Political Roundtable Part X

[keynote]

Baltimore shows how historic segregation shapes biased policing today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/baltimore-shows-how-historic-segregation-shapes-biased-policing-today/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_baltimore-1155

The 1937 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation map of Baltimore — the original “redlining” document in which the government determined which neighborhoods were worthy of mortgage lending — is reproduced, in full color, on Page 73 of the scathing federal investigation of the city’s modern-day police force released this week.

Federal mortgage policies both restricted blacks to segregated neighborhoods and prevented them from building wealth there. They later explicitly excluded blacks from homeownership in the newly built suburbs. They fostered the twin troubles of segregation and poverty.

Because these patterns remain in Baltimore today, they have essentially created a city map conducive to discriminatory policing.

[Induveca]

Trump has pretty much lost me at this point. But Clinton certainly doesn't get my vote.

If Trump destroys Clinton in the debates, professionally.....and WikiLeaks releases the supposed lurking videos then I'll reassess. If even half of the claims on ANON/Wikileaks boards are true I suspect Clinton suddenly bows out due to illness.

*No* scenario here is good.

[dckingsfan]

Baltimore shows how historic segregation shapes biased policing today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/baltimore-shows-how-historic-segregation-shapes-biased-policing-today/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_baltimore-1155

The 1937 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation map of Baltimore — the original “redlining” document in which the government determined which neighborhoods were worthy of mortgage lending — is reproduced, in full color, on Page 73 of the scathing federal investigation of the city’s modern-day police force released this week.

Federal mortgage policies both restricted blacks to segregated neighborhoods and prevented them from building wealth there. They later explicitly excluded blacks from homeownership in the newly built suburbs. They fostered the twin troubles of segregation and poverty.

Because these patterns remain in Baltimore today, they have essentially created a city map conducive to discriminatory policing.

You probably see this one way and I see it another. I see it - when the Federal Government gets involved in lending - really bad things happen.

[Ruzious]

Trump has pretty much lost me at this point. But Clinton certainly doesn't get my vote.

If Trump destroys Clinton in the debates, professionally.....and WikiLeaks releases the supposed lurking videos then I'll reassess. If even half of the claims on ANON/Wikileaks boards are true I suspect Clinton suddenly bows out due to illness.

*No* scenario here is good.

You lost me at "If Trump destroys Clinton in the debates". Why would you think that's even possible? Indy, after reading posts over the years, I know you want Trump to win. It ain't gonna happen.

[tontoz]

A candidate for President needs to have a filter when speaking publicly and Trump just doesn't seem to have one. If he did there is a reasonable chance that he could win but as it stands now I just don't see it. He says too much crazy chit.

I don't have a problem with this sentiment. Trump certainly isn't "presidential" as we have come to know the term over the past 50 years or so. If his overall crassness is a bridge too far for some voters, I can respect that. I'd prefer a guy who thought things through more before opening his mouth.

I just think it's ridiculous to accuse him of advocating assassination.

He was clearly joking but still that isn't the type of thing you joke about. When he joked about the Russians looking for the lost emails i lol'd but this is just taking it too far.

Taking a cheap shot at parents who lost their child isn't ok under any circumstances.

Over the years i have seen countless examples of celebrities who seem to have lost touch with reality. It even happened to Tiger which i didn't think i would ever see. I think that is what we are seeing here with Trump.

[DCZards]

A candidate for President needs to have a filter when speaking publicly and Trump just doesn't seem to have one. If he did there is a reasonable chance that he could win but as it stands now I just don't see it. He says too much crazy chit.

It would also help if the candidate had high moral standards and an attention span of more than 2-3 minutes. Trump seems to lack both.

I don't think Trump really was suggesting that Hillary be assassinated. I took it as a joke. But it was the kind of "joke" that shows--once again--why Trump is not fit to be President.

[montestewart]

I don't have a problem with this sentiment. Trump certainly isn't "presidential" as we have come to know the term over the past 50 years or so. If his overall crassness is a bridge too far for some voters, I can respect that. I'd prefer a guy who thought things through more before opening his mouth.

I just think it's ridiculous to accuse him of advocating assassination.

I think your ideal candidate would be your avatar. Not kidding.

The parallels between Cartman and Trump are kind of amazing actually.

[keynote]

Baltimore shows how historic segregation shapes biased policing today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/baltimore-shows-how-historic-segregation-shapes-biased-policing-today/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_baltimore-1155

The 1937 Home Owners’ Loan Corporation map of Baltimore — the original “redlining” document in which the government determined which neighborhoods were worthy of mortgage lending — is reproduced, in full color, on Page 73 of the scathing federal investigation of the city’s modern-day police force released this week.

Federal mortgage policies both restricted blacks to segregated neighborhoods and prevented them from building wealth there. They later explicitly excluded blacks from homeownership in the newly built suburbs. They fostered the twin troubles of segregation and poverty.

Because these patterns remain in Baltimore today, they have essentially created a city map conducive to discriminatory policing.

You probably see this one way and I see it another. I see it - when the Federal Government gets involved in lending - really bad things happen.

To clarify: I post an article that shows evidence of the impact of discriminatory mortgage policies on both crime and discriminatory policing two generations later, and your take away is "that's why federal regulation is bad in general"?

Mind you, I posted this article in a thread where another poster has argued (presumably with a straight face) that any observed difference in economic performance and/or criminal behavior between ethnic groups is more likely attributable to inherent differences in IQ. Posters cite crime statistics in Chicago -- Exhibit A for discriminatory redlining policies -- as proof that Black people are inherently more violent than White people.

The redlining policies in Baltimore were not some sort of aberration, any more than they were in Chicago. They're merely an example of institutionalized oppression that took place for generations after slavery was abolished. The centuries of slavery, combined with an extra century's worth of institutionalized and government-enforced oppression has done a number on Black communities, to put it mildly. Everyone in this country is still feeling the impact of "America's original sin", as one author puts it. The fact that in 2016, we're still dealing with voter suppression and institutionalized discriminatory policing is evidence that we as a country have a long ways to go to purge this sin out of our society.

Unfortunately, there is an old ideological movement that has always maintained a vested interest in our country *not* atoning for its original sin. That movement is alive, well, and active in modern politics today. And frankly, that ideological movement isn't that compatible with democracy. Here's an interesting blog post on the subject.

https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

But sure, let's talk about deregulating the mortgage market instead.

[payitforward]

He isn't talking about the gov't taking guns away. He is talking about picking judges.

I thought he might try to act more Presidential after the nomination to attract undecided voters. Instead he is still acting like a troll.

That's exactly what he's talking about: Hillary appointing judges who will interpret the 2nd Amendment out of existence so that the government can disarm the citizens.

Nate -- point of information: would you consider yourself an "originalist" in re: interpretation of the Constitution? I.e. look for what the statements in the document meant to the people who made them? Where the exact meaning might be in question, try to figure out what the intention behind the statement was? (There's lots of material to use in that, of course: especially the Federalist Papers, which I assume you and others read -- at least a generous selection -- in school)

If so, what do you take the 2d Amendment to mean? Here's the text:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What do you think the amendment means -- i.e. in the above sense: what did the founders mean by the two clauses of its one simple sentence. To the degree that the exact meaning of either of these clauses lacks total clarity, how might we come to understand the founders' intention(s), do you think?

[Induveca]

Trump has pretty much lost me at this point. But Clinton certainly doesn't get my vote.

If Trump destroys Clinton in the debates, professionally.....and WikiLeaks releases the supposed lurking videos then I'll reassess. If even half of the claims on ANON/Wikileaks boards are true I suspect Clinton suddenly bows out due to illness.

*No* scenario here is good.

You lost me at "If Trump destroys Clinton in the debates". Why would you think that's even possible? Indy, after reading posts over the years, I know you want Trump to win. It ain't gonna happen.

Ruz, I most certainly wanted Trump to win as recently as 5-6 weeks ago. But Trump's public egomaniacal actions since then have have left me repulsed.....to the point where I'll be voting for neither.

This is pure circus now, and I won't be voting for either. Disavowing Trump doesn't auto-convert people into a Clinton supporter. As I've said many times two choices isn't a choice, any 3rd world immigrant understands this comment.

[AFM]

Presented with no comment.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-10/democratic-strategist-calls-assassination-julian-assange

[payitforward]

LOL at defending Trump. Keep defending a troll, dude. You look more and more ridiculous everyday.

If this was directed at Nate, as I assume, I disagree.

I wish I could simply conclude that this is "ridiculous." The truth is, as I've said, that the position is incomprehensible to me -- literally so. What Donald Trump "is" he makes no effort to hide. He's a demagogue -- words that come out of his mouth are true because they came out of his mouth. If he suggests assassination, or hints at his positive view of it as a political tactic, or suggests that he might not be opposed to it, or whatever variant you choose -- why, that's ok, because the rule of law doesn't apply to him.

In other words, Donald Trump doesn't believe in the rule of law; he believes that what he says is right, irrespective of the rule of law. Which means that he doesn't believe the Constitution is the ruling document of this nation.

None of this does he hide -- far from it; he vaunts it. I see no possible way Nate or anybody can fail to notice it. For that reason, I assume Nate does notice it. And that's where my trouble begins. That gets me back to the beginning of this post.

It goes without saying that you have a perfect right, a human right, to like or dislike anything or anyone just as you prefer. That's not at question. I'd just really like to know why you do -- why you think it's ok to support Donald Trump given the above.

[dckingsfan]

Baltimore shows how historic segregation shapes biased policing today

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/baltimore-shows-how-historic-segregation-shapes-biased-policing-today/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_baltimore-1155

You probably see this one way and I see it another. I see it - when the Federal Government gets involved in lending - really bad things happen.

To clarify: I post an article that shows evidence of the impact of discriminatory mortgage policies on both crime and discriminatory policing two generations later, and your take away is "that's why federal regulation is bad in general"?

Mind you, I posted this article in a thread where another poster has argued (presumably with a straight face) that any observed difference in economic performance and/or criminal behavior between ethnic groups is more likely attributable to inherent differences in IQ. Posters cite crime statistics in Chicago -- Exhibit A for discriminatory redlining policies -- as proof that Black people are inherently more violent than White people.

The redlining policies in Baltimore were not some sort of aberration, any more than they were in Chicago. They're merely an example of institutionalized oppression that took place for generations after slavery was abolished. The centuries of slavery, combined with an extra century's worth of institutionalized and government-enforced oppression has done a number on Black communities, to put it mildly. Everyone in this country is still feeling the impact of "America's original sin", as one author puts it. The fact that in 2016, we're still dealing with voter suppression and institutionalized discriminatory policing is evidence that we as a country have a long ways to go to purge this sin out of our society.

Unfortunately, there is an old ideological movement that has always maintained a vested interest in our country *not* atoning for its original sin. That movement is alive, well, and active in modern politics today. And frankly, that ideological movement isn't that compatible with democracy. Here's an interesting blog post on the subject.

https://weeklysift.com/2014/08/11/not-a-tea-party-a-confederate-party/

But sure, let's talk about deregulating the mortgage market instead.

Ah Sorry, if this was out of context. I didn't see the original post.

I did read the article - "in which the government determined which neighborhoods were worthy of mortgage lending " and thought that "nefarious".

Then I thought of the new programs where, "in which the government determined which neighborhoods were worthy of mortgage lending" - wait, that was the housing bubble.

Before it was nefarious now it is just ineptitude... both are bad. The government should pull its nose out of home loans.

[bgroban]

LOL at defending Trump. Keep defending a troll, dude. You look more and more ridiculous everyday.

If this was directed at Nate, as I assume, I disagree.

I wish I could simply conclude that this is "ridiculous." The truth is, as I've said, that the position is incomprehensible to me -- literally so. What Donald Trump "is" he makes no effort to hide. He's a demagogue -- words that come out of his mouth are true because they came out of his mouth. If he suggests assassination, or hints at his positive view of it as a political tactic, or suggests that he might not be opposed to it, or whatever variant you choose -- why, that's ok, because the rule of law doesn't apply to him.

In other words, Donald Trump doesn't believe in the rule of law; he believes that what he says is right, irrespective of the rule of law. Which means that he doesn't believe the Constitution is the ruling document of this nation.

None of this does he hide -- far from it; he vaunts it. I see no possible way Nate or anybody can fail to notice it. For that reason, I assume Nate does notice it. And that's where my trouble begins. That gets me back to the beginning of this post.

It goes without saying that you have a perfect right, a human right, to like or dislike anything or anyone just as you prefer. That's not at question. I'd just really like to know why you do -- why you think it's ok to support Donald Trump given the above.

I don't disagree with what you say about Trump, however, Hillary has been acting above the law and unconstitutionally for years. I would argue that her actions are worse because she has been an elected official.

[popper]

LOL at defending Trump. Keep defending a troll, dude. You look more and more ridiculous everyday.

If this was directed at Nate, as I assume, I disagree.

I wish I could simply conclude that this is "ridiculous." The truth is, as I've said, that the position is incomprehensible to me -- literally so. What Donald Trump "is" he makes no effort to hide. He's a demagogue -- words that come out of his mouth are true because they came out of his mouth. If he suggests assassination, or hints at his positive view of it as a political tactic, or suggests that he might not be opposed to it, or whatever variant you choose -- why, that's ok, because the rule of law doesn't apply to him.

In other words, Donald Trump doesn't believe in the rule of law; he believes that what he says is right, irrespective of the rule of law. Which means that he doesn't believe the Constitution is the ruling document of this nation.

None of this does he hide -- far from it; he vaunts it. I see no possible way Nate or anybody can fail to notice it. For that reason, I assume Nate does notice it. And that's where my trouble begins. That gets me back to the beginning of this post.

It goes without saying that you have a perfect right, a human right, to like or dislike anything or anyone just as you prefer. That's not at question. I'd just really like to know why you do -- why you think it's ok to support Donald Trump given the above.

Like President Obama, Clinton and Trump are corrupt, serial liars, that have no respect for the rule of law or the Constitution. I guess it comes down to who will damage the country least. It's a very depressing and difficult choice.

[popper]

Wow. Bernie paid $600 K for a vacation home on Lake Champlain. That's the kind of extravagance that only the top one percent can afford. He's too old to run again so no need to continue to deceive his constituents. I wonder if they will appreciate the irony.

[Wizardspride]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/justice-department-to-release-blistering-report-of-racial-bias-by-baltimore-police.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1

Justice Department to Release Blistering Report of Racial Bias by Baltimore Police



The Justice Department on Wednesday will release a blistering critique of racial discrimination by Baltimore’s police department, the latest example of the Obama administration’s aggressive push for police reforms in cities where young African-American men have died at the hands of law enforcement.

The long-awaited report, coming more than a year after Baltimore erupted into riots over the police-involved death of a 25-year-old black man, Freddie Gray, is sharply critical of city policies that encourage officers to charge people with minor crimes to inflate police statistics.

The report, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, found that African-American residents were often stopped or arrested without legal justification.

To show how officers disproportionately stopped black pedestrians, the report cited the example of a black man in his mid-fifties who was stopped 30 times in less than four years. None of the stops led to a citation or criminal charge. Black residents, the report said, accounted for 95 percent of the 410 individuals stopped at least 10 times.

Eighty-two percent of the traffic stops were black drivers, the report said, who account for 60 percent of the driving-age population in the city.

Racial disparities were also apparent in criminal charges filed, the report said, particularly for discretionary offenses like trespassing, disorderly conduct or failure to obey.

[Wizardspride]

Wow. Bernie paid $600 K for a vacation home on Lake Champlain. That's the kind of extravagance that only the top one percent can afford. He's too old to run again so no need to continue to deceive his constituents. I wonder if they will appreciate the irony.

http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2016/08/10/check-out-bernie-sanders-rustic-new-lakefront-summer-home/
“My family had a lake home in Maine since 1900, but we hadn’t had the time to go there in recent years—especially since my parents passed away,” Sanders’ wife, Jane O’Meara Sanders, told the weekly in a written statement. “We finally let go of it and that enabled us to buy a place in the islands—something I’ve always hoped for. ”

[keynote]

I don't disagree with what you say about Trump, however, Hillary has been acting above the law and unconstitutionally for years. I would argue that her actions are worse because she has been an elected official.

Man, the rhetoric folks throw around.
I don't know how to define "acting above the law". Unless you have examples of Clinton actually breaking the law, I'm not sure what to do with that phrase.

So, just for fun, please list the specific acts Clinton has committed that were unconstitutional while in office. Mind you, "unconstitutional" does not mean "decision or outcome I didn't like for policy reasons," or "action that smells sketchy." "Unconstitutional" means "in violation of the US Constitution and related federal case law".

Sigh. We've gotten to the point where people assume that an accusation of corruption = evidence of corruption, and that evidence of corruption = corruption. The Clintons have been *accused* of everything, up to and including murder. They haven't been convicted of anything -- and then folks chalk that up to their skill as oily Yale-trained lawyers. As if it's the defendants' fault when the prosecution fails to build a case.

Bernie did the same thing, mind you. He was polite about it, sure, but the thrust of his campaign was that Clinton was corrupt. He didn't point to any single action, vote, or policy decision that was tainted by corruption (he couldn't, since his voting record was in virtual lockstep with hers). So, he pointed to her honoraria from speaking to banks, and insinuated that she was essentially receiving bribes. The Bernie Bros didn't need actual proof of corruption; the accusation (coming on the heels of 20 years of similar unproven accusations from conservatives) was enough.

There's power in calling someone corrupt; in accusing an elected official of acting above the law and/or in an unconstitutional manner. Exonerations never fully remove the stain of the original accusation in the eyes of the public -- and politicians *know* that. Still, it's a shame to see people in a free society willfully abuse that power.

[tontoz]

a black man in his mid-fifties who was stopped 30 times in less than four years. None of the stops led to a citation or criminal charge.