposes," and unlimited (as far as is enforceable) subpoena powers, and if wrongdoings have strong evidence, trial, and, if guilt is determined, appropriate punishment to the caliber of the crime - with no political or nepotistic meddling, no punches pulled or "exemptions," conjured or contrived, and NO PARDONS. That is my solution. I do not, however, advocate the "hang 'em high on suspicion alone," thing you actually seem to accuse me of. But there still would be a LOT of people hanging, or spending life in prison, if not nearly everyone, after such a process was indeed done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Fun fact: in the history of this forum, the exact phrase "war criminal", has only been mentioned 36 times.

24 were in your own posts.  

7 were responses to your own posts.

And most of the remaining 5 posts were in the role-playing thread.  ;c)

By the way, I did find the post I was looking for.  The search phrase turned out to be "war crimes", not "war criminal."  But you're right -- you didn't apply that phrase to "every" President.

It was just every president in the past 87 years.

I've also noticed that you, and a couple of other posters here, and a number on a few other forums (like CivFanatics) have attempted several times the highly flawed, dubious, clumsy, and very rhetorically insubstantial tactic of saying my repetition of the same message you find contentious or distasteful somehow irrelevates or diminishes any validity or truth that may be behind it. I don't know where you got the idea that was a sound line of reasoning, but it really just makes you look a fool, and one who really has no credible argument against the point being made, but is attempting a flimsy diversionary tactic, instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Patine said:

Thanking for bringing up the Trump thing. Graft and corruption, which is the core of the Ukraine issue he was attempted to be impeached for, is another very serious issue of high crimes commonly committed by elected and appointed Federal political figures intolerably frequently, and also, like the crimes I'd mentioned earlier, but also involving powerful plutocrats who are also fully criminally complicant in these affairs. The criminal acts committed by many (not all, but many) elected and appointed U.S. government officials, as well as the unaccountable terrorist organizations and secret police agencies that are the "alphabet soup agencies," and the corrupt plutocrats who buy government policy and bribe politicians to ignore their own constituents for corporate and moneyed special interest group desires instead, have stacked up so immensely high, that too continue with "business as usual," would a complete and utter moral failure, a total abdication of any sense of justice at all, and a betrayal of the voters and taxpayers who are constantly lied to, kept seditious secrets from, and have the trust they put in their elected officials violated and day out. The government figures, plutocrats, and "alphabet soup," vile criminals on the government (and, through seditious hiding from scrutiny and consultation from them) the taxpayers', payroll, should be - not all summarily hung, like you seem to fear me believing - but having full, open, and public investigations done - with all evidence, including documents "classified for national security purposes," and unlimited (as far as is enforceable) subpoena powers, and if wrongdoings have strong evidence, trial, and, if guilt is determined, appropriate punishment to the caliber of the crime - with no political or nepotistic meddling, no punches pulled or "exemptions," conjured or contrived, and NO PARDONS. That is my solution. I do not, however, advocate the "hang 'em high on suspicion alone," thing you actually seem to accuse me of. But there still would be a LOT of people hanging, or spending life in prison, if not nearly everyone, after such a process was indeed done.

One of these sentences has 59 words.
 

It is immediately followed by a sentence that has 119 words.

I can’t read this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

One of these sentences has 59 words.
 

It is immediately followed by a sentence that has 119 words.

I can’t read this.

I will reword this so it's more clear tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/13/2020 at 3:09 AM, CPE said:

Obviously not, but there will be lasting effects from these riots.  When business owners leave, and the money stops coming in, that is when things will truly start getting rough.

A plague will do that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wiw said:

A plague will do that too.

No doubt that COVID-19 is impacting businesses hard, particularly MSME (Micro Small and Medium Enterprises) ones who may have a hard time accessing capital to reopen/maintain operations.  Key difference though from my perspective : nobody necessarily caused COVID-19 (although I have heard that evidence does exist on the Dark Web proving that it was released from the bioweapons lab in Wuhan, I haven't checked personally), but people made the deliberate choice to loot/vandalize/destroy businesses in the areas affected.  When it comes to reopening, it will definitely play a role in helping the owners to make a decision.

Let me put it this way, why spend thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of dollars to reinvest into a community for the possibility of them looting and burning it down in the near future again?  I guess everyone's perspective on the issue is different depending on their situation in life, I tend to view things from a more business-oriented point of view personally.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...