The Obama Legacy

[Landlord]

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

[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.

 

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.

This is more a general thought and not directed at you, but your post made me think of it - I think what can be one of the greatest failings in our society at times is our desire to discuss things before we have all the information. For example, someone arrested for murder (no matter how many times the news says 'accused of murder') will almost always be viewed as THE murderer. Or, directed towards your profession, an officer accused of shooting and killing an unarmed person will almost always be viewed and discussed (in some circles) as 'another' example of police brutality.

 

But, incorporating that thought into what you said, I think we all walk an interesting line when it comes to commentary, news and information. We desire certain data as it happens but then try to shun or eschew the information we deem frivolous. We're all guilty of this. Speaking only for myself, as a former member of the media, I hold the profession in high regard and believe it often falls under unfair and uninformed scrutiny.

 

I certainly sympathize with law enforcement, where the vast, vast, vast majority of people are honest and hard working. On the other hand, they hold an incredible amount of power and demand high levels of scrutiny by the public. I think the best solution comes from communities and law enforcement finding more ways to connect and gain one another's trust. Mistakes will happen but it will take intelligence and understanding from all parties to move forward.

[knapplc]

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

 

It's selective hearing, combined with confirmation bias.

[Enhance]

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

In my own opinion, Obama has handled many of these situations well, if not expertly. After the Dallas police attacks, he spoke at length about how difficult it is to work in law enforcement, a service where hyperbolic proclamations of rampant police misconduct put unfair pressure on these public servants. But, he also spoke about why many protesters and citizens (particularly African-Americans) have developed a distrust with law enforcement and feel unfairly targeted.

 

It's true that he has spoken about discrimination before all the facts were given, which is wrong, in my opinion. But, I also look at it as him addressing the elephant in the room, and one could easily argue that having said nothing or trying to quietly move along from these incidents may have been a worse decision.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

Depends on what your perception of some of the things he's done are and whether you are paying attention to those things specifically and some of his actions and gestures close enough. Our perception of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative and it has zero to do with the fact he's an African-American President and everything to do with his actions compared to his words. He's a polished politician, he'll say the right things, but his actions towards us tell another story.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

 

It's selective hearing, combined with confirmation bias.

 

Sure it is....or maybe some folks that think he's doing a fantastic job are the ones with selective hearing? Look at the likes on this very thread to see that my opinion about this isn't popular by any means. It's as if my voice isn't heard on the matter to some folks. Most folks don't have a dog in this fight, they can't see where I'm coming from and almost refuse to listen to it because I'm possibly biased in their eyes based on my profession. I'm used to it, but you should listen, because our opinion on the matter does matter.

[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.

 

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.

This is more a general thought and not directed at you, but your post made me think of it - I think what can be one of the greatest failings in our society at times is our desire to discuss things before we have all the information. For example, someone arrested for murder (no matter how many times the news says 'accused of murder') will almost always be viewed as THE murderer. Or, directed towards your profession, an officer accused of shooting and killing an unarmed person will almost always be viewed and discussed (in some circles) as 'another' example of police brutality.

 

But, incorporating that thought into what you said, I think we all walk an interesting line when it comes to commentary, news and information. We desire certain data as it happens but then try to shun or eschew the information we deem frivolous. We're all guilty of this. Speaking only for myself, as a former member of the media, I hold the profession in high regard and believe it often falls under unfair and uninformed scrutiny.

 

I certainly sympathize with law enforcement, where the vast, vast, vast majority of people are honest and hard working. On the other hand, they hold an incredible amount of power and demand high levels of scrutiny by the public. I think the best solution comes from communities and law enforcement finding more ways to connect and gain one another's trust. Mistakes will happen but it will take intelligence and understanding from all parties to move forward.

 

Did you see what Denzel Washington said the other day about the media? It was pretty interesting and true. Who's first is what matters now, not what's the truth. The media also has an incredible amount of power and has led to some of the problems we come across today when misinformation gets out. I'm certainly not bagging on you, I appreciate the discussion and that you're willing to listen to what I have to say.

[Landlord]

 

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

Depends on what your perception of some of the things he's done are and whether you are paying attention to those things specifically and some of his actions and gestures close enough. Our perception of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative and it has zero to do with the fact he's an African-American President and everything to do with his actions compared to his words. He's a polished politician, he'll say the right things, but his actions towards us tell another story.

 

 

 

Right, so, what I'm wondering is, what exactly the actions/rhetoric that Obama has done are? Where's the evidence of "Our perceptions of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative"? What has he done to warrant that?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

 

It's selective hearing, combined with confirmation bias.

 

Sure it is....or maybe some folks that think he's doing a fantastic job are the ones with selective hearing? Look at the likes on this very thread to see that my opinion about this isn't popular by any means. It's as if my voice isn't heard on the matter to some folks. Most folks don't have a dog in this fight, they can't see where I'm coming from and almost refuse to listen to it because I'm possibly biased in their eyes based on my profession. I'm used to it, but you should listen, because our opinion on the matter does matter.

 

EVERYONE has a dog in this fight even if they don't realize it.

 

Your opinion as a police officer is extremely important in this matter.

 

The issue is that everyone needs to realize they see this issue from different perspectives and those different perspectives gives all of us a wide range in beliefs as to reality.

[zoogs]

Right, so, what I'm wondering is, what exactly the actions/rhetoric that Obama has done are? Where's the evidence of "Our perceptions of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative"? What has he done to warrant that?

This puzzles me as well. If Obama is the one who says the right things but does the wrong ones, then what are those action items?

 

Similarly, if Trump both says the right things (established, I think), what do you expect he will do that is in such contrast to what Obama has done?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

I guess I still don't see how Obama can be the sole, or main, culprit in worsening racial tensions or a more negative perception of police or creating a more hostile world for police when he continuously condemns violence against police, calls for peace and understanding and conversations, commends police for doing good work, and wants reform to get rid of the bad apples and the bad systems that give the rest a bad name. Not to mention officer deaths declining steadily for the last few decades.

Depends on what your perception of some of the things he's done are and whether you are paying attention to those things specifically and some of his actions and gestures close enough. Our perception of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative and it has zero to do with the fact he's an African-American President and everything to do with his actions compared to his words. He's a polished politician, he'll say the right things, but his actions towards us tell another story.

 

 

 

Right, so, what I'm wondering is, what exactly the actions/rhetoric that Obama has done are? Where's the evidence of "Our perceptions of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative"? What has he done to warrant that?

 

Sending white house staff to a guy, not kid by the way, that beat and attempted to disarm a police officer would be one example. Not coming out and speaking out about law enforcement officers being killed in large numbers at a time, which there are several examples of, 8 can die in 5 days, does he say anything? Not usually...........look at my above post that links to a Yahoo story about him appointing a cop killers attorney who helped this cop killer financially outside of representing him. He's continued to help drive the national rhetoric that law enforcement is racist throughout several of his speeches. One of which was certainly not appropriate while speaking at the Dallas Police Officer's funerals, that certainly isn't a time to politicize those officers deaths in any way whether he meant to or not.

 

Ultimately, Obama said that “bias remains” in America, and that “when African Americans from all walks of life … voice a growing despair over what they perceive to be unequal treatment,” and give their children “the talk” about how to respond when stopped by a police officer, this is not something that should be “dismissed by those in authority.”

 

 

Does that seem like an appropriate time to bring up racial issues? And continue to drive that narrative?

 

There are several more examples out there IMO.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

Right, so, what I'm wondering is, what exactly the actions/rhetoric that Obama has done are? Where's the evidence of "Our perceptions of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative"? What has he done to warrant that?

This puzzles me as well. If Obama is the one who says the right things but does the wrong ones, then what are those action items?

 

Similarly, if Trump both says the right things (established, I think), what do you expect he will do that is in such contrast to what Obama has done?

 

I'm not interested in discussing my justification for voting for Trump. The sky has been falling for some since he won the presidency and what I say there won't matter. That's okay, I voted for him, I had several reasons why. Trump has shown a huge amount of respect in his speeches towards law enforcement and has acknowledged that we are being attacked on several different levels. He's also taken the time to contact widows of fallen officer personally to extend his condolences. Something that would be considered abnormal in an Obama presidency. It's the facts and something that is important to me.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Right, so, what I'm wondering is, what exactly the actions/rhetoric that Obama has done are? Where's the evidence of "Our perceptions of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative"? What has he done to warrant that?

This puzzles me as well. If Obama is the one who says the right things but does the wrong ones, then what are those action items?

 

Similarly, if Trump both says the right things (established, I think), what do you expect he will do that is in such contrast to what Obama has done?

I'm not interested in discussing my justification for voting for Trump. The sky has been falling for some since he won the presidency and what I say there won't matter. That's okay, I voted for him, I had several reasons why. Trump has shown a huge amount of respect in his speeches towards law enforcement and has acknowledged that we are being attacked on several different levels. He's also taken the time to contact widows of fallen officer personally to extend his condolences. Something that would be considered abnormal in an Obama presidency. It's the facts and something that is important to me.

Ok.

 

Both of these are from 2015.

 

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/31/obama-calls-widow-darren-goforth/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kcra.relaymedia.com/amp/article/sacramento-deputy-s-widow-to-attend-state-of-the-union-address/6419492?client=safari

 

 

The funny thing is in the 2 minutes it took to find these I also came across one about Trump calling a widow, and the line right after it which I could see before clicking said "Something Obama would never do!"

 

Even though he'd already done it more than once and we probably don't hear about it every time. Maybe, just maybe, Obama doesn't do it for the attention and we only find out when the widows come forward and tell people he did it.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

Right, so, what I'm wondering is, what exactly the actions/rhetoric that Obama has done are? Where's the evidence of "Our perceptions of his thoughts towards us are fairly negative"? What has he done to warrant that?

This puzzles me as well. If Obama is the one who says the right things but does the wrong ones, then what are those action items?

 

Similarly, if Trump both says the right things (established, I think), what do you expect he will do that is in such contrast to what Obama has done?

I'm not interested in discussing my justification for voting for Trump. The sky has been falling for some since he won the presidency and what I say there won't matter. That's okay, I voted for him, I had several reasons why. Trump has shown a huge amount of respect in his speeches towards law enforcement and has acknowledged that we are being attacked on several different levels. He's also taken the time to contact widows of fallen officer personally to extend his condolences. Something that would be considered abnormal in an Obama presidency. It's the facts and something that is important to me.

Ok.

 

Both of these are from 2015.

 

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/31/obama-calls-widow-darren-goforth/

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/kcra.relaymedia.com/amp/article/sacramento-deputy-s-widow-to-attend-state-of-the-union-address/6419492?client=safari

 

 

The funny thing is in the 2 minutes it took to find these I also came across one about Trump calling a widow, and the line right after it which I could see before clicking said "Something Obama would never do!"

 

Even though he'd already done it more than once and we probably don't hear about it every time. Maybe, just maybe, Obama doesn't do it for the attention and we only find out when the widows come forward and tell people he did it.

 

I didn't say he never did it, I said it would be abnormal. There are several folks who champion for Obama and think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I personally don't and I voted for him twice. I didn't have my feelings about him change for no reason. That's something you can't seem to understand or at least refuse to acknowledge.

 

And the piling on begins, by the same folks as usual, but I knew this would happen which is why I said my opinion isn't popular, it's cool.

[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.

 

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.

This is more a general thought and not directed at you, but your post made me think of it - I think what can be one of the greatest failings in our society at times is our desire to discuss things before we have all the information. For example, someone arrested for murder (no matter how many times the news says 'accused of murder') will almost always be viewed as THE murderer. Or, directed towards your profession, an officer accused of shooting and killing an unarmed person will almost always be viewed and discussed (in some circles) as 'another' example of police brutality.

 

But, incorporating that thought into what you said, I think we all walk an interesting line when it comes to commentary, news and information. We desire certain data as it happens but then try to shun or eschew the information we deem frivolous. We're all guilty of this. Speaking only for myself, as a former member of the media, I hold the profession in high regard and believe it often falls under unfair and uninformed scrutiny.

 

I certainly sympathize with law enforcement, where the vast, vast, vast majority of people are honest and hard working. On the other hand, they hold an incredible amount of power and demand high levels of scrutiny by the public. I think the best solution comes from communities and law enforcement finding more ways to connect and gain one another's trust. Mistakes will happen but it will take intelligence and understanding from all parties to move forward.

 

Did you see what Denzel Washington said the other day about the media? It was pretty interesting and true. Who's first is what matters now, not what's the truth. The media also has an incredible amount of power and has led to some of the problems we come across today when misinformation gets out. I'm certainly not bagging on you, I appreciate the discussion and that you're willing to listen to what I have to say.

Yes, I saw it. I think there is some truth to it, but I don't think it can be labeled widely as "true." It's a theory that doesn't hold much water, at least in the context you framed it.

 

We did market research at my old station and found that accuracy/truth was by far and away the most important factor when deciding what news to watch or consume. Timeliness was the second most important factor, but only in relation to the first point. Timeliness didn't matter as much if the information wasn't up to date.

 

That said, I do think more people are starting to care less about accuracy at first. Social media keeps us so plugged in that people are now rationalizing 'oh well, if it's not accurate right away, I'll know the truth soon or by the end of the day.' Most market research is closely guarded by the media outlets that do them, but even the published research still supports the conclusion that truth and factuality matters above all else.

 

But, I should be clear that some media entities have been culpable in making certain problems worse. There are also a lot of things I don't agree with that happen inside the media. But, similarly, the vast, vast, vast majority of reporters and editors are hard working people trying to do the job to the best of their ability.