Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe the fact that even the police don't seem to be backing up their man this time. Also, the complications of the victim being a woman and a foreign national. You can blast away at US citizens, but it gets sticky when the target is a national of a friendly nation.

 

p.s. I recall that a few years ago a black cop shot dead an unarmed white man in Utah, and the police backed up the cop. Total silence from the police on this one.

The cop in Utah had his body camera on. He was backed because they could not find any evidence where he violated procedure. There were are women who were shot (http://www.newsweek.com/charleena-lyles-police-shooting-killed-seattle-627216 / https://newsone.com/3443796/sayhername-22-black-women-who-died-during-encounters-with-law-enforcement/ )

 

Its obvious she being a foreign national, of a certain hue and its a no brainer its national and international news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mooch is f**ked

 

I see a little silhouetto of a man

Scaramouch, scaramouch will you do the fandango

 

Thunderbolt and lightning very very frightening me

 

Anthony Scaramucci sacked as Trump media chief - BBC News

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-40782299

 

 

White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci has been fired after fewer than 10 days in the post.

The former Wall Street financier had drawn criticism after calling a reporter to give a profanity-laced tirade against his colleagues.

Mr Trump's chief of staff Reince Priebus and spokesman Sean Spicer both left their posts with his appointment.

The decision was made by Mr Trump's new chief of staff, Gen John Kelly, who was sworn in on Monday.

The president was also unhappy with Mr Scaramucci's performance, the White House confirmed.

Mr Trump's spokeswoman, Sarah Sanders, said the president thought Mr Scaramucci's comments to the reporter "were inappropriate for a person in that position".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump aides' stunning cry for help: Admitting the president misled the American people

 

President Trump hates leaks. He hired Anthony Scaramucci 10 days ago to very publicly root them out, and he has even attacked his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, for not investigating them aggressively enough.

 

But oftentimes with Trump, a leak isn't just a leak; it's an effort to save him from himself.

 

Such is the case with The Washington Post's big scoop yesterday, that Trump personally dictated the highly misleading initial statement about Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11897830

 

Anonymous White House advisers said they had settled on a plan to be transparent about the meeting, only to have the president come in at the 11th hour and decide to try and withhold the whole truth. The result, at Trump's personal direction, was a statement that claimed the meeting was about adoption, when in fact the stated purpose of it was opposition research - supposedly from the Russian government - about Hillary Clinton.

 

Check out this detailed blow-by-blow from The Post's Ashley Parker, Carol D. Leonnig, Philip Rucker and Tom Hamburger about how the Trump team responded to the New York Times learning about the meeting:

 

[White House director of strategic communications Hope] Hicks also spoke by phone with Trump Jr. Again, say people familiar with the conversations, [Jared] Kushner's team concluded that the best strategy would be to err on the side of transparency, because they believed the complete story would eventually emerge.

 

The discussions among the president's advisers consumed much of the day, and they continued as they prepared to board Air Force One that evening for the flight home.

 

But before everyone boarded the plane, Trump had overruled the consensus, according to people with knowledge of the events.

 

It remains unclear exactly how much the president knew at the time of the flight about Trump Jr.'s meeting.

 

CBCEK6UB7BBMJKT6B33QZEHKXE.jpg

 

Donald Trump Jr. Photo / AP

 

 

The president directed that Trump Jr.'s statement to the Times describe the meeting as unimportant. He wanted the statement to say that the meeting had been initiated by the Russian lawyer and primarily was about her pet issue - the adoption of Russian children.

 

And now look at these comments from anonymous advisers:

 

"This was . . . unnecessary," said one of the president's advisers, who like most other people interviewed for this article spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations. "Now someone can claim he's the one who attempted to mislead. Somebody can argue the president is saying he doesn't want you to say the whole truth."

 

And here:

 

Trump, advisers say, is increasingly acting as his own lawyer, strategist and publicist, often disregarding the recommendations of the professionals he has hired.

 

"He refuses to sit still," the presidential adviser said. "He doesn't think he's in any legal jeopardy, so he really views this as a political problem he is going to solve by himself."

 

And this:

 

Because Trump believes he is innocent, some advisers explained, he therefore does not think he is at any legal risk for a cover-up. In his mind, they said, there is nothing to conceal.

 

The White House's first six months, of course, have been littered with internal leaks. Many of them are owed to the warring factions within the West Wing and dissension in the broader administration. But every so often you see this kind of leak: the send-a-message-to-the-boss leak - the spreading of unhelpful information about the president because advisers see no other way to make it stop.

 

And even in that line of reporting, this is a pretty remarkable cry for help. In this story, they're admitting that he is personally responsible for deliberately misleading the American people about a major topic of the Russia investigation.

 

They're saying that he did something that could very well be construed as a cover-up and could damage his legal defense. The reason? Because they apparently can't prevail upon him in person and they think he simply doesn't get what kind of jeopardy he is putting himself in.

 

Part of it may simply be exasperation, as well. When you, as a White House staffer, continue to have to put up with the boss's unpredictable whims and furthering of unhelpful story lines (i.e. Russia was on my mind when I fired FBI Director James B. Comey), it's liable to lead to this kind of leaking.

 

Trump will surely view this as an effort by the deep state and/or the media to undermine him. He'd be better off understanding it for what it is: a desperate effort to help him help himself. After all, in this case, the advisers were right. The truth all came out in rather short order, and Trump only made it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leaks are not uncommon. In fact, its normal. EVERY administration has people leaking information. Obama included https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/obama-leaks-aggressive-nixon-report-prosecution

 

Trump complains about shit every Prez goes through as if he's the only one.

 

By far the most dangerous effect this election and presidency has had and will have for the long term for America is its rapid decline. The standard to become President has always been high, too high at times, as there were minor things that ended Presidency campaigns. However, with the election the standards are lower than even despotic nations.

 

Literally anything goes, including publicly encouraging an enemy state to find and release information on an opposition candidate. With the standards now gone, the door is open for potential presidents worse than the lowest rated ones (Nixon, etc.) historically.

 

China was always going to eventually replace America as the most powerful country, now we have hastened it. With the super rich and powerful owning Congess and the white house, and with an anything goes for President, its unlikely America will make the hard choices needed to revitalize the country until its too late and irreversible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True? :surprised:

 

post-98-0-49518300-1501755694_thumb.jpg

 

 

Or maybe it's just a change in the system?

 

 

"During the past quarter century, minority-owned businesses have undergone a significant transition. Small-scale, personal-service businesses—beauty salons, barber shops, etc. —no longer predominate; they have been replaced by businesses in a diverse array of industries from which Blacks had, heretofore, been excluded for reasons of education, experience, or race. Between 1960 and 1980, minority-owned, personal-service businesses decreased by 49.1 percent, while minority-owned finance, insurance, and real estate businesses increased by 185.7 percent; business services increased by 175 percent; and wholesale industries increased by 111.8 percent (Bates, 1987; see Table 9–1).

 

"One factor that may have helped accelerate this trend, from the mid-1960s through the 1980s, was public-sector, affirmative-action programs in contracting and procurement. These programs created important points-of-entry for minority entrepreneurs, allowing Blacks unprecedented opportunities for diversification in choice of business ventures. This new stage in minority business ownership began with the abatement of racial segregation in the 1960s. Accelerating factors during the 1970s and 1980s were education and experience; Blacks were quickly gaining managerial and executive-level experience in the corporate sector, pursuing business degrees in greater numbers, and, in general, accumulating greater endowments of human-capital attributes closely associated with self-employment activities.

 

"By the late 1980s and early 1990s, decreases in the percentage of personal-service establishments among Black-owned businesses bottomed."

 

...

 

https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/10#191

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, AA made black families single parent headed households? lol. i think the problem is both inside the black community at the time (sixties) and external policy enactments. Internally, and this is something I think i can speak of personally. There is a cultural, Stockholm Syndrome. There is a great need to be accepted by the majority culture. The Civil Rights era people, who are actually now being viewed disparagingly by a certain percentage of black millennials, gave up black owned businesses for integration. The reason why 40 percent had their own businesses was because there was no choice. Blacks were segregated economically in parts of the country. In the north as well as the south. Blacks weren't allowed to shop at many major retailers as well as numerous mom and pop shops. Blacks formed a parallel economy. Banks, insurance companies, taxis, busses, hospitals, hotels etc. Not new, other marginalized groups did the same, Chinese, Italians, Jews. Blacks stopped going to their own businesses to go to the white businesses we were historically kept out of. There is a sad joke about blacks not supporting black owned businesses that had the same exact service. When asked why he was buying ice at the white store , farther away the black person told the black store owner "the white man's ice is colder". So, internally, from 400 years of seeing yourself in movie, tv, every day experiences as being 2nd class citizens, a certain "Stockholm Syndrome' mentality besat many, many blacks. One great example? The Negro Leagues in baseball. The league was profitable actually. Very much so. In some markets where there were an MLB team it was said they were sometimes more profitable. I read (no way to confirm but) the Pittsburgh negro league team was more profitable than the Pittsburgh Pirates for example. But not the NY teams only in some markets. They were also the only professional team in some markets like Kansas City (the kC Royals didn't come about until the late 60s). They gave up the Negro Leagues in order to be accepted into the MLB. The negro league teams didn't even get compensation. The MLB ruled that since they weren't part of the MLB they weren't entitled to compensation. That is just one example.

 

The policy part is the expansion of social welfare. Public housing and AFDC (aid to families with dependent children) was actually designed for the white widows of WW2. The war left thousands of white women widows, numerous of them with children. At the time, no one was marrying a widow. It was socially looked down upon that a man would marry a woman with kids from another marriage, even if she was a widow. It happened but it wasn't common. So the federal government replaced the father. Set up welfare programs for housing and food. One of the stipulations was that no male over 18 could be in the home. This was to prevent her from having a freeloader boyfriend there. In the '60s and '70s this was expanded almost entirely to the black areas. My mother remembered when social workers from the city would come to the black areas to speak to the women about getting free public housing. A huge building boom of housing projects ensued, The massive Robert Taylor homes in Chicago for example. Every major and minor American city had huge housing projects built. Ironically enough with union labor that was denied black men at the time. There was also incentive to have more kids out of wedlock by offering more money for each additional child. Married black women were not entitled to this. The generation of white WW2 widows died out and with that the end of the program in non black areas for the most part. Some remnants remained in some poor white areas (the deep south, midwest, parts of appalacia).

 

The government knew this was not good for the black family. How did they know? Two government reports told them that. The first was the Moynihan Report in the early '60s. As part of LBJ's "War on Poverty' he commissioned a independent report without bias that looked at poverty especially black poverty. Patrick Moynihan who later became a NY senator, concluded that to keep the black family intact and successful, the black father needed access to the same quality jobs as other Americans. That every successful society was rooted in the traditional family. When that failed society failed. In the late '60s specifically the summers of '67 and '68 when scores of American cities erupted into riots by blacks. Newark, Detroit and LA (actually '65 for LA) because the promises of the civil rights were not being met. Police abuse was rampant, unions were not admitting blacks, the same menial jobs (butler, sanitation, etc.) were the only ones available, the promise of the 'Great Society' was not being kept, so there were riots. The government once again commissioned a report to find the answers. The Kerner Commission. Named after its chair, Illinois governor Otto Kerner, did an unbiased report to find the real truth. The report concluded that Blacks felt despite civil and voting rights act, they were still marginalized and that the men in particular didn't see racism as much the issue because they felt it was always going to be a constant but jobs. They couldn't feel their families adequately enough. Union access was the way to working class and lower middle class status in the northern cities. It transferred millions of European immigrants (irish, italians, germans, etc.) into solid working class status.

 

So what did the federal government do about it. The complete opposite. A policy deemed 'benign neglect' was adopted. Don't promise anything, so lowered expectations. Second, the war on drugs by Nixon and the massive expansion of the prison population. The black prison population starting in the '70s shot up dramatically. Black behavior was criminalized. Pot, formerly minor offenses that were a fine was now a felony or you were jailed over such as parking tickets, suspended licenses, etc. and that continued to this day such as child support or the owing of it can be grounds for incarceration in most cities. Wasn't the case 50 years ago.

 

The introduction of crack and illicit drugs wreaked havoc as well. I don't know any black person my age who did not know someone, either a family member or close friend that wasn't on drugs. I had at least 3 relatives I can think of immediately. The flood of drugs and guns, into the black areas also caused a lot of family break ups.

 

The expansion of the welfare state did the most damage. People will call it a liberal plan and most conservatives say its the fault of liberals but it expanded under GOP administrations. They signed off on it as well as the support of Republicans in Congress. From 1968-1976 the Republicans controlled the white house when the greatest expansion of social welfare occurred and were not vetoed.

 

The double whammy of factory, blue collar jobs leaving America. Black men were steadily getting union jobs throughout the '70s into the '80s but by this time, the big 3 auto companies were moving operations outside of America. Same with other unionized industries. By the time blacks got into these unions the jobs were gone for the most part. Also, city jobs were being scaled back. Postal worker, sanitation city jobs were one way to enter working class as well as federal jobs but the city governments stopped hiring and also changed requirements. Many clerk jobs now require a degree. And they instituted a point system for many other jobs.

 

Basically, its complicated but not so complicated if that makes sense. There are now 3 generations of millions of blacks raised on social welfare to the point its cultural. Blacks neither created or asked for social welfare as a means to solve issues. The only thing the civil rights era people asked for equal opportunity, that was it. AFDC, public housing, food stamps, etc., was what was presented to us as a partial remedy. It wasn't asked for. Then in a circular fashion, the same "victims" of it are used as political ploys to get votes from working class whites. We qualified for it in my family easily, at least parts, such as free lunch program. We never took it because my dad wouldn't. He was a deacon and a community elder so it would look hypocritical of him is my guess. Plus he was an extremely proud man. I used to look askance at others in our area who did but as I got older, who am I to tell someone of very limited means, not to?

 

There is a bit of hypocrisy today. Trump got voted in to promise 'white working class men' jobs. They weren't blamed for not being able to find work. Or mening ful work. However, the same black guy in the urban areas is told why can't he get a job? There is a McDonald's,etc, but the same isn't asked of his counterpart in Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin or Ohio. Hmmmm.....

 

Yes, CS has become a socialist...in part...haha.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...