Jump to content
270soft Forum

servo75

Members
  • Content Count

    801
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by servo75

  1. I would not have thought Tom Cotton. I really don't know enough about how he stands on certain issues. For me, a Mike Lee or Rand Paul is a much safer bet. As far as being "pro" or "anti" Trump, I think that debate is overrated. Republican Senators are obviously not obligated to vote with a Republican President. But I will draw a distinction between a John McCain or Mitt Romney, who seems to vote "anti-Trump" out of spite, and a Lee or Paul, who voted against the using emergency funds for the wall, but they did so I think out of conviction, that such spending would be unconstitutional, so I do
  2. I would push back on Lindsey Graham being "pro-Trump." He may be, on the surface, but he hasn't exactly been doing much in terms of the FISAgate investigation in the Senate. Kind of slow-walking that part. I think he's more like McCain, just not vocal about it. He kind of says the right things, loved his speech during the Kavanaugh confirmation, but he doesn't really back up his words with actions.
  3. And he could possibly actually win. This is why I titled the poll "if you could hand pick." I would be tied between Cruz and Paul but unfortunately I don't think either of them are electable right now.
  4. All of which you have failed to explain. GOOD BYE.
  5. I'm sorry then, I guess there's no common ground here if that's where we're starting. I think this is your own need to consistently insult Trump talking. I have said time and again I don't think the man's perfect. I CARRY WATER FOR NO ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I will have a polite conversation all day if we can at least start from a point of reason, even if we disagree. I thought we could find some common ground, but it's clear to me that you are not thinking about this rationally. I think when it comes to Trump, there's something else going on, you just have this visceral and irrational hatred of th
  6. Note that Trump is not in this poll because we're talking about the NEXT President. I also leave open-ended whether this is Trump's successor in 2024 or replacement in 2020.
  7. I really have no idea what your first paragraph is about. As for your second point - agreed, but my comment about "are you sure you're a conservative" was not a reference to Trump, at least not a direct one. @Reagan04 by saying Trump is the 3rd worst, is also putting Trump ahead of FDR, Obama, Wilson, and Lyndon Johnson. Assuming that conservatism would be at least a significant part of his equation, I find a hard time believing those four would fit that mold.
  8. Behind FDR, behind Woodrow Wilson, Nixon, Obama, Lyndon Johnson... are you sure you're a conservative? I put Trump ahead of both, but it's only because I think Buchanan and Johnson are very much underrated.
  9. I have a lot of problems with the DEA, and with our drug laws. And I do agree that at first they may have had racist intent. The word "marijuana" was an invention to make the drug seem "more Mexican" to drive public opinion against it. But that was then, this is 2020. Btw, I'm against ALL drug raids and ALL incarceration for minor felonies. As for POC being arrested for cannabis use (which let me be clear, NO ONE should be arrested for) more than whites, I'd like to see the statistics on that, and the breakdown of the crimes being arrested for. It's very easy to point to higher arrest rates fo
  10. No. Racism did not end in 1968 and that was never my claim. When people say "institutional" and "systemic" they need to provide an institution or a system that endorses racism DE JURE.
  11. I'll say it once more. Provide me the name of a system or institution that is racist in its intent and I'll take everything back. If not we're done here.
  12. De jure and institutional are practically the same thing. De facto is not law. De facto therefore cannot be institutional or systemic. There, you have my answer. Like it, or don't like it. But this conversation is concluded as far as I'm concerned. I've stated my case, and I'm far too busy to go in circles or down unnecessary rabbit holes. I've said when I came back to the forum that I would avoid such things, and I've said far too much on the subject already. I will debate no further unless provided with a new fact or argument. This is pointless. One more thing, if you're going to i
  13. The argument has been about systemic racism. Talk about ignoring questions, I keep asking for a specific law with racial intent as it's intended purpose and no one can provide an answer. So the matter is closed as far as I'm concerned. All this stuff about de jure and de facto, state your reason for asking this or what difference it makes and we can talk further. Otherwise I will not go around in circles. If you're going to call me racially ignorant, antiquted and provincial, you might want to at least attempt to give some examples and back yourself up.
  14. Don't tell me what I do and do not understand. What is the relevance of the question?
  15. Key words here are "were" and "spread out over 100 years." Yes there's a generational wealth gap, we should do all we can to help enable people of minority races, but what racist government policies existed in 1999? What is preventing minorities TODAY, in the year 2020, from achieving just as much as whites? What about Asians, they are a minority and they make more and have more success even than whites?? We can't do anything about the past, but the best we can do is create equal opportunity NOW, and we've done a pretty good job in doing that. Again I stand by my original point - forcing equit
  16. That is a pretty bold statement you're making. Please show me a policy that "sabotages ANY chance of economic progress among communities of color." If anything, it's the opposite. Colleges and universities and "woke" companies are falling all over themselves to hire minorities. Affirmative action is still a thing (though it shouldn't be). I'm sorry but if you're going to claim that there's some nebulous "system" out there that confers privilege among one racial group and oppression for another, you ought to at least be able to show us what it is. And a disparate impact is not enough, it has to
  17. But the problem is you can't force-feed equality. If for WHATEVER reason black families are not as qualified for loans than others, you have to look at the reasons for those disqualifications, not paper over the cracks with "equity" legislation. The Clinton policies like the Community "Re-investment" Act (whenever a politician uses the word "invest," hold on to your wallets) forced banks to make loans to people who were less qualified just to achieve some racial balance, are thus primarily responsible for the housing bubble of the early 2000s and at least partly responsible for the Great Reces
  18. Yikes? BLM is like two year olds throwing a tantrum in a store. If you keep coddling them and giving toys to get them to be quiet, it becomes learned behavior when they're adults and don't get their way, all they have to do is set some fires and loot some stores and... "instant justice" (in some way that I haven't been able to figure out). This has been the result of over-coddling of this millenial and gen-Z generations. They're not used to being told "no." So if you're white and you keep "standing with a terrorist group that has nothing at all to do with black lives" you are enabling their be
  19. I partially agree with you in that the government causes more problems than it solves. Even initiatives that were supposed to help, like the so-called "Great Society" did much more harm than good. What George W. Bush called the soft bigotry of low expectations is a very real thing. But if you're going to claim that there's systemic racism, or more "systematic murder and oppression"... MURDER?? I assume you don't mean in 1850 or 1955, but in 2020? I frankly need to see evidence of that, and anything short of a law starting with "Henceforth all black Americans shall..." will not suffice. I conti
  20. Agreed. Take Question #4 for example: ""Will the United States ever have approximate equality/equity among different races, ethnicities, gender, etc.?" The truth is we ALREADY have EXACT equality among all those groups. Equity? No. Government cannot grant equity and equality. The only way to force equal outcomes is to create unequal opportunities. But my primary point here is the fact that this wasn't even an OPTION in the poll, that the thought that we have racial equality isn't even worthy of an option, tells me that this is slanted to get an expected result, or that we're somehow expec
  21. Maybe blacks should commit fewer felonies. An isolated statistic which out of context tells us nothing. Why were they more likely to have their vote rejected? I need much more information than this. Bad on them, but what does that have to do with blacks? What, were there different lines segregated by race? Surely, there must have been SOME whites in the 52 minute line and SOME blacks in the 18 minute line. A truly institutionalized racism would have had the lines LITERALLY segregated. Again you have shown me nothing to prove that any of this is by
  22. If I'm wrong about that statement, there's a very easy way to prove me wrong. All you have to do is show me an official law or policy in any major United States jurisdiction (i.e. an "institution") that has a disproportionate effect of people based on their race, not as some side effect stemming from cultural differences, but as it's sole and intended purpose. For example, a law saying that blacks must sit at the back of city buses. When you say "systemic" you're talking about system-wide, ingrained into our very society, and you said yourself that racism in the modern U.S. is overblown. When
  23. 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
  24. The question is this: Will Trump GAIN more Hispanic voters with this executive order than he LOSES among his die-hard "build the wall" base? I cannot answer that. I don't think the latter loss will be very big, because one thing about Trump supporters, they're not single-issue voters (well he'll probably lose Ann Coulter but that's no big loss). So if there's more than a couple percentage point gain among Hispanics, I think it will prove to be a good decision. Time will tell, we may find out in the polls in upcoming weeks.
  25. Not quite sure what you mean by that...
×
×
  • Create New...