Ghoat

More so than any other demographic, I would say there is an inherent the distrust of police within the black community, regardless of the officer's color. I believe that is generally understood are police departments, and most or trying I need to continue to dry to reach out to the communities and improve relations. But by the same token those communities have to be willing to accept that effort, and do their part as well, even if 75% of the burden is on the police force, the community still has to do their 25% or it can never improve. You will have a community that has a high crime rate and demands something be done about it, and then often times when patrols increase it raises tensions and there are complaints in the same community about heavy police presence and arrests. People will not cooperate with the police - even when they match the community and are uneasy by their mere presence. When there is a fatal shooting by an officer in the line of duty, there is always an investigation. Actually if an officer even discharges his service weapon there is an investigation. I'm not foolish enough to assume that justice or the truth always comes out of these investigations, but there is really no other option then to let the process at least run. If the victim is white, or the officer is black, typically is that news, and the races might not even be mentioned initially unless something dodgy surfaces. But in cases where the officer is white and if the victim is black there can be racial assumption applied before there are any facts whatsoever which greatly complicates the process. Michael Brown, Ferguson Missouri. Initially reported as white cop gunning an unarmed black teen down in the street in broad daylight. The national rise to prominence of Black Lives Matter, "Hands up, Don't Shoot" chanted, on shirts and signs, the Ferguson Riots, as well as being a huge influencing factor on Colin Kaepernick's NFL protest come from this case, and primarily the initial reporting of this that became a worldwide sensation. When you have the time read through this. There's a lot of information on the investigations the witnesses forensics etc. For more information then the media went back to cover or report after the new cycle was over, they were on two other news stories and other controversies. I want even summarize it but if you're so inclined, read the evidence presented to investigators and draw your own conclusions. And yes there other cases, and names that are familiar to us all, but this was probably the biggest. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

Totally agree. But that's MUCH broader - the entire criminal justice system, social economical realities, education, cultural and societal differences as well as racism. But that's entirely different from the narrow suggestion that cops kill blacks kids in the street and don't kill white kids. That, as a stand alone statement, is bollocks.

And Steve, just because I'm debating with you or disagreeing with you on something doesn't mean I don't appreciate the difference in perspective. You were looking at it from the outside, and have personal experience is here as well. I am right in the middle of it, but also have the perspective of having lived outside of it and having that perspective. So whether I agree or not, doesn't mean that I don't genuinely appreciate your (any anyone else's) contribution in a civil discussion

I couldn't agree more it's generation passed, ESPECIALLY in the Deep South, where you have spent a lot of time. I spent 3 years as a youth in Japan, where I was certainly a minority, I lived in Alaska 3 years, and I have traveled a good bit, but I was basically born and raised in Mississippi, and have grown up in Alabama. My great-grandmother used the terms "nigger woman" or "nigger man" to describe people - more as an adjective, not spat as an insult. She was born in rural Mississippi in 1915 or so, and lived there until she died in the 1990's. It was their world, and how they spoke, which explains it, with justifying or condoning it. My grandmother I heard much less of that type language from. My Mom went to school during public school in Mississippi during the desegregation 1960's, I don't recall hearing that language from her. My wife and I have raised our daughters to be as color-blind as possible. Not all do, some pass the stupidity right down the gene pool, explicitly or tacitly. Momma was right "you can't fix stupid", but you can damn sure limit your interaction with it! This is probably still the "worst" part of the country, still has the farthest to go and should continue to be held accountable. But to not recognize the gradual evolution and progress in society and broadly characterize "Southern-Americans" as little more than a bunch of racists Confederate Flag waving hicks is counter-productive in every sense of the world. And I am NOT accusing you have do that, just to be clear. "White kids don’t get shot in the street by the police, black kids do" makes for a good poster at a march, but it's bollocks. Discussion for another time/day.

You will find zero argument from me on that (better not right). The US population is confusing as hell because of the somewhat confusing differentiation of race vs ethnicity, especial when it comes to white/non-white Latino and Hispanic - which seemingly are used interchangeably or incorrectly. Blacks/African Americans are about 13%, Asians about 5% and multi race and "other" somewhere about 11% So if white is about 65% that would put "Hispanic" due to lack of better terms at 15%. So the US is roughly 65% white, which includes European ancestry. Regardless of the 100 current US Senate there are 4 Hispanic, 3 Black, 3 Asian and 1 mixed race - leaving 89 "white". While that doesn't match the population, you could also argue it should be 100% white (which I don't for the record). With only 2 seats per state, and no state has less than 50% whites. For example, South Carolina has 1 black (republican!) senator and 1 white. The population is roughly 70/30 white black. So with 50/50 on senators, blacks are over-represented by 20% and white under-represented 20%. While the Senate could be, and should be more diverse, it's not "simple math" The House is much different and closer, because it ties to a state's population and the districts are much smaller that "half the state". Of the 435 House seats there are 122 minorities, including 56 black. So whites that are 65% of the population are represented by 70% of the seats. Blacks are 13% of the population and have that same percentage of the seats. That starts to look more representative, yes? It's absurd to me to look at the make up of our government and use that as a basis or THE basis that the American system is racist. That is overly simplistic, and IMO, intellectually lazy. I do not dispute there is racism in they system at all, but there are several factors that contribute to why "old white men" are disproportionately represented. It is changing, and that trend is good for the country, but I strenuously disagree that the primary reason it's not an exact mirror image of the current population is due to inherent racism (or sexism). Let me give you a different perspective or thought on "identity politics" to ponder. For me, a representative should do their best to represent their entire constituency - practically impossible from a diverse electorate, but still. Use Ilhan Omar of Minnesota as an example - she is a black Muslim. If that drives the vast majority of her policy, what about the 60-70% of whites in her district the and the 70-75% Christians? If we as a electorate expect our representatives to primarily push policy based on identity, then the racial diversity of government disappears when the WASP majority in this country votes accordingly, and we get even MORE old white men in power. And honestly, as a WASP, that's the last fucking thing I want to see.

So you've personally seen 3 examples of racism in the United States, and that show no progress for minorities in the country. I'm assuming if you been in London pub when Zouma gave up a needless penalty not a single person in that bar would have dared utter a racist epitath because, well progress has been achieved in the UK. Racism is unacceptable, and has been for oh 5000 years or so, but it lives. And people are stupid. But individual stupidly does not equate to institutionalized racism or oppression, it just doesn't. What do you consider progress besides voting and riding in the front of buses? Economic gains, home ownership, business ownership, education, participation in local state or federal government? Pick a time period - last 40 years, 20 years, 4 years....and show me little/no progress across the spectrum. Perfect, hell no. Long way to go in some areas, absolutely. But respectfully, I think you are taking a macro view based on 4-5 micro examples.

I knew you would eventually say something I agreed with

And for the record, my dislike of AOC, or The Squad as a whole, is not due to their gender, ethnicity or religion, I don't like their policies. But we certainly don't need more wealthy old white guys in DC, of either party.

Personally I don't think she's terribly bright - not just because I disagree with a lot of her proposals, I just don't think she's terribly bright. But I absolutely agree that there needs to be dissenting voices, viewpoints and opinions, even if they're not ones I particularly like. If 20 stupid ideas from either side lead to one good idea that makes a difference, that's a good thing. I would like to have seen over the course of a 4-year presidency or maybe even an 8-year presidency what George W's "compassionate conservatism" would have actually looked like. In theory to me at least that still meant basic conservative principles a little more limited government and people's lives, but not gutting social programs in the process. Of course less than nine months into his presidency 9/11 occured, and completely changed whatever plans he had, so we'll never know.

every place that had an article about him being fined for giving an endorsement to a betting company had a picture of him in his Everton kit with SportPesa prominently displayed. Irony is delicious, especially when served properly.

Thanks Mike. I've gathered this is all rather extraordinary, but I wasn't completely sure I understood "ordinary" haha

Not Brexit exactly, but "mechanics". Yanks have no mechanism or equivalent for a no-confidence, general election or national referendum, so it's an unfamiliar discussion to follow. Party A wins 310 MP seats Party B wins 300 MP seats 50 MPs from 7 other parties Party A doesn't automatically assume control because they didn't get 331 seats. So if Party B can get 31 of the 50 to join them in coalition, they select the PM, and Party A is the Opposition, despite actually winning the most seats. If at some point the Opposition thinks they have a simple majority, they can put forth a no-confidence vote. If successful the government resigns and parliament is dissolved. If a new coalition can't secure a confidence vote in 2 weeks, automatically triggers a general election for the entire House of Commons, regardless how much time is left in their term. I'm sure there are a lot of nuances, but is that basically correct?

The point of all that was that you were shocked that "The Squad" are considered "progressive" or even "liberal" in our political arena. So I did a lot of digging trying to understand why you had that viewpoint that seemed absurd. I'll be damned, but there is pretty good reasons for you to think that. I simply compared the different road taken to arrive at a similar place in time. And nah, we stole both ideas. Like a hip-hop artist mashing a couple things up. Both Greece and the Adam Smith estate tried to file for copyright infringement, but neither filed the proper paperwork with the EU.

Here's the gist. Personally I had no knowledge that the Labour Party originated directly from the union labor workforce, had no idea that the socialist movement was as big in the UK as it was, ditto the labor unions themselves. The fact these became political allies years ago, and eventually the base of the Labour Party, makes sense. That this occured as the UK was in transition from a monarchy to a democracy is profound to me. If my basic grasp is correct, labor and various social democracy groups were the voice of opposition against those who controlled power in the UK. The ones that presided over a tumultuous 50 years that included a recession, a devastating war, a deep depression followed by an even more devastating war that left the entire continent exhausted and battered. But you have to realize, Great Depression aside, America experienced none of that. In part because the direction we took - a democracy with a capitalist economy that was generally isolationist and focused internally. But far more due to timing and luck. We were a minnow in world affairs and nobody much gave damn about us. European countries and economies were matured, and fighting - literally at times - for natural resources and influence across the globe. We were the opposite. We had literally more land and natural resources than we knew what do with - in no small part because the world powers bailed on North America, either just leaving or selling us land to focus thier resources elsewhere. Our biggest problem was we didn't have enough people. There was a ton of domestic and international turmoil in Europe in the period at the end of the US Civil War in the 1860's to 1914, but we were in an expansionist boom almost that whole period. We were trying to build railroads and infrastructure to populate the Pacific Coast and we had domestic access to virtually all the raw material - except people. We were begging for people all over the world to move here. There was work, no shortage of food, hell we would give you 40 acres of land if you would move to our underpopulation areas and plant a farm. We stayed out of both World Wars as long as possible focused on domestic growth. And when we did move to wartime footing in both cases the economy and industry grew exponentially during and after the war, "The Roaring Twenties" and "The Baby Boomers" generation saw us become the richest and most powerful nation in the world at the time. Again, that's more fortuitous circumstances than "Good Ole America". The belligerents in World War I all had a significant part of entire generations of young men die. And even more returned home physically or mentally damaged to the workforce in shattered economies. We lost a very small portion of that generation, and they returned to a boom economy. 30 years later another European generation faced the same fate, with even more dead, and this time they returned home to over a million dead civilians, and bombed cities. We had greater losses, but proportionately far less than others. Our soldiers returned to an economy that had transformed and was in hyper growth. We had damaged airfield and port in Hawaii that was repaired by 1942. The Japanese launched something like 10,000 balloon bombs, think total of five or six people were killed somewhere in Oregon. The wars simply weren't fought in our yard, they were in someone else's. Ours were untouched while others were wrecked. The social changes that occured in Europe over those 50-75 years that eventually toppled the government of all European powers, twice in some cases, didn't occur in America. Our population, society and nation changed dramatically during that time - and it wasn't without growing pains or perfect by any means. But we were well over a hundred years into democracy, with almost no changes to the original Constitution. We had massive changes to the country due to growth, but the government "evolved" and grew with it. We were fortunate to have decades of mostly uninterrupted peaceful exponential growth - economically and as a youthful nation finding it's identity. That's a stark contrast to was occuring in the hearts and minds of European citizens and those whole ruled them. Socialism and/or Communism never came to the America as a movement or into the body politic in the 20th Century. Maybe it wasn't "exported" because it's adherents wanted to change THEIR country, and stayed to do so. Maybe for the Europeans who chose to immigrate, America was the "change" they wanted and accept it as it was. Many initially settled in enclaves while they found work, learned the language or generally assimilated themselves into American society, even "Americanizing" thier first or last names in many cases - that whole "Melting Pot" thing. Then they gradually scattered across the country, bringing bits and pieces of their language and culture with them. Except the Irish. I swear they all joined the police force, fire department, built pubs and never left Boston....But there was no massive social-political movement or upheaval that radically reshaped the nation or redirected the the direction of our government. Throughout the 20th century in the US the terms Socialism or Socialist have generally been met with disinterest at best, and outright hostility at worse. Since it never really appeared here as a movement, it was "introduced" in 1939 by Adolph and Benito, and ergo is analagous with Totalitarianism. Almost every conflict, or near conflict the US has been involved with has been with a socialist government. Those of us who are older have grown up hearing hearing the revolutionaries or socialist leaders talk about bringing revolution, destroying democracy and capitalism and we are almost always the example. We have been doing this democracy and capitalism thing for a couple hundred years now. And while it's not perfect, it's all we have even known, it's got us to this point and we kinda like it. For a lot of Americans the first things that spring to mind aren't Canadian Health care, Einstein, Bernie, our own Social Security or policies of many of our close allies. It conjures up failed oppressive dictatorships, or hostile regimes personified by thier leaders. Socialism is Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, Mao, the Kim Jungs, Mussolini, Che Guvera, Ho Chi Min etc... Not saying that's even remotely correct or fair, and there is no doubt that is beginning to change, especially among 35 and below crowd. But as general rule, in the American political arena, the distinction between socialist policies and a full on anti-capitalist socialist regime isn't always made. Please understand, yes, I'm an American and I love American. But I don't think we're superior, have some divine gift, always get it right, and are inherently "better" because of the latitude we were born in. We have just had the good fortune of timing, resources, some luck, and geopolitical events beyond our control. Not to mention we got all the fruits, but skipped a thousand years of development, and got the benefit on some of the best and brightest from around the world that made incalculable contributions to this country. Not better/worse but our path has been unique, our perspective is little different, still evolving and Bob's your uncle.

@Chach that statement stuck in my craw a good bit. It struck me as very arrogant "elitist-type" comment. My knee-jerk was to say something vapid like we've been a democracy a hell of a lot longer than you, so what do you know, or some other stupidity, but I resisted (barely lol). But I kept coming back to that statement, and wondering why the hell that was so weird to you and why your response was so baffling to me. @Sibdaneand @markjazzbassist I tend to differ with on a fair amount of stuff, but I get them, even when they are clearly wrong Most of the Europeans, and you specifically (due to more interaction in the last few pages) I simple don't "get" at all. I figured it was more about definitions and perspectives more than anything. I think that's largely true, but the "how" our governments got to where we are, broadly speaking, is a bigger disconnect than perhaps I realized. It's easy as American to look at UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and assume we're basically the same people. We were all Brits or British colonies, we speak the same language, look similar, all are democracies, have been allies or supported each other in almost every military conflict since WW1. Seemingly similar values, y'all basically think like us/we think like y'all whichever. Ish.... I have confessed ignorance on the British system government. It's not something we are taught in school, much beyond the US Colonial period and whatever is mentioned in World History classes. The history or civics of it has to be something you specifically seek to learn or understand. Labor, Tory, democratic socialist parties, coalition governments, no-confidence votes, suspending parliament, Commons, Lords even the term "liberal democracies" are all just odd nebulous terms to most Americans, because the really don't exist in America political lexicon. I do love history, and have studied (as an adult, not as a student) it quite a bit, especially Russian, "Balkan" WW1/WW2 and more recently 19th century and inter-war Europe - but have little attention span for the nuts and bolts of how/why the respective governments worked, or didn't work. Go figure, it was Peaky Fucking Blinders that sparked my interest between the two, especially the relationships between government, workers, labor, socialists, communists. I have read a fair amount on the Russian Civil War between the Reds and the White, and frankly it's confusing as hell between all the factions and the Slavic names. But being exposed (dramatic fiction or not) to the impact from a perspective of 1920's England's society, economy and politics piqued my interest in the whole socialist movement and rise of the Labor party. As a result a bit of the gaps between "A and D" have been at least partially filled in, and I have learned a lot. I still keep up with the "Brexit" and "General Election" threads, even though I don't understand most of the nuances or references, but it's starting to make more sense. Basically I'm just less ignorant, but far from being able to add anything of value. And before one of you jokers wacks the low-hanging fruit, I'm going to beat you to it - So, how is that different from any other thread?

Greg Robinson, 1st round pick from...Auburn lol. Could be worse, he didn't get frostbite on his feet, threatened to hold out over his helmet, call the owner a cracker and rape his trainer!

He still seems a better player than last we saw him on our side, it appears it was a good move for all (besides us getting hosed on the transfer fee). Ironic that we got Arsenal's 23 year old "Barkley". Hopefully the change in scenery provides a little more dramatic improvement for Iwobi.

Anyone watched "The Spy", the six-episode series that just launched on Netflix? It looks like it may be interesting.

He isn't the first to suggest/ponder that, it's been kicked around since the 60's. There is chance it could be effective if done early enough while forming - but probably not. Then there's the risk of creating a larger radioactive hurricane. Kinda like launching ICBM's at meteors, and having a shit ton of radioactive fragments falling through the atmosphere. That was a year ago with Michael. And to be fair most every state gets tornadoes and more people can relate to the power and damage of a tornado, whereas only a comparatively small number have had the misfortune to truly understand a hurricane - so in that regard it is not the worst analogy to paint a picture. Scientifically it's totally wrong, it's apples and oranges - but as we know that's not something that has ever been a barrier to a sound bite or a tweet from The Donald!

To be fair, we move around a lot. https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-mistake-alabama-label-mississippi-hurricane-dorian-path-donald-trump-brian-stelter-1457438

If Trump had just nuked the damn thing before it hit the Bahama's, it would be a moot point!

Yes that is certainly true some areas, and certainly some areas of the Southeastern US. Generally speaking I think he was just trying to endear himself to the Christian right which is certainly a sizable voting bloc. It was almost a certainty that we would have a runoff (one candidate must have had 50+ percent to avoid). There were 4-5 I could have seen in the runoff. Unfortunately, it the two I was least hoping for. We have the white guy, David Woods, who owns one of the local network TV affiliates, but really did not seem to have a great plan - besides telling us what the Bible says. To be fair the only used one example in one ad that was one too many for my tastes. And he has the charisma and excitement of uncooked white rice. Then we have our probate judge, Steven Reed, who actually I like. He is a good speaker very intelligent and his platform wasn't bad. However, his Daddy Joe Reed is class-a fucktard. He has been in Alabama politics for over 30 years - with Montgomery being the state capital. He equates everything to the Civil Rights movements of the 60s, and anytime he doesn't get his way or platform it's strictly due to racism, even within his own party. Everyone is a racist but him. Heck my father in law started a soup kitchen in a small poor Catholic Church in a predominantly black neighborhood when did run it for years on donations volunteers and help from the nuns in the local parish. Joe Reed found out about it six or seven years after it has been going and wanted to come down and help and donate money and rename the whole thing to the Joe Reed Soup Kitchen, and when my father-in-law welcomed the help but not the political side, he pulled out citing that he could not work with a racist... There are hundreds of stories like that, he is just that guy. I really don't want a white guy as our mayor, I think Montgomery needs a black mayor and I voted accordingly. Not to mention I do not think the white guy was a good candidate. As much as I like Steven Reed, I do not want his dad anywhere near City Hall bring his politics into it it scares the hell out of me. It's a non-partisan election, there was no mention of Republican or Democrat no mudslinging tying one candidate two the left or to the right of national politics none of that. but after the election when it was a term in there would be a runoff Kamala Harris very oddly came out in support of Steven Reed for governor. I really wish she wouldn't have. Why the senator from CA running for the Democratic nomination for president endorsed him, I have no clue - that is not something she normally does. So now I fear the runoff will be black-white republican-democrat. I have absolutely no idea which of these two I would rather have run the city, it's not a good choice. I believe Steven Reed will win however. Neither have any direct political experience really, but one of them is going to be mayor of 200,000 of us. And frankly the mayor of the town that you live in has a hell of a lot more effect on your daily quality of life than your state senator, the minority or majority leaders or who is sitting in the Oval Office.

We were insisting on building out of the back and had no answer for Mexico's pressing. We completely disrupted everything in the back which means it never flowed into the midfield, and we couldn't transition smoothly to offense. It look somewhere between a laborious task and sheer chaos to start possession. Dest does look a player, he might have been the bright spot.

Yeah that was the most surprising result yesterday by far.

News flash - we're awful