Democrats.. liars or did they see something else?

[QMany]

2 hours ago, Bornhusker said:

Obama was in charge and his administration fostered racial divide, not much of a difference, imo.

 

of course you disagree..

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/13/how-obama-left-us-more-racially-divided-than-ever/

 

Fine, I will try not to be entirely dismissive of The Federalist and respond to the quoted article. But I will not entertain this again if you come back with Breitbart drivel or the like.

 

Quote

A small sampling of the ways he has done this are: 

 

accusing whites of “white privilege,”which means having an unfair advantage due to being white, an advantage built upon oppressing minorities...

 

It appears that link is broke and certainly doesn't direct me to any quote from Obama accusing whites of "white privilege." A quick Google search finds no such quotes. If he did recite this phrase, I'd like to hear the context.

 

Quote

A small sampling of the ways he has done this are: 

 

accusing the police and justice system at large of racism...

 

That representation was in response to Obama's speech regarding police shootings:

Quote

 

"There is no contradiction between us supporting law enforcement, making sure they have the equipment they need, making sure they’re collective bargaining rights are recognized, making sure they’re adequately staffed, making sure that they are respected, making sure that their families are supported. And also saying that there are problems across our criminal justice system. There are biases, some conscious and unconscious that have to be rooted out. That’s not an attack on law enforcement. That is reflective of the values that the vast majority of law enforcement bring to the job.

 

But I repeat, if communities are mistrustful of the police, that makes those law enforcement officers who are doing a great job, and are doing the right thing, it makes their lives harder. So, when people say ‘black lives matter,’ it doesn’t mean ‘blue lives’ don’t matter, it just means all lives matter. But right now, the big concern is the fact that data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents."

 

 

I thought that was an eloquent statement that showed the utmost respect and support for law enforcement but did not turn a blind eye to "problems across the criminal justice system." There are plenty of examples of systemic racism within police departments and the courts. For context, Michael Brown, Freddy Gray, and Tamir Rice died around this time.

• In Ferguson, the Justice Department found "direct evidence of racial bias and stereotyping about African Americans by certain Ferguson police and municipal court officials." SOURCE
• In Baltimore, the City Police Department (BPD) "engage[d] in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution as well as federal anti-discrimination laws.  BPD makes stops, searches and arrests without the required justification; uses enforcement strategies that unlawfully subject African Americans to disproportionate rates of stops, searches and arrests; uses excessive force; and retaliates against individuals for their constitutionally-protected expression.  The pattern or practice results from systemic deficiencies that have persisted within BPD for many years and has exacerbated community distrust of the police, particularly in the African-American community." SOURCE
• In Cleveland, the Police Department exhibited a "pattern or practice of using unreasonable force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, including the unnecessary and excessive use of deadly force, including shootings and head strikes with impact weapons." SOURCE

Quote

A small sampling of the ways he has done this are: 

 

blaming pay differences between men and women on discrimination...

 

Are you disputing the facts that led to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act signing? And how exactly is believing women should be paid the same as a man for the same work in any way similar to Donald Trump's racist actions?  

 

Quote

A small sampling of the ways he has done this are:

 

casting Islamic radicalism as a legitimate response to discrimination (ostensibly by white Christians).

 

The article in support for this representation is so circular and convoluted, I'm having trouble following and seeing how it supports this position. It does thoroughly attack Don Lemon, "left-wingers," and "The Left" and says nothing about white Christians.  

 

 

There, I've played your game. In that entire list, the one thing Obama directly did was the speech regarding police shootings, and I don't disagree with it at all. Like he encouraged, I support our law enforcement. But I also recognize it can have problems and won't ignore them.

 

Please never, EVER, try to analogize Trump's overtly racist actions to Obama again.

Edited January 15, 2018 by QMany

[TGHusker]

Unfortunately having blind loyalty to an R or to a D blinds us to some realities.  I think  Bornhusker has shown his blind loyalty by refusing to see Trump's remarks as anything but disgusting, repugnant and not worthy of the office he how holds. 

Back to the topic in hand - the duplicity of some Dems also amazes me.  The kind of "I was for ...(name the topic) before I was against it" kind of political double talk.    Republican leaders aren't immune to this same double talk.   Both parties will take advantage of double votes on a subject - one that they can show voters back home and the other in which they are given political cover.   They find ways to have it both ways.  I was a card carring Repub for most of my adult life, I'm glad now that I have no such loyalties - I don't have defend the ilk of a Trump nor do I have to close my ears to a reasonable argument from the other side.  My 'filter' will always be a conservative interpretation of the constitutional & conservative economics but I  know there are reasonable opinions on the other side.

[Guy Chamberlin]

In fairness to Bornhusker, the Democrats are indeed hypocritical and opportunistic on any number of issues.

 

Within the immigrant community, Barack Obama was known as the "deporter-in-chief" for the high number of deportations during his term. 

 

Funny part is, both sides refuse to give Obama credit/blame for the centrist nature of his policies. 

 

But the way it shakes out -- as already mentioned -- illegal immigration has been on the decline for a decade and is nowhere near the fire-breathing threat Trump makes it, and if you apply the actual cost-benefit analysis of a real businessman, the American economy benefits from these immigrants and would take a huge hit with mass deportations. Building a 2,000 mile border wall adds a layer of wild over-reaction  — it's almost literally insane. 

 

As for blaming Obama for fostering the racial divide: no. Don't go there. Pick your spots. This one will always lead back to America still being far more racist than anyone wanted to believe, a fact that came to light via cell-phone cameras and a black President. 

[funhusker]

9 hours ago, Bornhusker said:

 

Seriously, I mean no disrespect with this post, but I don't care if you respond or not.

I know you don't care, but I said I would so:

 

First of all, I mean what I said when no reasonable democrat has ever been okay with unchecked immigrants coming across the border. 

 

DACA:  Illegal immigration is a bigger issue than "jump the border, get arrested, and get deported".  It is a lot more nuanced than some people want to admit.  It involves a very large group of people that were here legally at one time but let papers expire, it involves people who crossed the desert, it involves some people who came on vacation and just never left.  With complex problems comes side effects that need to be dealt with humanely and intelligently.  

 

As far as "humane" as DACA is concerned: how can a person think it is acceptable to send an English speaking, American educated child back to a country that they've never been and possible have zero connections.  Especially knowing the country their being sent back to is war torn or in midst of an economic collapse.  But "laws are laws".....

 

But there is also financial gain for the Dreamers to stay.  They have jobs or they are going to school.  They are not causing legal problems.  They will have families who will grow up to create more workers.  Paul Ryan said a few months ago the the US is in desperate need for workers to fill the gaps of baby boomers.  These dreamers are more than qualified to help us with this problem.

 

Sanctuary Cities:  these aren't just local hang outs where illegal immigrants get to do whatever they want.  Most local law-enforcement officials (I won't say all) were angered when the possibility of sanctuary cities being taken away. The effect of losing this status would mean community members would fear coming forward as witnesses or reporting crimes.  Trump is very outspoken against MS13 and other gangs, this is good!  But, what he doesn't seem to understand is that people in the neighborhood are the #1 defense in deterring possible gang crimes.  MS13 and other gangs want witnesses to stay quiet and fear for the safety.  We just have to look at the communities in North Omaha for examples.  After shootings, people rally together and remind each other that we have to be willing to stand up and help the police.  Would you be willing to call the police if it meant your family would be deported?

 

"The Wall":  Moiraine covered this earlier I believe as politicians evolve over time.  And I think the definition of a wall can be different for individual politicians; even Trump has modified his "Wall" to fencing, natural obstacles and stronger security.  NPR did a series a couple years ago about how a wall would actually be more humane in some locations.  There are spots in the southwest without a barrier so it was a route used by coyotes.  The border patrol agents they interviewed said that they aren't looking to make arrests in this area, they were only collecting bodies of the elderly and children that couldn't make it through the desert.  They made their arrest in the nearest towns because the immigrants were so desperate for water and survival they would turn themselves in.

 

These are all issues for discussion, but if you don't care to I guess I'm fine with it.  Have a good night.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Building a 2,000 mile border wall adds a layer of wild over-reaction  — it's almost literally insane.

 

 

I don't know if the "almost" should be added there. I think you have to be insane to think it is worth the $. It does not even come close to being worth it, and in fact, there is a void that Mexican immigrants have been filling that nobody else was. I would wager that we've benefited from illegal immigrants more than we've been negatively affected.

[Guy Chamberlin]

10 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don't know if the "almost" should be added there. I think you have to be insane to think it is worth the $. It does not even come close to being worth it, and in fact, there is a void that Mexican immigrants have been filling that nobody else was. I would wager that we've benefited from illegal immigrants more than we've been negatively affected.

 

 

Fair enough. The border wall might qualify as insane strictly on engineering terms.

 

That's what any contractor not afraid to lose a multi-billion dollar sweetheart deal would tell you.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Maybe this is what frustrates me the most. The reasons for opposing Trump and the current GOP agenda are so anchored in common sense, verifiable facts, and basic human decency that I can't believe pragmatic good-hearted Nebraskans went for the billionaire New York con man.   

Edited January 16, 2018 by Guy Chamberlin

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Maybe this is what frustrates me the most. The reasons for opposing Trump and the current GOP agenda are so anchored in common sense, verifiable facts, and basic human decency that I can't believe pragmatic good-hearted Nebraskans went for the billionaire New York con man.   

 

 

They picked him over Clinton. That I have a little understanding for. His name was the only one on the ballot in the primary.

 

What I don't understand is continuing to defend and support him. There are hundreds of reasons why that makes no sense.

 

Just to name 1 - if Obama was ignoring the opinion of almost everyone about Russia and saying he believes Putin 'cause Putin said he's innocent, I'm 150% certain the Republicans would be having the biggest fit we've ever witnessed.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Moiraine

[funhusker]

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

They picked him over Clinton. That I have a little understanding for. His name was the only one on the ballot in the primary.

 

What I don't understand is continuing to defend and support him. There are hundreds of reasons why that makes no sense.

He had sewn up the primary by election day, but I was able to vote for Kasich.  Could have also voted for Cruz.  Nebraska had a chance to at least make a statement against Trump that wouldn't have cost him the election.  Instead, Nebraska Republicans "doubled down" on this clown.

Edited January 16, 2018 by funhusker

[Danny Bateman]

28 minutes ago, funhusker said:

He had sewn up the primary by election day, but I was able to vote for Kasich.  Could have also voted for Cruz.  Nebraska had a chance to at least make a statement against Trump that wouldn't have cost him the election.  Instead, Nebraska Republicans "doubled down" on this clown.

 

It should be noted that the Nebraska GOP spine was MIA & they decided to double down on the guy.

Ben Sasse tried to abstain from supporting the guy & a relative of Deb Fischer's (nephew?) started making calls in an attempt to punish Sasse if he didn't get on board. He tried to have a conscience & was threatened for it.

 

I'll never forget that they cared more about unity & falling in line behind one of their own than rejecting the grossly unfit monster that now resides in the Oval Office. 

[Big Red 40]

I think many in this state vote Republican their whole lives, no matter how bad the candidate , and they would never vote Democrat no matter how good the candidate. I think once the older, religious people, farmers, heartland conservative values, kind of voters die off we may see this state flip , but not until then 

Edited January 16, 2018 by Big Red 40

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

I think many in this state vote Republican their whole lives, no matter how bad candidate , and they would never vote Democrat no matter how good the candidate. I think once the older, religious people, farmers, heartland conservative values, kind of voters die off we may see this state flip , but not until then 

Wow....that’s lumping big groups into huge generalizations. 

 

Actually, it wasn’t that long ago that we had Democrats as governors and senators. 

[Big Red 40]

I was talking about the Presidential election/ Electoral votes

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wow....that’s lumping big groups into huge generalizations. 

 

Actually, it wasn’t that long ago that we had Democrats as governors and senators. 

 

 

Good point. Nebraskans seemed to have no problem voting for Jim Exon while also pulling the lever for Richard Nixon. Bob Kerrey won elections in the Reagan era. 

 

Okay. Maybe that was awhile ago. 

 

Let's not forget that Republican leadership found Husker legend Tom Osborne's brand of Christian compassion a little too squishy and pushed the state to hard right adherence. I don't think there's been legitimate populism in the state for at least 20 years.

[QMany]

I guess it could be worse, you could live in Kansas like me.