So when I post a link showing the Mexican Consulate is helping immigrants vote against Trump, that doesn’t prove the point of “Mexico is trying to influence the election” ?
Temporarily putting aside the specifics of this issue, my post to you was addressing the larger point that you had complained about…
…namely the idea that asking for sources was an unreasonable expectation. If you want to make bold claims, that’s fine. If you want me, or anyone, to take bold claims seriously, it’s a reasonable “ask” to see what source(s) you used to arrive at said conclusions, as you provide above for this particular issue. And that’s true for whatever source you used - whether it’s a legitimate news outlet or a white supremacist site or a Black Lives Matter pamphlet - at least then I know what the source is and can determine for myself whether I find the claim credible.
I did find it especially funny that you said this…
…when you are absolutely the first person I think of from this forum who complains about things like liberals needing safe spaces and our damn PC culture requiring that we respect all opinions. So you want to get rid of safe spaces, as long as no one challenges your opinion or asks you to provide some evidence for a bold statement. Cool.
If you need a safe space where you can express your own opinion without being asked for the rationale, there is an entire thread called “Things I Can’t Prove, But Believe” where the entire point is discussing stuff without being called out. Our own forum safe space, if you will.
2 Likes
Hahah I couldn’t agree more.
Failure to comply has nothing to do with being arrested for drug use…I could be pulled over today for a broken taillight (pre-text stop) and be arrested for drug use while being completely compliant during the stop.
What behaviors are you referring to? Are you saying Blacks are inherently suspicious
This sounds like a deflection from the point that a US President was involved in disenfranchising a portion of his population…which another US president carried forward a decade later.
This is fair.
Hahah I believe you.
Ah but it does. Someone who does not overreact may sit in the vehicle and play it cool while having drugs stuffed all over his car. Whereas someone who overreacts and does not comply and is not going along with the program gets more scrutiny. Hence the arrest.
I don’t know much about Nixon and not interested in looking it up unless you are going to pay me…But ED is good at looking things up so he can take this. Either way even if true that does not play out 40+ years later.
I would be happy to entertain your forum safe space, dont be surprised when I leave a steaming dragon in it.
Now that we got that out of the way, let’s get back to the issue at hand. I have cited sources such as the LA Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and Bloomberg to prove my point. If someone wants to dismiss them because they don’t specifically say, word for word, the point trying to be made, there is no point in citing any source because no study, poll, experiment, or review is worded in such a manner. I would like to think people can use critical thinking to deduce a rational conclusion, but apparently not for some people here on TN. It’s an episode of CSI, with audio/visual support, polygraph testing, DNA support, and finally the sworn admission of Jesus Christ himself.
1 Like
It directly affects the amount of men in the community.
A person who knows they have something illegal wouldn’t overreact. Completely illogical.
As an aside, this was one of the many disastrous unintended consequence of the 1994 Crime Bill–removing a generation of black men from their communities. Then, when they eventually do return, they were all-but-unemployable felons.
1 Like
Are you actually making a claim that there are less black men because of what Nixon allegedly did? No, you’re not say that. Right?
And yet that is what many young black men do. They absolutely overact. It’s almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.
When you put men in jail, there are fewer left in the community.
When men break laws they belong in jail.
Prison is a meritocracy
Eh, I’ve seen otherwise. I knew a guy that had a serious coke habit. Paranoid as hell. One day while getting onto an on ramp he came up behind a cop. As he sat there, I guess he just noided out, because before they could start moving he pulled onto the shoulder, around everybody and took off. Of course the cop gave chase, which ended in a fatal wreck.
People do some crazy things.
You’re going in circles again.
I illustrated to you how Nixon’s War on drugs and disparity in drug sentencing was directly targeted at the Black community followed by Regan’s continuation of said war. Once again, 85% of people arrested for crack use were Black men. So yes, their policies directly contributed to the lack of Black men at home. This was followed up by Bill in 94.
You say people that break the law should go to jail, but the previous chart I posted showed Blacks and Whites use drugs at similar rates…when I documented the disparity in incarceration you chalked it up to Black men overreacting when approached by police and not complying. That’s illogical and not my experience but you assert it to be true. We’re finished buddy. It’s been real.
You can see the vast increase in people incarcerated right around the onset of said war.
1 Like
That’s sad man…but I have heard that shit makes you paranoid so that could make sense if you were high around them.