Trump and North Korea

[Cow Poke]

The game may or may not be back on for the meeting.

So true.

[shunyadragon]

So true.

Maybe, Maybe not.

[Cow Poke]

The game may or may not be back on for the meeting.

So true.

Maybe, Maybe not.

Laughing --- it may or may not be true that the game may or may not be back on for the meeting?


Perhaps. Perhaps not!

[One Bad Pig]

Like I said - a common theme from the right.

Like I said - it's common because it's TRUE. You can't just handwave away a view because it's common.

The fact is this country still has a racial problem. In general, the left is too quick to scream "racist" when the issue is nothing of the kind.

Which exacerbates the issue instead of fixing it. I suspect that many on the left don't really want it to be fixed, because its existence is so helpful to the left politically.

In general, the right is too quick to dismiss any attempt to examine the problem as "identity politics." It's become the new mantra.

Wait, what? No. that's not what is meant by "identity politics." Identity politics is things like "Asian pride month" or "LGBTQRTY pride month" or "vote for this guy 'cause he's Latino" or "Black Lives Matter", etc. Those are not attempts to examine the problem, and they're no more new than people decrying identity politics.

I'm sure it's blurry for you, OBP. Most of the discussions we've had here have addresses areas where my views swing more to the left (I tend to be more left socially, and more right fiscally). I have not characterized all voter ID laws as "racist." Indeed, my impression is that voter ID laws are, for the most part a) a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to any significance, and b) is an attempt primarily to suppress Democratic votes because the Republican Party is at a numerical disadvantage in many places. Latest counts put Democratic membership at over 72M and Republican at somewhere around 58M. One way to counter that is to engage in all sorts of tactics to suppress voting by the other side. Both sides do it.

It so happens that minorities and the poor tend to vote Democratic, so in targeting Democratic voters, they are prime targets. The situation in North Carolina is different. In North Carolina, the Republicans requested data on use of IDs for voter registration, and specifically asked for the data to be provided broken down by race. Then they explicitly sought to have discounted as "valid" IDs that were predominantly used by black people and other minorities. It is what led the court to describe the VoterID law as "targeting minorities with surgical precision."

That looks prima faciae racist. If it is, I decry it. I suspect there are explanations which do not admit of racism, or it never would've gotten anywhere. I am for a photo ID requirement because it's about the best way short of retinal scans to ensure fraud is not taking place. I'm against fraud. One would think that Democrats would be, too, and expend their effort getting everyone a photo ID (which is generally not difficult) than fighting the requirement for one.

I have not yet met a single Republican who decries this situation, or takes a stand against it. Perhaps you will be the first?

I decry what you depict. I don't trust you to fairly represent both sides, so I'm not going farther than that.

If not, then I think the right needs to look to itself, to some degree, for why the left continually sees them as "racist." You cannot stand by when racist things are done, or defend them, and not subject yourself to the accusation.

The left continually paints the right as "racist" because it plays very well with their voter base.

I agree with you, and also put forward a counterpoint: racism is embedded in the fabric of many of our institutions and our society. We cannot have had slavery from the dawn of the colonies until the mid 1800s, Jim Crow (and other racist attitudes) from then until the 1960s, and believe that, a mere 58 years later, all vestiges of harm that was done by those many years of abuse has been erased. We don't need to wallow in guilt. We don't need to take on sins of our fathers. We do need to accept that the consequences of centuries of racism linger, and find ways to equal the playing field for all.

Ideally, that would be done by getting rid of affirmative action, quotas, and any other race-based metric. Race shouldn't matter, and I don't see things changing until that becomes the default position.

That means finding non-racist ways to deal with the legacies of racism. Minorities top the poverty lists. Find a way to deal with poverty, and we not only help deal with the history of racism, we also help ALL people who are poor (white, black, or pink) to emerge from poverty. Minorities top the list of those requiring healthcare. Find a way to deal with sickness and healthcare, and we not only deal with the history of racism, and we also help ALL people who are ill and in need (white, black, or pink) to emerge get the care they need.

There's an easy fix for much poverty. GET MARRIED, and stay married. Poverty and crime statistics track amazingly well with single-parent families.

IMO...
The left jumps too quickly to accusations of racism...
The right too quickly jumps to deny its existence and effects...

I do not deny its existence. I deny (white) racism's prevalence.

Still waiting for anyone on the left to decry blatantly racist groups like the Black Panthers and La Raza.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said - it's common because it's TRUE. You can't just handwave away a view because it's common.

Which exacerbates the issue instead of fixing it. I suspect that many on the left don't really want it to be fixed, because its existence is so helpful to the left politically.

Wait, what? No. that's not what is meant by "identity politics." Identity politics is things like "Asian pride month" or "LGBTQRTY pride month" or "vote for this guy 'cause he's Latino" or "Black Lives Matter", etc. Those are not attempts to examine the problem, and they're no more new than people decrying identity politics.

OBP, the phrase "identity politics" gets flung around pretty much any time someone says "racism." It has become the universal mantra for denying there is a problem. For the record, I have no problem with people celebrating some aspect of their heritage. Our world is a blend of cultures, each with its own unique flavor, and worth celebrating and exploring. When that concept is extended to race, things get dicey. If race had never been an issue in human civilization, then it would be no different than ethnic celebrations. But race IS different because of the history. So now if we have "black pride month" the inevitable question arises: why can't we have "white pride month?" Well, there is very little history of blacks oppressing whites, and a LOT of history of whites oppressing blacks. And there are still wide gaps between people by race. So emphasizing race is a problem.

It's why it's called "Black Lives Matter," and not "All Lives Matter." Imagine a school where most people have brown hair , and for years and years, a significant part of the brown-haired kids have been bullying the blond-haired kids. The brown-haired kids that are not bullying are also not rising up and saying much about it, except a few here and there. And almost all of the brown-haired kids are benefiting from the bullying. They get the best seats in the dining hall, the playground equipment at recess, etc. After years of bullying, the blond-haired kids begin a "Blond-haired people matter." Then the brown-haired kids say, "hey - it's not just you that matters - we matter too!" It's absolutely true that all kids matter. But the goal is to focus on a systemic injustice and say, "this bullying has to stop."

That is what is going on today. That is how it is being felt and experienced on the black side of the line. But the white side of the line, especially the right, continually denies that systemic racism continues to exist in this country. I am the father of two black children. I can assure you it exists. Throughout the years of my boy's school experience, it was a continual struggle to sort out when the action was truly, intentionally racist, and when it was just kids picking on differences (like curly hair or the last zit). But it has been the adults that have been the biggest challenge.

That looks prima faciae racist. If it is, I decry it. I suspect there are explanations which do not admit of racism, or it never would've gotten anywhere.

And this is the knee-jerk response I hear so often from the right. "Yeah - sounds bad, probably wasn't." I dug into this, so I invite you to do the same. It went as far as it did because it was a simple legislation to identify which types of ID could be used for voter registration. How could THAT be bad? The fact that the IDs used by minorities had been explicitly targeted came out as part of the legal process challenging the law.

I am for a photo ID requirement because it's about the best way short of retinal scans to ensure fraud is not taking place. I'm against fraud. One would think that Democrats would be, too, and expend their effort getting everyone a photo ID (which is generally not difficult) than fighting the requirement for one.

The Democrats I talk to are for getting proper IDs in people's hands BEFORE the VoterID laws are changed, so no one is blocked from access to the voting booth. But every ID requires money, and the poor often can't pay that tab, which would require a program to make ID's universally available and affordable. But that smacks of a hand-out, so...round and round we go. And all of this is happening without any significant evidence that voter fraud is a problem that needs to be solved. The incidences of voter fraud are so small they are at percentage levels below bank fraud or healthcare fraud. There is a higher percentage of illegal activity within our government leaders than there is by voters.

So, once again, the primary reason for laws first, IDs after, is because it will reduce voter turnout, and mostly Democratic voter turnout.

I decry what you depict. I don't trust you to fairly represent both sides, so I'm not going farther than that.

I cannot say I'm surprised. "That's terrible - but probably didn't happen" is a pretty common refrain from the right. I recommend you research it yourself, then.

The left continually paints the right as "racist" because it plays very well with their voter base.

Yes, they do. They shouldn't.
And the right continually paints the left with "identity politics" and denials of racism existing because it plays well to theirs.

Ideally, that would be done by getting rid of affirmative action, quotas, and any other race-based metric. Race shouldn't matter, and I don't see things changing until that becomes the default position.

On this we couldn't agree more. I despise affirmative action. You cannot solve a racism problem with racist solutions. All it does is perpetuate the problem. Although I lean left socially, I am pretty far to the right on this issue, and I am a solid target of abuse from my left-leaning friends when the topic comes up. My wife's uncle bought the boys a subscription to "Black Enterprise" magazine. I would not allow it into the house. When I asked why, I asked my wife if she would be comfortable if the title of the magazine was "White Enterprise." I understand the history - and the desire of an oppressed race to reverse oppression and its effects. You do not achieve that by promoting a different kind of racism.

There's an easy fix for much poverty. GET MARRIED, and stay married. Poverty and crime statistics track amazingly well with single-parent families.

Correlation is not causation, OBP.

I do not deny its existence. I deny (white) racism's prevalence.

Since I do not know what "prevalence" means to you, I have no response.

Still waiting for anyone on the left to decry blatantly racist groups like the Black Panthers and La Raza.

You want the left to decry a group that stopped functioning 36 years ago (BPP)? This is the first I hear of La Raza and it has so many possible applications I have no idea what you're referring to.

[Mountain Man]

This is one I fault Obama for. He spent so much time trying to NOT make his race an issue, he ended up making race an issue. He somewhat reminded me of my wife. She hates to be the center of attention. Sometimes, her efforts to be "inconspicuous" end up making her incredibly conspicuous. I remember a time we went to a church (yes, I do that now and then), and the entry was via a side door. My wife does not want to be in the front rows...too conspicuous. But the aisles were crowded. By the time she had made her way to an "inconspicuous" seat at the back, almost every eye in the church was following the crazy lady working her way down the aisle to get to the back.

Right, Obama just accidentally made it all about him That's why he did things like refer to himself dozens of times in speeches, even when those speeches were supposed to be about someone else.

[Mountain Man]

The game may or may not be back on for the meeting.

Yep, and not by accident. Trumo has put a spotlight on China's provocations to scuttle the summit and given Kim the "out" he needs to return to the barraging table without a loss of face. Trump appears to be playing this one masterfully.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...a/#more-149815

[RumTumTugger]

Yep, and not by accident. Trumo has put a spotlight on China's provocations to scuttle the summit and given Kim the "out" he needs to return to the barraging table without a loss of face. Trump appears to be playing this one masterfully.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...a/#more-149815

You know Starlight won't accept that source since it does not say what he wants to hear he refuses to do his homework and accepts what ever the leftwing sources he goes to tell him because they are the only ones that buy into his bigoted false narrative about the United States.

[Mountain Man]

Although I am amused that autocorrect turned "bargaining table" into "barraging table".

It's strangely apropos.

[carpedm9587]

Right, Obama just accidentally made it all about him That's why he did things like refer to himself dozens of times in speeches, even when those speeches were supposed to be about someone else.

Obama did that sometimes....

Trump does it all the time...every speech...

[One Bad Pig]

Obama did that sometimes....

Trump does it all the time...every speech...

Ok, here's a challenge for you. Find a speech where Obama did not do that. Should be easy, if he only did it "sometimes."

[Cow Poke]

Ok, here's a challenge for you. Find a speech where Obama did not do that. Should be easy, if he only did it "sometimes."

Excellent challenge!

[Cow Poke]

In some quick Googling, it appears that the best defense for Obama's frequent use of personal pronouns is that "other Presidents did it too", and, particularly, "Trump".

[Sparko]

Yeah...I hear that a lot from the right.

Frankly, it doesn't reflect well. If people on the right want to stop being seen as (or accused of being) racist, maybe toning down the rhetoric and not supporting initiatives like the N.C Voter ID law would be a good way to change that perception?

Obama found himself, over his eight years, constantly caught between the African American community that wanted him to take a stand against racism and for that community, and much of the white community that didn't want to hear a thing about race. If he said nothing, he was "abandoning his people." If he spoke out, even only as much as any other president, he was "race baiting." Head's you win, tails I lose.

It is racist to assume that black people don't have ID's.

[Cow Poke]

It is racist to assume that black people don't have ID's.

Wow - it's the classic "black people are so stupid they need us white folk to take care of them".