The Obama Legacy

[BIGREDIOWAN]

So you just posted because you didn't want a discussion?

I posted an opinion, it won't be agreed with, but it's my personal opinion. I didn't vote for Trump to punish black people for talking about racism. I voted for Trump because I lost faith in Obama and Hilary was more of the same in my opinion.

[Moiraine]

 

 

So you just posted because you didn't want a discussion?

I posted an opinion, it won't be popular and people will do their best to put it down.

That's how message boards work. You post your opinion and then people reply to it. It's weird to post your opinion (popular or not) and expect people to not respond to it. Especially here of all places.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

So you just posted because you didn't want a discussion?

I posted an opinion, it won't be popular and people will do their best to put it down.

That's how message boards work. You post your opinion and then people reply to it. It's weird to post your opinion (popular or not) and expect people to not respond to it. Especially here of all places.

 

Thanks for informing me that this is how it works. I always wondered............the problem is my opinion is probably in the minority on this section of the board. I'll expand on it for me personally. I obviously look at the perception towards law enforcement by some folks and have seen negative perception of law enforcement rise due to several reasons and I personally directly blame Obama for some of this. I'm not interested in rehashing past discussions I've had so I'll leave it at that.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-this-is-going-to-be-a-browner-country-144322201.html

 

This is a quote from the above linked article, the bolded is a lie IMO. No it's not, more officers have been killed because of things that have been said by politicians. Everyone is worried about what Trump says, I agree it's a worry, but it's not like words Obama has said haven't gotten folks hurt. At least in my world.

“I can say, and I can demonstrate, I can document that the country is a lot better off now than it was when I took office in almost every dimension,” the president said. “But what I can also say is that we could be doing even better. There are times where I reflect and ask myself, ‘Is there’s something else I could have done, something that I could have said slightly differently that would have led to additional progress and less polarization?’ And I’ll probably, you know, as I reflect on my presidency, once I’m out of just the day-to-day scrum of this thing, I’m sure I’ll come up with a whole bunch of things to add to my list. But I think all of us have to do that.”

 

 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/ef2563c5-e4ed-3ac3-9e0c-677628c0afbc/ss_obama-appoints-cop-killer.html?.tsrc=fauxdal

 

This is a parting shot by him to law enforcement in our eyes, not just my eyes. This continues with his negative treatment towards us, action speaks louder than hollow words and fluffed up speeches.

[Fru]

 

 

 

 

I think where he failed is that he made it "cool" to hate on the police, and this occurred as early as his first term with the incident regarding the Harvard professor that was breaking into his own house. And there were many other examples after that where he could have defended the 99.9% of police who are brave and risk their lives everyday for the betterment of our society while also making a point that there are a few bad apples that must be dealt with. Instead he and his cabinet encourage all the protests and the BLM movement and did little to quell the fires literally and figuratively.

 

 

You're full of absolute dogshit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama has called for unity in the wake of the shootings, but also a recognition that biases and mistrust exist. He reiterated his belief that the country is not as divided as it seems and said he remains optimistic that things will improve. On Thursday, the President called himself “Mr. Hope.” But he acknowledged the reasoning behind both the Black Lives Matter movement and the frustration expressed by police who say they’re expected to do more than just police neighborhoods.

 

 

 

“You’d have to find any message that did not include a very strong support for law enforcement in all my utterances dating back to Ferguson,” Obama said. “I rely on law enforcement.”

 

 

 

“Kindness and compassion expressed by these two sides … that makes a big difference,” Obama said. “Sometimes people just want acknowledgment.”

 

 

 

Obama - "I don't think that what happens in Ferguson is typical. The overwhelming number of law enforcement officers have a really hard, dangerous job and they do it well and they do it fairly and they do it heroically. And I strongly believe that. We need to honor those folks and we need to respect them and to not just assume that they've got ill will or they're doing a bad job."

 

 

 

“I know that you do your jobs with distinction no matter the challenges you face. That’s part of wearing the badge,” Obama will say. “But we can’t expect you to contain and control problems that the rest of us aren’t willing to face or do anything about.”

 

 

 

Obama plans to say he could not tell the families of police officers who died in the line of duty he did everything he could to protect them.

“I told these grieving families how sorry I am for their loss,” he said. “But I could not honestly tell them that our country has done everything we could to keep their loved ones safe. And that’s a travesty.”

 

 

One speech does not change the tone he set throughout his Presidency, and again, there is evidence of a dip among blacks and whites regarding their views on race relations during his Presidency, something that had remained constant across multiple administrations before him. Are you old enough to even be posting on here?

 

Now regarding the bolded part, are you old enough to even be posting on here, because the level of immaturity you continue to display when pressed on a topic is outrageous.

 

 

He just presented you with loads of quotes from Obama condemning violence, supporting the police, and generally disproving your generally completely wrong assertions. But I suppose your feelings about his "tone" take precedent over the things Obama has actually said and done while in office? And I suppose the dip you talk about regarding race relations was entirely on Obama, right?

 

Or could it just be that you don't like that fact that he's speaking out about the plight millions of black Americans face every time they have an interaction with police?

 

This is the problem with the GOP. Any amount of speaking to any kind of race-related issue re: the police automatically becomes an attack on the police from a person who doesn't support them. It's irrational, emotion-based bullsh*t that prevents a mature conversation from happening about a serious subject.

 

One *CAN* criticize our policing system and still support the police.

 

But hey, as Newt Gingrich said, "You can have your facts, and we'll have our feelings."

 

Please, also, if you would, lay out a cogent plan you think would work to improve race relations. What do you think would be effective in this arena?

 

 

Pulling a few statements out of one or two speeches does not equate to Obama creating an environment to maintain or improve race relations. The only speech I recall Obama offering some recognition that the anti-cop sentiment he and his party have put forward over the last 8 years was in Dallas after that massacre. More times than not, he has been quiet or offered more support for groups like BLM. As for facts and feelings, the quotes referenced above are not "facts" or data points at all. The data I showed for a recurring persistent poll of race relations in America over the course of many administrations shows a change has taken place in the last 4 or 5 years. You can try to assign blame to all sorts of other things, but as I said before, when the history books are written, it will be noted how divided Obama left this country across multiple elements, especially along racial lines.

 

What can improve race relations? It's not something that can happen overnight, but I think having a leader that seeks policies that helps members of all races is a great place to start. We have seen income inequality and the economic fortunes of blacks decline over the last 8 years, and I think it will be important for Trump to pursue policies that really help out minority groups. There are so many more things that could be done, but that would be a starting point.

 

 

Correlation is not causation.

 

Race relations were poor prior to Obama. Merely having a black president showed the true colors of some parts of this country. Obama is not responsible for changing ignorant people's opinions.

 

You're worried about Obama's tone? Our new President Elect has retweeted white supremacists, proposed policy that directly contradicts first amendment rights, is the fist President Elect openly endorsed by the KKK, has a white supremacist as chief strategist, white nationalists in DC having conferences and saluting and saying "Hail Trump", and has a surrogate who stated a Muslim registry is constitutional based on 1940's Japanese Internment camps. How is Trump's tone then?

 

Please, do some more backflips for me on how to condemn Obama on his "tone" but then completely ignore and overlook our President Elect. Complaining about his tone... Give me a break. Shameful. An utterly shameful stance to take.

[Enhance]

 

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/809771099940646912

Not the way I personally see it, but whatever. No, I'd rather not have a discussion on my opinion. Some should know where my opinion is based from.

 

Naturally, you don't have to (and probably won't) respond to this BIG. I'm just quoting your post for the discussion.

 

I do, in fact, know people who voted for Trump because they believe white people have been oppressed. I have a cousin who voted for Trump and told me, word for word, he voted for him because "the white man is what made this country great and that's what we need to get back to." There are a significant amount of bigoted, racist white people who support Trump and that is an undeniable truth. Google any number of his rallies for evidence.

 

All that said, I think it's a stretch to suggest talking about racism is why Trump got elected and that we're punishing black people for speaking up about racism.

[zoogs]

All that said, I think it's a stretch to suggest talking about racism is why Trump got elected and that we're punishing black people for speaking up about racism.

Big picture, affirming diversity was on the ballot this year. Talking about race issues in new and more open ways has been a big development over the past few years in particular. So has the backlash to that.

 

This has been one of the bigger topics in the national consciousness, and the results reflected it. I think that's what this tweet was getting at.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/809771099940646912

Not the way I personally see it, but whatever. No, I'd rather not have a discussion on my opinion. Some should know where my opinion is based from.

 

Naturally, you don't have to (and probably won't) respond to this BIG. I'm just quoting your post for the discussion.

 

I do, in fact, know people who voted for Trump because they believe white people have been oppressed. I have a cousin who voted for Trump and told me, word for word, he voted for him because "the white man is what made this country great and that's what we need to get back to." There are a significant amount of bigoted, racist white people who support Trump and that is an undeniable truth. Google any number of his rallies for evidence.

 

All that said, I think it's a stretch to suggest talking about racism is why Trump got elected and that we're punishing black people for speaking up about racism.

 

And I've always said racism has no place in today's society. It was/is part of our past and still continues today. I'm not okay with it and if folks voted for Trump for that reason they need locked up in a padded room. I know there are bigots that support him, but I won't be labeled personally that way because I voted for him. I voted for him for several reasons, but treatment towards LEO's was at the top of my list. That may be selfish, but that's personally where I was at. I'm good with discussions as long as they don't turn into negative drivel where someone won't accept another person's opinion as just that and see where they're coming from. This section of the board isn't really good at doing that.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/809771099940646912

Not the way I personally see it, but whatever. No, I'd rather not have a discussion on my opinion. Some should know where my opinion is based from.

 

Naturally, you don't have to (and probably won't) respond to this BIG. I'm just quoting your post for the discussion.

 

I do, in fact, know people who voted for Trump because they believe white people have been oppressed. I have a cousin who voted for Trump and told me, word for word, he voted for him because "the white man is what made this country great and that's what we need to get back to." There are a significant amount of bigoted, racist white people who support Trump and that is an undeniable truth. Google any number of his rallies for evidence.

 

All that said, I think it's a stretch to suggest talking about racism is why Trump got elected and that we're punishing black people for speaking up about racism.

 

I can agree with that.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/809771099940646912

Not the way I personally see it, but whatever. No, I'd rather not have a discussion on my opinion. Some should know where my opinion is based from.

 

Naturally, you don't have to (and probably won't) respond to this BIG. I'm just quoting your post for the discussion.

 

I do, in fact, know people who voted for Trump because they believe white people have been oppressed. I have a cousin who voted for Trump and told me, word for word, he voted for him because "the white man is what made this country great and that's what we need to get back to." There are a significant amount of bigoted, racist white people who support Trump and that is an undeniable truth. Google any number of his rallies for evidence.

 

All that said, I think it's a stretch to suggest talking about racism is why Trump got elected and that we're punishing black people for speaking up about racism.

 

And I've always said racism has no place in today's society. It was/is part of our past and still continues today. I'm not okay with it and if folks voted for Trump for that reason they need locked up in a padded room. I know there are bigots that support him, but I won't be labeled personally that way because I voted for him. I voted for him for several reasons, but treatment towards LEO's was at the top of my list. That may be selfish, but that's personally where I was at. I'm good with discussions as long as they don't turn into negative drivel where someone won't accept another person's opinion as just that and see where they're coming from. This section of the board isn't really good at doing that.

Surely you jest with the bolded - everybody gets along here...

 

In all seriousness, though, I'd love your thoughts on the following questions if you'd be willing to offer them, BIG.

 

First, I think we can both agree there's more scrutiny on law enforcement now more than ever. If that sentence is true, do you think there was a need or necessity to bring about that scrutiny? Do you think some law enforcement agencies and officers/troopers/sheriffs around the country needed higher levels of inspection? And if yes or no, why?

 

I might have another question or two depending on your responses there. Just very curious on your perceptions as someone who knows law enforcement well.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/809771099940646912

Not the way I personally see it, but whatever. No, I'd rather not have a discussion on my opinion. Some should know where my opinion is based from.

 

Naturally, you don't have to (and probably won't) respond to this BIG. I'm just quoting your post for the discussion.

 

I do, in fact, know people who voted for Trump because they believe white people have been oppressed. I have a cousin who voted for Trump and told me, word for word, he voted for him because "the white man is what made this country great and that's what we need to get back to." There are a significant amount of bigoted, racist white people who support Trump and that is an undeniable truth. Google any number of his rallies for evidence.

 

All that said, I think it's a stretch to suggest talking about racism is why Trump got elected and that we're punishing black people for speaking up about racism.

 

And I've always said racism has no place in today's society. It was/is part of our past and still continues today. I'm not okay with it and if folks voted for Trump for that reason they need locked up in a padded room. I know there are bigots that support him, but I won't be labeled personally that way because I voted for him. I voted for him for several reasons, but treatment towards LEO's was at the top of my list. That may be selfish, but that's personally where I was at. I'm good with discussions as long as they don't turn into negative drivel where someone won't accept another person's opinion as just that and see where they're coming from. This section of the board isn't really good at doing that.

Surely you jest with the bolded - everybody gets along here...

 

In all seriousness, though, I'd love your thoughts on the following questions if you'd be willing to offer them, BIG.

 

First, I think we can both agree there's more scrutiny on law enforcement now more than ever. If that sentence is true, do you think there was a need or necessity to bring about that scrutiny? Do you think some law enforcement agencies and officers/troopers/sheriffs around the country needed higher levels of inspection? And if yes or no, why?

 

I might have another question or two depending on your responses there. Just very curious on your perceptions as someone who knows law enforcement well.

 

Law enforcement isn't infallible. Mistakes are made and while some mistakes are small others can be huge and life changing/ending, we have to limit if not erase the huge life changing/ending ones. We are human just like anyone else and overall 98 to 99% of officers out there are fantastic people, doing a tough job, under impossible circumstances with limited resources.

 

Our problems start where all of us are lumped in with a few. Some think the "thin blue line" means I'll cover up for a corrupt police officer, no sir, I will NOT be doing that. A corrupt police officer tarnishes my badge and my perception and has no place in this profession. If an organization has shown they will allow corruption and have brought that microscope upon them then they are reaping what they sow in that instance and I have no problem with the scrutiny they will receive as long as it's justified and not an instance where someone is trying to "reach" to find an issue or create an issue.

 

I will agree that use of force incidents need to be tracked better and that part is in the process of getting done. We can't think everything we do is perfect and we never need to improve. We can always improve with the ways we do things, but society as a whole needs to improve as well and understand they are part of the solution. And to add to this, I've never stopped someone just because of their race or for profiling and I mean never, I'm not saying that may not happen else where, I'm saying I personally don't see that, but I could be sheltered some.

 

Part of the recent scrutiny may have been brought on by incorrect policing, but part of it was also brought on by leaders across our country pushing a negative narrative towards law enforcement by speaking about local law enforcement matters before the facts were actually known or came out. Ferguson was an example of this, but Ferguson also uncovered a bad situation within that organization and helped push a Chief out that should've never been a Chief. The Minnesota Governor speaking about the shooting up there could be another example. Leaders in those positions really have no place in commenting on local law enforcement matters until the investigation is complete. Leave that to the law enforcement leaders, they need to stay being politicians.

[zoogs]

Leaders in those positions really have no place in commenting on local law enforcement matters until the investigation is complete. Leave that to the law enforcement leaders, they need to stay being politicians.

Doesn't law enforcement exist at service for the public good? If so, shouldn't it precisely be up to the public to give direction -- through their representatives, as is our system -- as to what is indeed service and what is not?

 

Too much insularity between law enforcement leadership and the public they serve is, I believe, cited as one of the causes for the disconnect (where it exists). The effect of the suggestion here seems like it would entrench that divide as a matter of policy.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

Leaders in those positions really have no place in commenting on local law enforcement matters until the investigation is complete. Leave that to the law enforcement leaders, they need to stay being politicians.

Doesn't law enforcement exist at service for the public good? If so, shouldn't it precisely be up to the public to give direction -- through their representatives, as is our system -- as to what is indeed service and what is not?

 

Too much insularity between law enforcement leadership and the public they serve is, I believe, cited as one of the causes for the disconnect (where it exists). The effect of the suggestion here seems like it would entrench that divide as a matter of policy.

 

It becomes a problem when politicians in leadership positions speak on local law enforcement matters before the facts are known. Then it comes across as facts rather than speculation, which lead to issues/riots/wrong perceptions. I'd love to see the public try and direct law enforcement services. My guess is they'd be overwhelmed with the task..........assuming the public knows anything about this area of profession and the expectations that are put upon it are part of the problem. Nevermind the restrictions and demands put on law enforcement by the courts system.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Part of the recent scrutiny may have been brought on by incorrect policing, but part of it was also brought on by leaders across our country pushing a negative narrative towards law enforcement by speaking about local law enforcement matters before the facts were actually known or came out. Ferguson was an example of this, but Ferguson also uncovered a bad situation within that organization and helped push a Chief out that should've never been a Chief. The Minnesota Governor speaking about the shooting up there could be another example. Leaders in those positions really have no place in commenting on local law enforcement matters until the investigation is complete. Leave that to the law enforcement leaders, they need to stay being politicians.

 

BIG,

 

I appreciate your input on this.

 

Your last paragraph was interesting to me. I recently read and posted a link to a very well done article on the corruption in the Chicago Police Department. If you didn't see it, here is the link.

 

LINK

 

For the record, I believe this is the exception to the rule as it pertains to good police officers vs. bad. I also agree with you in what certain leaders have said and done in wake of certain incidents.

 

My question is, your comment makes it seem like every once in a while there is a bad cop. Which, I don't think anyone would disagree. But, isn't there also every once in a while completely bad police departments? And, in that case, wouldn't it be correct in our leaders coming down extremely hard on those departments?

 

The corruption in the Chicago police department has been well known for generations. Something needs to be done about it.

 

It's going to be very difficult to separate the narrative on this issue when needing to talk about bad cops or bad departments but not lumping all police into the same conversation.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

Part of the recent scrutiny may have been brought on by incorrect policing, but part of it was also brought on by leaders across our country pushing a negative narrative towards law enforcement by speaking about local law enforcement matters before the facts were actually known or came out. Ferguson was an example of this, but Ferguson also uncovered a bad situation within that organization and helped push a Chief out that should've never been a Chief. The Minnesota Governor speaking about the shooting up there could be another example. Leaders in those positions really have no place in commenting on local law enforcement matters until the investigation is complete. Leave that to the law enforcement leaders, they need to stay being politicians.

 

BIG,

 

I appreciate your input on this.

 

Your last paragraph was interesting to me. I recently read and posted a link to a very well done article on the corruption in the Chicago Police Department. If you didn't see it, here is the link.

 

LINK

 

For the record, I believe this is the exception to the rule as it pertains to good police officers vs. bad. I also agree with you in what certain leaders have said and done in wake of certain incidents.

 

My question is, your comment makes it seem like every once in a while there is a bad cop. Which, I don't think anyone would disagree. But, isn't there also every once in a while completely bad police departments? And, in that case, wouldn't it be correct in our leaders coming down extremely hard on those departments?

 

The corruption in the Chicago police department has been well known for generations. Something needs to be done about it.

 

It's going to be very difficult to separate the narrative on this issue when needing to talk about bad cops or bad departments but not lumping all police into the same conversation.

 

Yes, there can be bad police departments. What causes that is kinda hard to pinpoint IMO. Is it bad leadership for decades that don't instill the integrity needed? Is it local politicians pushing results no matter the process in getting those results on crime in a specific area to a point where leaders of that organization might allow/push an agenda down the chain of command? Is it lowering standards for higher due to low numbers of applicants that can meet the current requirements for law enforcement officers to be employed? Is it a police organization that's lost its way due to the community it serves in and the level of crime they're dealing with? Is it not the correct supervisor to line staff ratio? Is it officers being underpaid? I don't think there is a clear cut answer there, it's probably several things including stuff I'm leaving out for simplicity purposes. I will say if an organization is bad enough the feds will come in and basically take over that department to try and deal with the issues. That's a double edged sword IMO because now the narrative of a national police force could be allowed to be pushed in those cases, but that's a little bit of tinfoil hat thinking IMO.

 

Chicago PD is definitely and example, I'll read that article later, I personally would never work there. The problem is they have over a thousand openings and are going to be lowering their hiring standards to fill their ranks which could increase their problems due to low interest in the career field and applicants that can't meet the standards.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Part of the recent scrutiny may have been brought on by incorrect policing, but part of it was also brought on by leaders across our country pushing a negative narrative towards law enforcement by speaking about local law enforcement matters before the facts were actually known or came out. Ferguson was an example of this, but Ferguson also uncovered a bad situation within that organization and helped push a Chief out that should've never been a Chief. The Minnesota Governor speaking about the shooting up there could be another example. Leaders in those positions really have no place in commenting on local law enforcement matters until the investigation is complete. Leave that to the law enforcement leaders, they need to stay being politicians.

 

BIG,

 

I appreciate your input on this.

 

Your last paragraph was interesting to me. I recently read and posted a link to a very well done article on the corruption in the Chicago Police Department. If you didn't see it, here is the link.

 

LINK

 

For the record, I believe this is the exception to the rule as it pertains to good police officers vs. bad. I also agree with you in what certain leaders have said and done in wake of certain incidents.

 

My question is, your comment makes it seem like every once in a while there is a bad cop. Which, I don't think anyone would disagree. But, isn't there also every once in a while completely bad police departments? And, in that case, wouldn't it be correct in our leaders coming down extremely hard on those departments?

 

The corruption in the Chicago police department has been well known for generations. Something needs to be done about it.

 

It's going to be very difficult to separate the narrative on this issue when needing to talk about bad cops or bad departments but not lumping all police into the same conversation.

 

Yes, there can be bad police departments. What causes that is kinda hard to pinpoint IMO. Is it bad leadership for decades that don't instill the integrity needed? Is it local politicians pushing results no matter the process in getting those results on crime in a specific area to a point where leaders of that organization might allow/push an agenda down the chain of command? Is it lowering standards for higher due to low numbers of applicants that can meet the current requirements for law enforcement officers to be employed? Is it a police organization that's lost its way due to the community it serves in and the level of crime they're dealing with? Is it not the correct supervisor to line staff ratio? Is it officers being underpaid? I don't think there is a clear cut answer there, it's probably several things including stuff I'm leaving out for simplicity purposes. I will say if an organization is bad enough the feds will come in and basically take over that department to try and deal with the issues. That's a double edged sword IMO because now the narrative of a national police force could be allowed to be pushed in those cases, but that's a little bit of tinfoil hat thinking IMO.

 

Chicago PD is definitely and example, I'll read that article later, I personally would never work there. The problem is they have over a thousand openings and are going to be lowering their hiring standards to fill their ranks which could increase their problems due to low interest in the career field and applicants that can't meet the standards.

 

Thanks again.

I'm very interested in your input after you read all 4 parts of the article.