USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Black candidates can win in traditionally racists areas these days. Yes, the world does have that lack of overt racism. It's been replaced by less open, more nefarious forms of racism. That's not to say that racism doesn't exist - quite the opposite.
Sure, of course there are. But those people are no longer a significant barrier to black people running for office in state-wide races.
With all due respect, I think you may be taking the extreme news stories you read typical of the US. In my experience, overt racism is just as socially acceptable as pissing in public. This is over 4 decades, and all over the US. That's why it makes the news when it does happen.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
I am sorry to see how you think I gather my information or like to say how I do that. Perhaps you do not like what I say? But that doesn't mean that my impressions are not true, or based on wrong information.
I guess the word hate is something that puts you on the edge of your seats. Let me decribe it in a different way.
I think that a lot of Americans do not care that their justice system is unfair towards black people. If more people would really care, it would show at some point. I do not need extreme news stories to know what the problems are. There's all kinds of research out there. They keep repeating the same problems.
Eat this, but after a good breakfast, and play some Maiden, or do anything else to become not too angry with me posting it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States_criminal_justice_system
Not everything on Wiki is (100%) true, and no, I do not only have all my info from wiki.
This "just" presents some of the problems that make me pessimistic.
I guess the word hate is something that puts you on the edge of your seats. Let me decribe it in a different way.
I think that a lot of Americans do not care that their justice system is unfair towards black people. If more people would really care, it would show at some point. I do not need extreme news stories to know what the problems are. There's all kinds of research out there. They keep repeating the same problems.
Eat this, but after a good breakfast, and play some Maiden, or do anything else to become not too angry with me posting it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States_criminal_justice_system
Not everything on Wiki is (100%) true, and no, I do not only have all my info from wiki.
This "just" presents some of the problems that make me pessimistic.
Last edited:
You really missed the point there, didn't you?
A lot of Americans have lives and families and jobs, and can't afford to spend their time crusading for justice. I don't see you crusading for gay rights, so is it fair to assume you don't care for gay people?
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
It is a bit naive to think this is a one party problem. This wave of mass incarcerations started in mid 1994, passed by a Dem Congress (voted yes by most every black member of Congress) and signed by Clinton .. who pushed for it. A few recent bills have passed in the current Congress (GOP controlled) and signed by Obama .. who to his credit has finally taken some steps through executive orders. You have a state like Texas that is reducing its prison population (GOP controlled) and a state like California that is struggling to (Dem controlled, though the main problem there is the guards union sues every time this comes up and has support in the state legislature)
The problem now stems from a few (probably good meaning) bills designed to fight crime, but like most everything government does, they fucked it up beyond belief and will take a long time to fix, but at least it is trending in a good way ...and there is some bi-partisan consensus on this needing to be fixed. The question is, what will their fix fuck up versus looking at the core issues .. schools suck despite spending tons of money on them, stuff that is illegal should be legal, and the welfare system is a convoluted mess that teaches people how to work through the system instead of getting out of it (see also .. schools sucks)
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
The problem are the laws on the books ... politics are really the only option.
For example, drug courts (though the real solution is just to legalize at least some drugs), but these are better than what was there before
http://www.texasobserver.org/2636-t...treatment-and-out-of-jail-if-judges-let-them/
Prisons are needed and some people belong in them (murders, rapists, generally violent people) ... not some guy/girl who wants to get high
For example, drug courts (though the real solution is just to legalize at least some drugs), but these are better than what was there before
http://www.texasobserver.org/2636-t...treatment-and-out-of-jail-if-judges-let-them/
Prisons are needed and some people belong in them (murders, rapists, generally violent people) ... not some guy/girl who wants to get high
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Racism is indeed widespread in it's latent forms. A lot of small judgements in everyday situations are based on the skin colour. I'm not talking America, this is worldwide. It really gets to you when you start traveling to weird places that aren't exactly on the tourism world map. Most of the people are going to either treat a white European type with too much courtesy or have this 'fuck off' attitude.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
From what I've read, the problems come after the prison - somebody gets caught with weed and/or three strikes thing gets activated and you basically end up for nothing in a jail. It might not last long, you won't probably get spooned or overworked to death. The problems appear after you've been set free. Getting a job, etc. You're an ex con and it remains forever.
If too many people get locked up for non violent things then something should obviously be decriminalized.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Exactly right. That is where the article I posted about drug courts is a decent step in the right direction. Keeping people out of jail for non violent drug offenses (which should not be illegal to start with, but that is another story). Being able to expunge records for non-violent offenses is another thing and is a big problem as well. Especially when the job market is tight, people will hire people without criminal records over those with criminal records. There are legit concerns with employers that they will be sued out of existence if they hire ex-cons who then commit another crime ad harm someone. You really could go on and on about this, but it is another example where the government (led by the Feds) started several "Wars on X (drugs, crime, sex offenders, etc) and went way off the rails and ended up doing more harm than good.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
At the moment, (also) in the USA there is great resistance against taking refugees from Syria. Let's go back in time and then return to the now again...
What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...efugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/?tid=sm_fb
The results of the poll illustrated above by the useful Twitter account @HistOpinion were published in the pages of Fortune magazine in July 1938. Fewer than 5 percent of Americans surveyed at the time believed that the United States should raise its immigration quotas or encourage political refugees fleeing fascist states in Europe — the vast majority of whom were Jewish — to voyage across the Atlantic. Two-thirds of the respondents agreed with the proposition that "we should try to keep them out."
To be sure, the United States was emerging from the Great Depression, hardly a climate in which ordinary folks would welcome immigrants and economic competition. The events of Kristallnacht — a wave of anti-Jewish pogroms in areas controlled by the Nazis — had yet to take place. And the poll's use of the term "political refugees" could have conjured in the minds of the American public images of communists, anarchists and other perceived ideological threats.
But look at the next chart, also tweeted by @HistOpinion. Two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup’s American Institute of Public Opinion in January 1939 — well after the events of Kristallnacht — said they would not take in 10,000 German Jewish refugee children.
[A couple of caveats: Polling in this period, including Gallup surveys, was not as scientifically rigorous as it later became. Also, respondents may not necessarily have had a particular bias against Jewish refugees. A separate portion of Gallup respondents were asked a nearly identical question which did not describe refugees as Jewish. Support for accepting refugees was slightly lower than when they were described as mostly Jewish.]
As WorldViews detailed earlier this year, most Western countries regarded the plight of Jewish refugees with skepticism or unveiled bigotry (and sympathy followed only wider knowledge of the monstrous slaughters of the Holocaust):
No matter the alarming rhetoric of [Adolf] Hitler's fascist state — and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others — popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.
"Of all the groups in the 20th century," write the authors of the 1999 book "Refugees in an Age of Genocide," "refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as 'genuine,' but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy."
It's worth remembering this mood when thinking about the current moment, in which the United States is once more in the throes of a debate over letting in refugees. Ever since Friday's terror attacks in Paris, the Republicans, led by their presidential candidates, have sounded the alarm over the threat of jihadist infiltration from Syria — even though it now appears that every single identified assailant in the Paris siege was a European national.
[Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism]
The Republicans have signaled their intent to stop Syrian refugee arrivals, or at least accept only non-Muslim Syrians.
GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie of New Jersey was one of the many governors who said Monday that they would oppose settling Syrian refugees in their states; Christie insisted that he would not permit even a "3-year-old orphan's" entry.
Today's 3-year-old Syrian orphan, it seems, is 1939's German Jewish child.
[5 stories you should read to really understand the Islamic State]
Of course, there are huge historical and contextual differences between then and now. But, as Post columnist Dana Milbank notes, it is hard to ignore the echoes of the past when faced with the "xenophobic bidding war" of the present:
"This growing cry to turn away people fleeing for their lives brings to mind the SS St. Louis, the ship of Jewish refugees turned away from Florida in 1939," Milbank writes. "It’s perhaps the ugliest moment in a primary fight that has been sullied by bigotry from the start. It’s no exaggeration to call this un-American."
What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...efugees-on-the-eve-of-world-war-ii/?tid=sm_fb
The results of the poll illustrated above by the useful Twitter account @HistOpinion were published in the pages of Fortune magazine in July 1938. Fewer than 5 percent of Americans surveyed at the time believed that the United States should raise its immigration quotas or encourage political refugees fleeing fascist states in Europe — the vast majority of whom were Jewish — to voyage across the Atlantic. Two-thirds of the respondents agreed with the proposition that "we should try to keep them out."
To be sure, the United States was emerging from the Great Depression, hardly a climate in which ordinary folks would welcome immigrants and economic competition. The events of Kristallnacht — a wave of anti-Jewish pogroms in areas controlled by the Nazis — had yet to take place. And the poll's use of the term "political refugees" could have conjured in the minds of the American public images of communists, anarchists and other perceived ideological threats.
But look at the next chart, also tweeted by @HistOpinion. Two-thirds of Americans polled by Gallup’s American Institute of Public Opinion in January 1939 — well after the events of Kristallnacht — said they would not take in 10,000 German Jewish refugee children.
[A couple of caveats: Polling in this period, including Gallup surveys, was not as scientifically rigorous as it later became. Also, respondents may not necessarily have had a particular bias against Jewish refugees. A separate portion of Gallup respondents were asked a nearly identical question which did not describe refugees as Jewish. Support for accepting refugees was slightly lower than when they were described as mostly Jewish.]
As WorldViews detailed earlier this year, most Western countries regarded the plight of Jewish refugees with skepticism or unveiled bigotry (and sympathy followed only wider knowledge of the monstrous slaughters of the Holocaust):
No matter the alarming rhetoric of [Adolf] Hitler's fascist state — and the growing acts of violence against Jews and others — popular sentiment in Western Europe and the United States was largely indifferent to the plight of German Jews.
"Of all the groups in the 20th century," write the authors of the 1999 book "Refugees in an Age of Genocide," "refugees from Nazism are now widely and popularly perceived as 'genuine,' but at the time German, Austrian and Czechoslovakian Jews were treated with ambivalence and outright hostility as well as sympathy."
It's worth remembering this mood when thinking about the current moment, in which the United States is once more in the throes of a debate over letting in refugees. Ever since Friday's terror attacks in Paris, the Republicans, led by their presidential candidates, have sounded the alarm over the threat of jihadist infiltration from Syria — even though it now appears that every single identified assailant in the Paris siege was a European national.
[Europe’s fear of Muslim refugees echoes rhetoric of 1930s anti-Semitism]
The Republicans have signaled their intent to stop Syrian refugee arrivals, or at least accept only non-Muslim Syrians.
GOP presidential candidate Chris Christie of New Jersey was one of the many governors who said Monday that they would oppose settling Syrian refugees in their states; Christie insisted that he would not permit even a "3-year-old orphan's" entry.
Today's 3-year-old Syrian orphan, it seems, is 1939's German Jewish child.
[5 stories you should read to really understand the Islamic State]
Of course, there are huge historical and contextual differences between then and now. But, as Post columnist Dana Milbank notes, it is hard to ignore the echoes of the past when faced with the "xenophobic bidding war" of the present:
"This growing cry to turn away people fleeing for their lives brings to mind the SS St. Louis, the ship of Jewish refugees turned away from Florida in 1939," Milbank writes. "It’s perhaps the ugliest moment in a primary fight that has been sullied by bigotry from the start. It’s no exaggeration to call this un-American."
Last edited:
Bobby Jindal is out. Most people don't notice.
Donald Trump, after a week losing to Carson, is back in the lead, and it's getting even bigger. I still don't think he's the nominee, but I'm starting to wonder if he won't make it close.
Donald Trump, after a week losing to Carson, is back in the lead, and it's getting even bigger. I still don't think he's the nominee, but I'm starting to wonder if he won't make it close.
IIRC Romney didn't emerge until late spring 4 years ago. People like Santorum and Gingrich had a month apiece in the lead before they self-destructed. I've been expecting a similar spectacle this time, but Trump didn't get the menu about self-destruction.
If Trump does self-destruct, I expect a rapid succession of a few names at top of the polls before the eventual nominee takes over, like last time. But if Trump actually starts winning primaries next year, all bets are off. It's been a very long time since a US major party had a candidate with zero political experience. This could go anywhere.
If Trump does self-destruct, I expect a rapid succession of a few names at top of the polls before the eventual nominee takes over, like last time. But if Trump actually starts winning primaries next year, all bets are off. It's been a very long time since a US major party had a candidate with zero political experience. This could go anywhere.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
We had close to zero in 2008
But, it is still early, people (outside of the early primary states) generally do not zero in until the early primaries start