meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

You are completely unrealistic of the possibilities given climate when Obama took office...Did we forget the global meltdown on hand..Saving Wall Street which saved our economy and the global finance as a whole might seem like a right wing thing to do...I'm sure that are a lot of socialist on the left whose 401k benefited as well...Maybe we should all be hunting for our food...

Maybe we should just let the largest gap between rich and poor in several thousand years (no exaggeration) get wider.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Obama did not get the outcome he wanted. You install and keep in place some same people who helped create this recession, when your proposed and enacted solutions are failed conservative policies, you are getting exactly what you want, and by enabling this type of behavior we are getting exactly what we deserve.

You are promoting rhetoric that is opposite of the right wing nuts...If you don't get all you want then you failed...He wasn't able to get the health care plan he wanted so he compromised and took what he could get..20 million more people have healthcare..Failure??..Obama says himself yu can let the good be the enemy of the great..If great can't be done then take the good...He tried to get a budget that struck a "Grand Bargain" and Boehner couldn't get his guys to sign off..It would have been a huge deal fiscally for this economy...The FED is now left to manage the economy alone with no help from legislators to implement any structural reforms and we will pay the price..Dodd Frank has had an enormous effect on Wall Steet...It has shut down businesses that weren't even involved in any wrong doing with it's overreaching approach...Casualty of war I guess right...Regular people work at these institutions too..

But you talk about conservatives policies, point to the socialist system the is working better than this system...Lord knows you have many to choose from...

Obamacare would have been great with price controls. Never entered the conversation. The price of these plans are getting more expensive by the year, and offering less coverage. The "Grand Bargain" you speak of would have resulted in deep cuts to SS and Medicare while offering corporate America more huge tax cuts they dont need. Thats no fing bargain.

Social Security is the most successful anti poverty program in the history of the world. Medicare is more efficient than the health care industry. If anything we should be making medicare available to everyone, and expanding social security.

You keep recycling that old tired "socialist" meme. I come from a long line of capitalists, I am a big proponent of capitalism, but I dont want everything privatized. Dont want a private police force, dont want a private firefighters, among other institutions. Hate to break it to you but those things as they are now is socialism. We saw what happened with private prisons Don't want everything socialized, but I dont want everything privatized either. Its about balance. Also dont want competition squashed which is happening right now with all this conglomeration and deregulation.

You are the first person Ive read who actually defended the fed. Let me tell you what the fed did for the economy. After the crash happened, the fed gave the big banks hundreds of billions of dollars in almost interest free loans without any strings attached. You know what they did with the money? They didnt use it to lend money, (they actually jacked up cc rates) they used the money to buy T-bills. They used the money meant to spur the economy they got at a lower interest rate and made money off the T bills. The fed did nothing about it. The banks in effect lended our taxpayer dollars back to us. Thank you fed. They continue to loan money to the banks interest free which is boosting the stock market, boosting the bank accounts of the one percent, but did almost nothing for anyone else. And you want to praise these people?

I used to think that republicans were the only ones who bought the party line whatever it is, but its clear that many democrats are just as bad.

For some reason, you seem to think that the gyrations of the stock market doesn't affect the 99%...Please see job losses 2008-09..That is a result of a slumping stock market..The FED loan the banks 370 billion and got back 42 billion in interest..Not exactly free...So the FED give the banks money and the banks do what banks do..Your prescription was to keep making the loans that got the banks in trouble in the first place??..I don't get it..Do you understand what would have happened if banks were allowed to go under???..

There are many more points I can touch upon but don't have the time now...The problem with social security is that we have made more promised payouts than the money we actually have in the coffers...It has to be addressed..

Of course I understand that. Do you understand that 95 percent of the gains from the stock market during the Obama administration went to the one percent? How many times do I have to explain to you that almost all the economic gains went to only one percent of the population? You seem to be taking that in stride, to put it mildly, as in you dont seem to give a ****.

As for the return on the investment. The amount the banks allegedly paid out, considering their role in the crash. The tens of millions of lives they shattered, the tens of thousands of people who were driven to suicide because their greed, without any jail time. They got off real easy.

Social Security doesnt add one cent to the national debt. It was actually running a big surplus but the surplus went into bonds by law which were spent. W spent a big chunk of it. The system itself works, if anything it should be reformed so that the surplus cant be spent.

Of course I understand that..But what are you going to do, wave a magic wand and have it go to the 99%??..The banks had to be saved so we don't end up like Venezuela...The banks aren't being saved to prop up the stock market, The banks are being saved to keep your supermarket open....These banks owe 100s of millions of dollars in forward contracts to each other...If one or two go down then we are all screwed...

You seem to be in the under the mistaken impression IMO that the only way this recovery was going to happen is if the people who were largely responsible for the crash would be the only ones to get bailed out, and everyone else would get the shaft. This was no accident.

Look at the charts for every recovery since and including the great depression, and you will find that this is the first recovery that almost entirely benefited the rich. You really think this was an accident? Ask yourself which economy does better long term, one that benefits most of the population or a very tiny sliver of it?

What happens when people are tired of getting the short of end of the stick? Too many put Trump signs in their yard and blame other races for problems brought on them mostly by white people.

I agree that the economy works better when the 99% is getting paid..Even more so than the 1%, but again, what choice did we have??

There was a lot we could do. During the S&L crisis of the 90s, hundreds of bankers were perp walked, prosecuted (by the HW Bush administration) which helped restore confidence in the banking system and put the word out that the govt wasnt tolerating criminal activity, not enabling them.

No high level exec has even been charged in the crash and there has been literally hundreds of billions in fraud commited by America's largest corporations since then which has resulted in zero jail time. Don't buy that these companies are too byzantine to prosecute. If they are, break them up.

Too use a well worn expression, Wall Street was bailed out but Main Street wasn't. There was no serious mortgage relief for those in danger of losing their homes, but the banks and firms who caused this crash got billions no strings attached and no caps on executive compensation.

The president didnt have to lay off hundreds of thousand of workers during what was for all intents and purposes a depression. Most of Obama's stimulus was tax cuts. This was almost entirely a neoliberal solution to this crisis. The IMF, who pushed austerity and neoliberalism like a drug dealer recently admitted that it was a bad idea.

Again, this is the first recovery to only benefit the rich. The solution was to promote policies that helped make everyone whole, not just people who still had many times more than everyone else after the crash, which many of them helped cause.

HW Bush?? you are joking right??...Bush's son, Neil Bush borrowed(his business partner)100 million dollars from Silverado Savings and Loan, and never paid it back...Neil was on the board of directors...Thanks HW for the confidence..We bailed them out and covered that loss..Charles Keating was a major player in the S&L crisis and had John McCain basically on his payroll...He donated tons of money to influence 5 Senators who came to be known as the Keating Five...John McCain was his main dude...Keating advisor??..Glad you asked. none other than Alan Greenspan who was appointed FED Chairman by??????? HW Bush...We are being played dude...

Obama stimulus was about 650M and tax cuts was about 350M...That's the only thing republican would agree to...Obama is not a dictator..

I keep trying to point this out during our conversations but you are buying it for some reason...The economy has changed...GM and Ford no longer leads the economy but companies like Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple...It's a different kind of worker..Not as many employees..These companies dwarf the old economy companies...The guys at the top are just naturally richer and are global powers..You are comparing apples and oranges...The numbers you are looking at are screwed across the board..But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem, there is a major problem..My point is that we can't look to the old world ways to resolved it, this is a completely different animal...It's going the get worse too...I just don't see how the small guy will recover from this...The small guy will get crushed by automation..But Trump is telling them he is bringing the jobs back tho...Keep hope alive, I guess...

The fact remains that 100s of bankers were prosecuted, it did restore confidence in the system wether you want to admit it or not. Never said the Bush family was clean as a whistle, please. No one since the crash has been charged with anything, they continue to be allowed to loot the economy and paying pennies on the dollar in fines.

You seem to be ok with just about any kind of corruption. If anything I see someone doing their best to enable it. Why?

You were right that I was off about the stimulus, was still too small.

You keep going on about this "new economy". This economy has been structured to deliver almost all the gains of this economy to a handful of very rich people. You seem to believe that it just happened by accident, that the largest gap between rich and poor since before the roman empire, is a natural evolution of our financial system. Karl Marx predicted it, but Marx didnt deregulate Wall Street.

The reason it evolved like this was because in the 1990s Bill Clinton turned the keys to this economy over to Wall Street with massive deregulation. Now the financial services industry makes up the largest part of our economy. A big reason they keep their money along with companies like apple is through massive tax evasion.

There are literally trillions of untaxed dollars that are being hidden in secret bank accounts all,over the world, as well as corporate inversions. Corporations pay much less now in taxes than they have in decades past. Revenue from corporate taxes are the lowest they have been in decades. Guess who makes up the difference? Please dont tell me US corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. The effective rate, the rate they actually have been paying is much lower. We have over a trillion dollars in infrastructure repairs needed alone, this country needs all the tax dollars it is due.

To recap. Massive deregulation turned Wall Street into a largely unregulated casino. Trade deals were used to ship jobs overseas with no worker protection. Many of the largest corporations in this country, if not the world are paying no taxes. Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Wages have been flat for decades because too many employers dont want to give workers their fair share like they used to. And you really want to try and convince me that this discrepancy in wealth was all a happy accident?

There is an easy way to solve this problem, pay people a living wage, corporations and millionaires do their duty and pay their taxes. Dont ship plants to other countries even if the plant and the parent company are very profitable. If you are in the financial services industry, dont bet against your clients like Goldman Sachs and other firms have done. Thats just plain greed, all of this is about greed, dont kid yourself into thinking that it was an accident.

As Harold Meyerson pointed out, we have gone from a stakeholder economy where the long term needs of the company are weighed along with whats good for employees, the community, the country, shareholders way down the list.

We now have a shareholder economy which basically says F the long term health of a company, F the employees, F the community, and F the country. Its all about making the largest shareholders happy, whatever the cost. Thats your "new economy" hope its working for you.

A lot of this is good, but some of it is also overstated. Clinton signed it into law yes, but it was a law passed by a Republican house and Senate.

The subprime crisis would have happened even without above deregulation. The types of products that led to it were not and in most cases still are not understood by most people. Congress can't write laws to regulate these, they aren't even competent enough to understand them.

But the economy has shifted. It is now Finance, Insurance and Real Estate based speculation driven.
But only the big boys get to play in it.

I don't agree with the shareholder economy example. If you look at the large banks, or Enron etc these are being run to create larger and larger paychecks for their top tier leadership. Holding Citi Bank stock wouldn't have made you rich, their last two CEOs probably have enough cheddah to past for a pacific island or two of their own.

One of the driving forces in the deregulation of Wall Street were members of Clinton's own cabinet Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers. None of this would have been possible without Clinton crossing party lines because he knows his own party would have never proposed and passed this legislation. Clinton embarked on a strategy called "triangulation" which tacked the democratic party further and further to the right.

The subprime crisis happened for several reasons. One was deregulation. The housing market was deregulated, more than 85 percent of all mortgage fraud was perpetraded by lenders. There was very little oversight because of deregulation. Brooksly Born tried to warn anyone who would listen at the time of the dangers of not regulating derivates, there were people sounding the alarm when this legislation was passed Summers had a big hand in brushing her concerns aside. Once the derivatives market collapsed with Lehman Brothers failing, the entire house of cards came down.

As for shareholder economy vs stakeholder economy, Im surprised that after seeing the end result, the massive discrepancy in wealth, that you dont believe its an issue. Robert Rubin went from Wall street to government, was instrumental in deregulating Wall Street, causing the crash, then went back to work at Citibank. You have any idea how much he and his buddies made since then? Most of the decisions made by corporate America today are made mainly for its largest shareholders. Thats why many corporations are doing massive stock buybacks. Thats good for the share price, but it does nothing to grow a company.

Maybe we are just arguing semantics
My point is something has to be regulated at some point before it can be deregulated. None of the more complex derivatives were ever regulated that I know of. So deregulation or not, these were not affected, because they weren't regulated to start with.

Again we may be using "shareholder" differently here. Companies do indeed make short term decisions to benefit individual large shareholders. But most of the regular folks that own the same stock see no benefit and may actually see some losses from these actions. Again my point was CEOs are making millions in salary and backdated stock options but the average shareholder is not benefiting from the highly manipulated profiteering.

Agree about the Clinton cabinets role in passing the law, but not taking the Republican lawmakers off the hook for a second. As you described, Clinton did this to take the country further right. This law was definitely a mainstream right wing idea. Clinton's role in implementing it sometimes deflects the argument away from that.

Thats the point, people sounded the alarm about the dangers of not regulating derivatives, there was an opportunity. You made it sound like everyone was in the dark. There were some very smart people who saw what was coming and tried to sound the alarm.

Im not trying to deflect the GOP's role in this like Phil Gramm, my point is that all this legislation was a wet dream that the GOP never thought would come true until Clinton came along. I expect that from the GOP, not from the dems.

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This fool Donald Trump just said this:

"We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever,” Trump said during a campaign event at the Duplin County Events Center, where thousands of supporters gathered.

The comments drew immediate criticism on social media from critics who accused him of failing to consider the United States’ history with slavery and North Carolina’s history with Jim Crow laws and segregation. Kenansville itself is named after a man whose family owned a slave plantation.

This is the kind of crap that just makes me hot with anger. Anyone who supports this man should be ashamed of themselves. There's just no justifying his insensitive remarks and outright bigotry. At some point people have to acknowledge what they see and hear from this man. Not to mention all of his illegal business dealings and illegal use of Charity funds. The list of lies goes on an on. How can anyone defend this man?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/20/african-americans-are-in-the-worst-shape-theyve-ever-been-trump-says-in-north-carolina/

It's really insulting to watch a candidate from a major party use African Americans to make whites feel good about voting for him and it's working...Look how this thread began...

Funny how Trump instantly comments on everything else, but the shooting of unarmed Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, he has no comment at all. Instead he's shouting out a town named after a plantation owner.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/778385212505989120

Also just so you know that NC flag is actually the Confederate Flag. People think the Rebel Flag is the Flag of the Confederacy but many Southern States still use variations of Confederate Flags other than that one in a defiant manner.

In the South when they're forced to change the flag from the most popular Confederate Flag they just switch to another one that people in the North don't know is still a Confederate Image.

You know its just an awful cycle that we are in now. I think cops are working under fear and people who get pulled over certainly have a right to also have a reasonable fear of police.

in CT in 2015 only 2 people were shot in total by police--no AA were shot zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl

And when you grow up in Brooklyn and then CT and you are friends with AA all your life--you see NONE of this stuff--theyre just my buddies and I see no difference by white black Hispanic Asian as I have friends of all diversities races etc.. Maybe were just different people here. There are projects in CT there are some tough cities but cops rarely shoot anyone. I think other states need to learn from CT. But this has been my point of view when I talk about racism. In my 47 years--I have seen very very little. Ive seen more as a Jewish man towards myself than any other race. In Brooklyn we were all buddies didnt matter what you looked like and it shouldnt. In CT there are many more whites than other races in the towns I grew up in but the few minorities were treated like everyone else. So I simply have not seen it. From a far I think some a lot of these shootings are fear based--the scenarios stoke fear in the officers and than they act. I have to wonder why the guy was tasing the suspect at the same time as they lady shot him. He later said if he had a gun in his hand he wouldve used it as well. If we change places with the police officer--what is the correct action? I think two mistakes were made at a minimum. First the guy shouldve stopped secondly the woman police officer needed to reach for her Tasr first gun second as she had back up. Once that back up came she needed to put the gun back into her revolver. But I also know that if you feel your life is at stake--we dont know what wed all do ist hard to change places when we think about it.

That being said I think that other states need to use CT as a model. In CT its obvious that police are restrained in using deadly force. There is something going right here that is not elsewhere.

so basically your saying you don't get whats going on in other places, which is understandable.
Your voting for trump because he said things you believe to be true.
He is a pathological liar.
The whole birther thing was a sham, and he admitted it and tried to deflect it on Hilary.
He used the even to promote his new hotel. Smart, but lacks integrity.
And you don't tell us why CT should be a model.
Thing is:

CT has just 3.6 million people. 77% white, 13 Hispanic or latino, 10% black. Since like most places, women out number men, and it seems few women are shot by police. So CT has about 172,000 black males.
YOu don't have a single large city. You don't even have a county with more than 900,000 people. A few rough areas. YOur talking about sheer numbers.
CT is a wealthy, you are 4th in the country in Median Income. CT has about 350,000 Black Americans. George has 3.1 MILLION. Same for NY State. 33% of Chicago is black.
So as a model, other states should follow CT by doing what? Reduce the number of black males?
I don't know you as "Racist", but have all but said you are naïve. If say your not, then you are racist. As a naïve man in your enclave of CT goodness your exposure is not first hand. So basically in your narcissistic manner you trying to say you have no idea what your talking about as you have not first hand experienced racism and you have black friends. That's actually a good thing and your fortunate. I just think that since you bring little verifications and have little experience you just are not offering any tangable to the conversation.

Your vote counts as much as anyone elses. Your naïve Trump thinking is he will take CT based on what you said recently. Polls have Hilary STILL up by about 15pts in your state.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/connecticut/

Basically your enclave state that has a very high median income, (the top three: Calif, NJ and MD all have HUGE urban populations which CT does not), thus, a low numerical count of minorities, no big cities and your big suggestion is "Y'all should white like us"?

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

holfresh wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

You are completely unrealistic of the possibilities given climate when Obama took office...Did we forget the global meltdown on hand..Saving Wall Street which saved our economy and the global finance as a whole might seem like a right wing thing to do...I'm sure that are a lot of socialist on the left whose 401k benefited as well...Maybe we should all be hunting for our food...

Maybe we should just let the largest gap between rich and poor in several thousand years (no exaggeration) get wider.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Obama did not get the outcome he wanted. You install and keep in place some same people who helped create this recession, when your proposed and enacted solutions are failed conservative policies, you are getting exactly what you want, and by enabling this type of behavior we are getting exactly what we deserve.

You are promoting rhetoric that is opposite of the right wing nuts...If you don't get all you want then you failed...He wasn't able to get the health care plan he wanted so he compromised and took what he could get..20 million more people have healthcare..Failure??..Obama says himself yu can let the good be the enemy of the great..If great can't be done then take the good...He tried to get a budget that struck a "Grand Bargain" and Boehner couldn't get his guys to sign off..It would have been a huge deal fiscally for this economy...The FED is now left to manage the economy alone with no help from legislators to implement any structural reforms and we will pay the price..Dodd Frank has had an enormous effect on Wall Steet...It has shut down businesses that weren't even involved in any wrong doing with it's overreaching approach...Casualty of war I guess right...Regular people work at these institutions too..

But you talk about conservatives policies, point to the socialist system the is working better than this system...Lord knows you have many to choose from...

Obamacare would have been great with price controls. Never entered the conversation. The price of these plans are getting more expensive by the year, and offering less coverage. The "Grand Bargain" you speak of would have resulted in deep cuts to SS and Medicare while offering corporate America more huge tax cuts they dont need. Thats no fing bargain.

Social Security is the most successful anti poverty program in the history of the world. Medicare is more efficient than the health care industry. If anything we should be making medicare available to everyone, and expanding social security.

You keep recycling that old tired "socialist" meme. I come from a long line of capitalists, I am a big proponent of capitalism, but I dont want everything privatized. Dont want a private police force, dont want a private firefighters, among other institutions. Hate to break it to you but those things as they are now is socialism. We saw what happened with private prisons Don't want everything socialized, but I dont want everything privatized either. Its about balance. Also dont want competition squashed which is happening right now with all this conglomeration and deregulation.

You are the first person Ive read who actually defended the fed. Let me tell you what the fed did for the economy. After the crash happened, the fed gave the big banks hundreds of billions of dollars in almost interest free loans without any strings attached. You know what they did with the money? They didnt use it to lend money, (they actually jacked up cc rates) they used the money to buy T-bills. They used the money meant to spur the economy they got at a lower interest rate and made money off the T bills. The fed did nothing about it. The banks in effect lended our taxpayer dollars back to us. Thank you fed. They continue to loan money to the banks interest free which is boosting the stock market, boosting the bank accounts of the one percent, but did almost nothing for anyone else. And you want to praise these people?

I used to think that republicans were the only ones who bought the party line whatever it is, but its clear that many democrats are just as bad.

For some reason, you seem to think that the gyrations of the stock market doesn't affect the 99%...Please see job losses 2008-09..That is a result of a slumping stock market..The FED loan the banks 370 billion and got back 42 billion in interest..Not exactly free...So the FED give the banks money and the banks do what banks do..Your prescription was to keep making the loans that got the banks in trouble in the first place??..I don't get it..Do you understand what would have happened if banks were allowed to go under???..

There are many more points I can touch upon but don't have the time now...The problem with social security is that we have made more promised payouts than the money we actually have in the coffers...It has to be addressed..

Of course I understand that. Do you understand that 95 percent of the gains from the stock market during the Obama administration went to the one percent? How many times do I have to explain to you that almost all the economic gains went to only one percent of the population? You seem to be taking that in stride, to put it mildly, as in you dont seem to give a ****.

As for the return on the investment. The amount the banks allegedly paid out, considering their role in the crash. The tens of millions of lives they shattered, the tens of thousands of people who were driven to suicide because their greed, without any jail time. They got off real easy.

Social Security doesnt add one cent to the national debt. It was actually running a big surplus but the surplus went into bonds by law which were spent. W spent a big chunk of it. The system itself works, if anything it should be reformed so that the surplus cant be spent.

Of course I understand that..But what are you going to do, wave a magic wand and have it go to the 99%??..The banks had to be saved so we don't end up like Venezuela...The banks aren't being saved to prop up the stock market, The banks are being saved to keep your supermarket open....These banks owe 100s of millions of dollars in forward contracts to each other...If one or two go down then we are all screwed...

You seem to be in the under the mistaken impression IMO that the only way this recovery was going to happen is if the people who were largely responsible for the crash would be the only ones to get bailed out, and everyone else would get the shaft. This was no accident.

Look at the charts for every recovery since and including the great depression, and you will find that this is the first recovery that almost entirely benefited the rich. You really think this was an accident? Ask yourself which economy does better long term, one that benefits most of the population or a very tiny sliver of it?

What happens when people are tired of getting the short of end of the stick? Too many put Trump signs in their yard and blame other races for problems brought on them mostly by white people.

I agree that the economy works better when the 99% is getting paid..Even more so than the 1%, but again, what choice did we have??

There was a lot we could do. During the S&L crisis of the 90s, hundreds of bankers were perp walked, prosecuted (by the HW Bush administration) which helped restore confidence in the banking system and put the word out that the govt wasnt tolerating criminal activity, not enabling them.

No high level exec has even been charged in the crash and there has been literally hundreds of billions in fraud commited by America's largest corporations since then which has resulted in zero jail time. Don't buy that these companies are too byzantine to prosecute. If they are, break them up.

Too use a well worn expression, Wall Street was bailed out but Main Street wasn't. There was no serious mortgage relief for those in danger of losing their homes, but the banks and firms who caused this crash got billions no strings attached and no caps on executive compensation.

The president didnt have to lay off hundreds of thousand of workers during what was for all intents and purposes a depression. Most of Obama's stimulus was tax cuts. This was almost entirely a neoliberal solution to this crisis. The IMF, who pushed austerity and neoliberalism like a drug dealer recently admitted that it was a bad idea.

Again, this is the first recovery to only benefit the rich. The solution was to promote policies that helped make everyone whole, not just people who still had many times more than everyone else after the crash, which many of them helped cause.

HW Bush?? you are joking right??...Bush's son, Neil Bush borrowed(his business partner)100 million dollars from Silverado Savings and Loan, and never paid it back...Neil was on the board of directors...Thanks HW for the confidence..We bailed them out and covered that loss..Charles Keating was a major player in the S&L crisis and had John McCain basically on his payroll...He donated tons of money to influence 5 Senators who came to be known as the Keating Five...John McCain was his main dude...Keating advisor??..Glad you asked. none other than Alan Greenspan who was appointed FED Chairman by??????? HW Bush...We are being played dude...

Obama stimulus was about 650M and tax cuts was about 350M...That's the only thing republican would agree to...Obama is not a dictator..

I keep trying to point this out during our conversations but you are buying it for some reason...The economy has changed...GM and Ford no longer leads the economy but companies like Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple...It's a different kind of worker..Not as many employees..These companies dwarf the old economy companies...The guys at the top are just naturally richer and are global powers..You are comparing apples and oranges...The numbers you are looking at are screwed across the board..But that doesn't mean there isn't a problem, there is a major problem..My point is that we can't look to the old world ways to resolved it, this is a completely different animal...It's going the get worse too...I just don't see how the small guy will recover from this...The small guy will get crushed by automation..But Trump is telling them he is bringing the jobs back tho...Keep hope alive, I guess...

The fact remains that 100s of bankers were prosecuted, it did restore confidence in the system wether you want to admit it or not. Never said the Bush family was clean as a whistle, please. No one since the crash has been charged with anything, they continue to be allowed to loot the economy and paying pennies on the dollar in fines.

You seem to be ok with just about any kind of corruption. If anything I see someone doing their best to enable it. Why?

You were right that I was off about the stimulus, was still too small.

You keep going on about this "new economy". This economy has been structured to deliver almost all the gains of this economy to a handful of very rich people. You seem to believe that it just happened by accident, that the largest gap between rich and poor since before the roman empire, is a natural evolution of our financial system. Karl Marx predicted it, but Marx didnt deregulate Wall Street.

The reason it evolved like this was because in the 1990s Bill Clinton turned the keys to this economy over to Wall Street with massive deregulation. Now the financial services industry makes up the largest part of our economy. A big reason they keep their money along with companies like apple is through massive tax evasion.

There are literally trillions of untaxed dollars that are being hidden in secret bank accounts all,over the world, as well as corporate inversions. Corporations pay much less now in taxes than they have in decades past. Revenue from corporate taxes are the lowest they have been in decades. Guess who makes up the difference? Please dont tell me US corporations pay the highest taxes in the world. The effective rate, the rate they actually have been paying is much lower. We have over a trillion dollars in infrastructure repairs needed alone, this country needs all the tax dollars it is due.

To recap. Massive deregulation turned Wall Street into a largely unregulated casino. Trade deals were used to ship jobs overseas with no worker protection. Many of the largest corporations in this country, if not the world are paying no taxes. Massive tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Wages have been flat for decades because too many employers dont want to give workers their fair share like they used to. And you really want to try and convince me that this discrepancy in wealth was all a happy accident?

There is an easy way to solve this problem, pay people a living wage, corporations and millionaires do their duty and pay their taxes. Dont ship plants to other countries even if the plant and the parent company are very profitable. If you are in the financial services industry, dont bet against your clients like Goldman Sachs and other firms have done. Thats just plain greed, all of this is about greed, dont kid yourself into thinking that it was an accident.

As Harold Meyerson pointed out, we have gone from a stakeholder economy where the long term needs of the company are weighed along with whats good for employees, the community, the country, shareholders way down the list.

We now have a shareholder economy which basically says F the long term health of a company, F the employees, F the community, and F the country. Its all about making the largest shareholders happy, whatever the cost. Thats your "new economy" hope its working for you.

A lot of this is good, but some of it is also overstated. Clinton signed it into law yes, but it was a law passed by a Republican house and Senate.

The subprime crisis would have happened even without above deregulation. The types of products that led to it were not and in most cases still are not understood by most people. Congress can't write laws to regulate these, they aren't even competent enough to understand them.

But the economy has shifted. It is now Finance, Insurance and Real Estate based speculation driven.
But only the big boys get to play in it.

I don't agree with the shareholder economy example. If you look at the large banks, or Enron etc these are being run to create larger and larger paychecks for their top tier leadership. Holding Citi Bank stock wouldn't have made you rich, their last two CEOs probably have enough cheddah to past for a pacific island or two of their own.

One of the driving forces in the deregulation of Wall Street were members of Clinton's own cabinet Rubin, Greenspan, and Summers. None of this would have been possible without Clinton crossing party lines because he knows his own party would have never proposed and passed this legislation. Clinton embarked on a strategy called "triangulation" which tacked the democratic party further and further to the right.

The subprime crisis happened for several reasons. One was deregulation. The housing market was deregulated, more than 85 percent of all mortgage fraud was perpetraded by lenders. There was very little oversight because of deregulation. Brooksly Born tried to warn anyone who would listen at the time of the dangers of not regulating derivates, there were people sounding the alarm when this legislation was passed Summers had a big hand in brushing her concerns aside. Once the derivatives market collapsed with Lehman Brothers failing, the entire house of cards came down.

As for shareholder economy vs stakeholder economy, Im surprised that after seeing the end result, the massive discrepancy in wealth, that you dont believe its an issue. Robert Rubin went from Wall street to government, was instrumental in deregulating Wall Street, causing the crash, then went back to work at Citibank. You have any idea how much he and his buddies made since then? Most of the decisions made by corporate America today are made mainly for its largest shareholders. Thats why many corporations are doing massive stock buybacks. Thats good for the share price, but it does nothing to grow a company.

First of all, Greenspan was not part of Clinton's cabinet, he was the Fed Chair appointed by Bush...Your focus is on completely the wrong things...Glass Steaglle was repealed because our banks were uncommunicative compared to foreign banks who didn't have these constraints...They were a one stop shop for major US companies...We had to offer other products to keep businesses in US banks...As a whole it has been great with massive tax revenues in US coffers but yes nothing is perfect, we do have some bad apples..Bro, you have to look at the entire picture...

You're right Greenspan wasnt technically part of his cabinet but he was reappointed, kept on by Clinton. Glass Steagal worked, doesnt matter how you try to spin it. Its a bad idea to invest depositors assets in risky investments. Banks being " uncommunicative" ? You are going to go have go into more detail. That does not explain why I should have my deposits put into risky ventures which affect the stability of the bank. Now by law if a bank fails. The creditors get paid first and the depositors bail them out. That wasnt the case until recently. The only thing I hear you saying is that banks werent making as much money as they wanted so the answer was to alter it until they got the lionshare of wealth from this economy. Thats what happened didnt it?

Uncompetitive...spell check..

A few years back, I actually looked this up..Wall Street accounted for 40% of NYC tax revenues...The city tax officers actually wait with anxiety on the increase or decrease of Wall Street bonuses...Google it and see..It's a win win for everyone until something bad happens..But government step in and help and they get back their money...

My bad, my head hurts lol. NYC lost most of its manufacturing, most of the profits come from Wall Street so that doesnt surprise me, the problem is that its not just NYC, its the rest of the country we have to factor in. We have to put an end to these boom/bust cycles. We have to put in controls so that these institutions dont have to be bailed out in the first place. Makes more sense than laissez- faire capitalism. The idea that markets should be self regulating should be finally put to sleep.

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This fool Donald Trump just said this:

"We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever,” Trump said during a campaign event at the Duplin County Events Center, where thousands of supporters gathered.

The comments drew immediate criticism on social media from critics who accused him of failing to consider the United States’ history with slavery and North Carolina’s history with Jim Crow laws and segregation. Kenansville itself is named after a man whose family owned a slave plantation.

This is the kind of crap that just makes me hot with anger. Anyone who supports this man should be ashamed of themselves. There's just no justifying his insensitive remarks and outright bigotry. At some point people have to acknowledge what they see and hear from this man. Not to mention all of his illegal business dealings and illegal use of Charity funds. The list of lies goes on an on. How can anyone defend this man?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/20/african-americans-are-in-the-worst-shape-theyve-ever-been-trump-says-in-north-carolina/

It's really insulting to watch a candidate from a major party use African Americans to make whites feel good about voting for him and it's working...Look how this thread began...

Funny how Trump instantly comments on everything else, but the shooting of unarmed Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, he has no comment at all. Instead he's shouting out a town named after a plantation owner.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/778385212505989120

Also just so you know that NC flag is actually the Confederate Flag. People think the Rebel Flag is the Flag of the Confederacy but many Southern States still use variations of Confederate Flags other than that one in a defiant manner.

In the South when they're forced to change the flag from the most popular Confederate Flag they just switch to another one that people in the North don't know is still a Confederate Image.

You know its just an awful cycle that we are in now. I think cops are working under fear and people who get pulled over certainly have a right to also have a reasonable fear of police.

in CT in 2015 only 2 people were shot in total by police--no AA were shot zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl

And when you grow up in Brooklyn and then CT and you are friends with AA all your life--you see NONE of this stuff--theyre just my buddies and I see no difference by white black Hispanic Asian as I have friends of all diversities races etc.. Maybe were just different people here. There are projects in CT there are some tough cities but cops rarely shoot anyone. I think other states need to learn from CT. But this has been my point of view when I talk about racism. In my 47 years--I have seen very very little. Ive seen more as a Jewish man towards myself than any other race. In Brooklyn we were all buddies didnt matter what you looked like and it shouldnt. In CT there are many more whites than other races in the towns I grew up in but the few minorities were treated like everyone else. So I simply have not seen it. From a far I think some a lot of these shootings are fear based--the scenarios stoke fear in the officers and than they act. I have to wonder why the guy was tasing the suspect at the same time as they lady shot him. He later said if he had a gun in his hand he wouldve used it as well. If we change places with the police officer--what is the correct action? I think two mistakes were made at a minimum. First the guy shouldve stopped secondly the woman police officer needed to reach for her Tasr first gun second as she had back up. Once that back up came she needed to put the gun back into her revolver. But I also know that if you feel your life is at stake--we dont know what wed all do ist hard to change places when we think about it.

That being said I think that other states need to use CT as a model. In CT its obvious that police are restrained in using deadly force. There is something going right here that is not elsewhere.

so basically your saying you don't get whats going on in other places, which is understandable.
Your voting for trump because he said things you believe to be true.
He is a pathological liar.
The whole birther thing was a sham, and he admitted it and tried to deflect it on Hilary.
He used the even to promote his new hotel. Smart, but lacks integrity.
And you don't tell us why CT should be a model.
Thing is:

CT has just 3.6 million people. 77% white, 13 Hispanic or latino, 10% black. Since like most places, women out number men, and it seems few women are shot by police. So CT has about 172,000 black males.
YOu don't have a single large city. You don't even have a county with more than 900,000 people. A few rough areas. YOur talking about sheer numbers.
CT is a wealthy, you are 4th in the country in Median Income. CT has about 350,000 Black Americans. George has 3.1 MILLION. Same for NY State. 33% of Chicago is black.
So as a model, other states should follow CT by doing what? Reduce the number of black males?
I don't know you as "Racist", but have all but said you are naïve. If say your not, then you are racist. As a naïve man in your enclave of CT goodness your exposure is not first hand. So basically in your narcissistic manner you trying to say you have no idea what your talking about as you have not first hand experienced racism and you have black friends. That's actually a good thing and your fortunate. I just think that since you bring little verifications and have little experience you just are not offering any tangable to the conversation.

Your vote counts as much as anyone elses. Your naïve Trump thinking is he will take CT based on what you said recently. Polls have Hilary STILL up by about 15pts in your state.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/connecticut/

Basically your enclave state that has a very high median income, (the top three: Calif, NJ and MD all have HUGE urban populations which CT does not), thus, a low numerical count of minorities, no big cities and your big suggestion is "Y'all should white like us"?

Nalod--the population break down in CT is consistent with almost any other state? But the reality is the police havent been shooting people of any color. And I think it would be wise for other states to see whats going on it CT? You dont live here--there are certainly VERY rough sections of Bridgeport Hartford and New Haven. There is murder in those cities--no doubt about that,. But the police have rarely used lethal force here for the most part. On a % basis its not close--NO AA were shot by police zero none.

I think that you dont show a little respect for others views--you seem to look through a vacuum where only your views are correct. Im voting Trumo for a reason and I think that Trump will win CT for the same. I see Hillary as much more of a divisive do nothing person who is obviously disliked by her own colleagues. I dont think D Trump is some kind of perfect guy but I do believe that he wants to do better than what we have had. Thats the way I see it--I can certainly believe that people who think Hillary is going to do something for you--well I think you might just be wrong. Im more concerned about the Knicks winning than I am the next President--believe me---but I dont reach out and immaturely label people naive or racist like you have to me. Its untrue and obnoxious.

BRIGGS wrote:

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This fool Donald Trump just said this:

"We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever,” Trump said during a campaign event at the Duplin County Events Center, where thousands of supporters gathered.

The comments drew immediate criticism on social media from critics who accused him of failing to consider the United States’ history with slavery and North Carolina’s history with Jim Crow laws and segregation. Kenansville itself is named after a man whose family owned a slave plantation.

This is the kind of crap that just makes me hot with anger. Anyone who supports this man should be ashamed of themselves. There's just no justifying his insensitive remarks and outright bigotry. At some point people have to acknowledge what they see and hear from this man. Not to mention all of his illegal business dealings and illegal use of Charity funds. The list of lies goes on an on. How can anyone defend this man?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/20/african-americans-are-in-the-worst-shape-theyve-ever-been-trump-says-in-north-carolina/

It's really insulting to watch a candidate from a major party use African Americans to make whites feel good about voting for him and it's working...Look how this thread began...

Funny how Trump instantly comments on everything else, but the shooting of unarmed Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, he has no comment at all. Instead he's shouting out a town named after a plantation owner.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/778385212505989120

Also just so you know that NC flag is actually the Confederate Flag. People think the Rebel Flag is the Flag of the Confederacy but many Southern States still use variations of Confederate Flags other than that one in a defiant manner.

In the South when they're forced to change the flag from the most popular Confederate Flag they just switch to another one that people in the North don't know is still a Confederate Image.

You know its just an awful cycle that we are in now. I think cops are working under fear and people who get pulled over certainly have a right to also have a reasonable fear of police.

in CT in 2015 only 2 people were shot in total by police--no AA were shot zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl

And when you grow up in Brooklyn and then CT and you are friends with AA all your life--you see NONE of this stuff--theyre just my buddies and I see no difference by white black Hispanic Asian as I have friends of all diversities races etc.. Maybe were just different people here. There are projects in CT there are some tough cities but cops rarely shoot anyone. I think other states need to learn from CT. But this has been my point of view when I talk about racism. In my 47 years--I have seen very very little. Ive seen more as a Jewish man towards myself than any other race. In Brooklyn we were all buddies didnt matter what you looked like and it shouldnt. In CT there are many more whites than other races in the towns I grew up in but the few minorities were treated like everyone else. So I simply have not seen it. From a far I think some a lot of these shootings are fear based--the scenarios stoke fear in the officers and than they act. I have to wonder why the guy was tasing the suspect at the same time as they lady shot him. He later said if he had a gun in his hand he wouldve used it as well. If we change places with the police officer--what is the correct action? I think two mistakes were made at a minimum. First the guy shouldve stopped secondly the woman police officer needed to reach for her Tasr first gun second as she had back up. Once that back up came she needed to put the gun back into her revolver. But I also know that if you feel your life is at stake--we dont know what wed all do ist hard to change places when we think about it.

That being said I think that other states need to use CT as a model. In CT its obvious that police are restrained in using deadly force. There is something going right here that is not elsewhere.

so basically your saying you don't get whats going on in other places, which is understandable.
Your voting for trump because he said things you believe to be true.
He is a pathological liar.
The whole birther thing was a sham, and he admitted it and tried to deflect it on Hilary.
He used the even to promote his new hotel. Smart, but lacks integrity.
And you don't tell us why CT should be a model.
Thing is:

CT has just 3.6 million people. 77% white, 13 Hispanic or latino, 10% black. Since like most places, women out number men, and it seems few women are shot by police. So CT has about 172,000 black males.
YOu don't have a single large city. You don't even have a county with more than 900,000 people. A few rough areas. YOur talking about sheer numbers.
CT is a wealthy, you are 4th in the country in Median Income. CT has about 350,000 Black Americans. George has 3.1 MILLION. Same for NY State. 33% of Chicago is black.
So as a model, other states should follow CT by doing what? Reduce the number of black males?
I don't know you as "Racist", but have all but said you are naïve. If say your not, then you are racist. As a naïve man in your enclave of CT goodness your exposure is not first hand. So basically in your narcissistic manner you trying to say you have no idea what your talking about as you have not first hand experienced racism and you have black friends. That's actually a good thing and your fortunate. I just think that since you bring little verifications and have little experience you just are not offering any tangable to the conversation.

Your vote counts as much as anyone elses. Your naïve Trump thinking is he will take CT based on what you said recently. Polls have Hilary STILL up by about 15pts in your state.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/connecticut/

Basically your enclave state that has a very high median income, (the top three: Calif, NJ and MD all have HUGE urban populations which CT does not), thus, a low numerical count of minorities, no big cities and your big suggestion is "Y'all should white like us"?

Nalod--the population break down in CT is consistent with almost any other state? But the reality is the police havent been shooting people of any color. And I think it would be wise for other states to see whats going on it CT? You dont live here--there are certainly VERY rough sections of Bridgeport Hartford and New Haven. There is murder in those cities--no doubt about that,. But the police have rarely used lethal force here for the most part. On a % basis its not close--NO AA were shot by police zero none.

I think that you dont show a little respect for others views--you seem to look through a vacuum where only your views are correct. Im voting Trumo for a reason and I think that Trump will win CT for the same. I see Hillary as much more of a divisive do nothing person who is obviously disliked by her own colleagues. I dont think D Trump is some kind of perfect guy but I do believe that he wants to do better than what we have had. Thats the way I see it--I can certainly believe that people who think Hillary is going to do something for you--well I think you might just be wrong. Im more concerned about the Knicks winning than I am the next President--believe me---but I dont reach out and immaturely label people naive or racist like you have to me. Its untrue and obnoxious.

The CT example is hard to repeat because you have to remember that MOST of the AA's in this country still live in the Former Slave States. It's called the BLACK BELT. In those states they have issues going all the way back to Slavery that still are an issue. The Klan is still here. The streets are still named after Confederate War Heroes and they have Statues to them in the parks. They have holidays down here that you may never have heard of in CT.

Over 150 years ago, the state of Alabama took up arms against the United States in order to defend the state’s practice of enslaving black people and forcing them to work to enrich white property owners. Today, the state celebrates its four years of treason in defense of slavery with a statewide holiday.

Under Alabama law, the fourth Monday in April is “Confederate Memorial Day” — and this is actually one of two Confederate-themed holidays celebrated by the state. State law also recognizes the first Monday in January as a celebration of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s birthday. State offices, courts, and licensing offices are all closed on Monday because of the state holiday.

Nor is Alabama alone in using today to celebrate the Confederacy. Mississippi also celebrates Confederate Memorial Day, although Mississippi state offices will only close “at the discretion of the executive head of the department or agency.” Until recently, Georgia celebrated the same holiday — in 2015, Gov. Nathan Deal (R) renamed Confederate Memorial Day with the generic term “state holiday.”

In total, eight states — Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas — still celebrate some sort of Confederate holiday, although the nature of the celebration (and whether state workers get the day off) varies from state to state. Texas’ holiday, which the state celebrated on January 19th, is called “Confederate Heroes Day.” Meanwhile, Virginia has long used its Confederate holiday as a counterbalance to the federal holiday honoring a fallen civil rights leader.

What has Trump EVER done that should instill confidence in him as a Public Servant?

BRIGGS wrote:

Nalod wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This fool Donald Trump just said this:

"We're going to rebuild our inner cities because our African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever, ever, ever,” Trump said during a campaign event at the Duplin County Events Center, where thousands of supporters gathered.

The comments drew immediate criticism on social media from critics who accused him of failing to consider the United States’ history with slavery and North Carolina’s history with Jim Crow laws and segregation. Kenansville itself is named after a man whose family owned a slave plantation.

This is the kind of crap that just makes me hot with anger. Anyone who supports this man should be ashamed of themselves. There's just no justifying his insensitive remarks and outright bigotry. At some point people have to acknowledge what they see and hear from this man. Not to mention all of his illegal business dealings and illegal use of Charity funds. The list of lies goes on an on. How can anyone defend this man?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/20/african-americans-are-in-the-worst-shape-theyve-ever-been-trump-says-in-north-carolina/

It's really insulting to watch a candidate from a major party use African Americans to make whites feel good about voting for him and it's working...Look how this thread began...

Funny how Trump instantly comments on everything else, but the shooting of unarmed Terence Crutcher in Tulsa, he has no comment at all. Instead he's shouting out a town named after a plantation owner.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/778385212505989120

Also just so you know that NC flag is actually the Confederate Flag. People think the Rebel Flag is the Flag of the Confederacy but many Southern States still use variations of Confederate Flags other than that one in a defiant manner.

In the South when they're forced to change the flag from the most popular Confederate Flag they just switch to another one that people in the North don't know is still a Confederate Image.

You know its just an awful cycle that we are in now. I think cops are working under fear and people who get pulled over certainly have a right to also have a reasonable fear of police.

in CT in 2015 only 2 people were shot in total by police--no AA were shot zero.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/?tid=a_inl

And when you grow up in Brooklyn and then CT and you are friends with AA all your life--you see NONE of this stuff--theyre just my buddies and I see no difference by white black Hispanic Asian as I have friends of all diversities races etc.. Maybe were just different people here. There are projects in CT there are some tough cities but cops rarely shoot anyone. I think other states need to learn from CT. But this has been my point of view when I talk about racism. In my 47 years--I have seen very very little. Ive seen more as a Jewish man towards myself than any other race. In Brooklyn we were all buddies didnt matter what you looked like and it shouldnt. In CT there are many more whites than other races in the towns I grew up in but the few minorities were treated like everyone else. So I simply have not seen it. From a far I think some a lot of these shootings are fear based--the scenarios stoke fear in the officers and than they act. I have to wonder why the guy was tasing the suspect at the same time as they lady shot him. He later said if he had a gun in his hand he wouldve used it as well. If we change places with the police officer--what is the correct action? I think two mistakes were made at a minimum. First the guy shouldve stopped secondly the woman police officer needed to reach for her Tasr first gun second as she had back up. Once that back up came she needed to put the gun back into her revolver. But I also know that if you feel your life is at stake--we dont know what wed all do ist hard to change places when we think about it.

That being said I think that other states need to use CT as a model. In CT its obvious that police are restrained in using deadly force. There is something going right here that is not elsewhere.

so basically your saying you don't get whats going on in other places, which is understandable.
Your voting for trump because he said things you believe to be true.
He is a pathological liar.
The whole birther thing was a sham, and he admitted it and tried to deflect it on Hilary.
He used the even to promote his new hotel. Smart, but lacks integrity.
And you don't tell us why CT should be a model.
Thing is:

CT has just 3.6 million people. 77% white, 13 Hispanic or latino, 10% black. Since like most places, women out number men, and it seems few women are shot by police. So CT has about 172,000 black males.
YOu don't have a single large city. You don't even have a county with more than 900,000 people. A few rough areas. YOur talking about sheer numbers.
CT is a wealthy, you are 4th in the country in Median Income. CT has about 350,000 Black Americans. George has 3.1 MILLION. Same for NY State. 33% of Chicago is black.
So as a model, other states should follow CT by doing what? Reduce the number of black males?
I don't know you as "Racist", but have all but said you are naïve. If say your not, then you are racist. As a naïve man in your enclave of CT goodness your exposure is not first hand. So basically in your narcissistic manner you trying to say you have no idea what your talking about as you have not first hand experienced racism and you have black friends. That's actually a good thing and your fortunate. I just think that since you bring little verifications and have little experience you just are not offering any tangable to the conversation.

Your vote counts as much as anyone elses. Your naïve Trump thinking is he will take CT based on what you said recently. Polls have Hilary STILL up by about 15pts in your state.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/connecticut/

Basically your enclave state that has a very high median income, (the top three: Calif, NJ and MD all have HUGE urban populations which CT does not), thus, a low numerical count of minorities, no big cities and your big suggestion is "Y'all should white like us"?

Nalod--the population break down in CT is consistent with almost any other state? But the reality is the police havent been shooting people of any color. And I think it would be wise for other states to see whats going on it CT? You dont live here--there are certainly VERY rough sections of Bridgeport Hartford and New Haven. There is murder in those cities--no doubt about that,. But the police have rarely used lethal force here for the most part. On a % basis its not close--NO AA were shot by police zero none.

I think that you dont show a little respect for others views--you seem to look through a vacuum where only your views are correct. Im voting Trumo for a reason and I think that Trump will win CT for the same. I see Hillary as much more of a divisive do nothing person who is obviously disliked by her own colleagues. I dont think D Trump is some kind of perfect guy but I do believe that he wants to do better than what we have had. Thats the way I see it--I can certainly believe that people who think Hillary is going to do something for you--well I think you might just be wrong. Im more concerned about the Knicks winning than I am the next President--believe me---but I dont reach out and immaturely label people naive or racist like you have to me. Its untrue and obnoxious.

You said you don't have the exposure as do others, live in a state that has very different numbers than others mentioned. Very different.
I don't speak for the black experience so I am naïve to there too, but I don't engage in some conversation to say "Well, I live in a state that has some rough areas and we don't shoot our black...."
Im not saying there are good reasons, but its your state and your not saying what your doing differnet. I came back with some hard stats showing your a small rich state with a small population, and of that lower minorities than states with high Police shooting data.

Naïve is not a bad label. When you project that your experience is your expectation, then its naïve on that subject..........
I did not call you a racist. I did say if your not naïve then so. I should have said "Then Its a racist statement". My bad. Sorry.

don't know you as "Racist", but have all but said you are naïve. If say your not, then you are racist. As a naïve man in your enclave of CT goodness your exposure is not first hand. So basically in your narcissistic manner you trying to say you have no idea what your talking about as you have not first hand experienced racism and you have black friends. That's actually a good thing and your fortunate. I just think that since you bring little verifications and have little experience you just are not offering any tangable to the conversation.

Bring me "we train our cops more", "we spend more on training", "We have less drugs in our rough areas", something.
CT has high income, high taxes, no big cities and rank 36th in population

Your largest 4 cities, Bridgeport ranked population 178k, New Haven, ranked 205, Stamford ranked 277 and Hartford, ranked 270, add up in population to the city the size of Fresno California or Tuscan Arizona! (530,000 people)!

Naïve?

Clinton, CT, a lovely town. You are over 95% white, .57% black. Registered voters are slightly more republican than Democrat. Clinton has 48% unaffiliated registration.
So basically if you assume your town demographic is representative of the rest of the state, its Naïve.

Stats over nativity:

CT has about 41% unaffiliated voters,20% registered Republicans, 36% Democrats. It would be Naïve to think the statistical probability of Trump winning about 70% of the unaffiliated vote to make up the difference is low. IM not saying it can't happen, but as you said a few days ago you and most you know are voting trump and you deduct as would CT and your logic was your local demographic, then I label that, even if its a bout of immaturity, A naïve thought.
Can trump win the general national election? Of course. But it won't be CT.

arkrud wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:Brooklyn is what America eventually be. All kind of people blended together in one huge melting pot.
Its like a creature budding with life with people not looking back at the places they came from.

America is not a melting pot, it more like a mosaic. We are not "blending together." It is possible to maintain your unique culture AND integrate yourself into the fabric of this nation, but some people don't get it. You can still be an American and enjoy and practice your Latino, Irish, Italian heritage. This notion that people have to forget where they've come from to be a real American is ridiculous. And you have to remember the past to make sure you don't repeat the same mistakes. And example of this are these bogus voter laws republicans wanted to implement in various states. African-Americans remember similar tactics being used back in the day to suppress their vote so there needed to be push back against it.

Obviously it is possible and cool to maintain the elements of your culture. And I do not think it is possible to get read of this even if one wants too. But what about hundreds of millions of people that some called "whites" which are in fact Brits, Germans, French, Polish, Russians, Spanish, etc. and are now just Americans? And what about all this millions of interracial international families with kids descending from many races and nationalities? Are they not melted? You seems to disregard the reality. But reality will not change regardless of your opinion.

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:Brooklyn is what America eventually be. All kind of people blended together in one huge melting pot.
Its like a creature budding with life with people not looking back at the places they came from.

America is not a melting pot, it more like a mosaic. We are not "blending together." It is possible to maintain your unique culture AND integrate yourself into the fabric of this nation, but some people don't get it. You can still be an American and enjoy and practice your Latino, Irish, Italian heritage. This notion that people have to forget where they've come from to be a real American is ridiculous. And you have to remember the past to make sure you don't repeat the same mistakes. And example of this are these bogus voter laws republicans wanted to implement in various states. African-Americans remember similar tactics being used back in the day to suppress their vote so there needed to be push back against it.

Obviously it is possible and cool to maintain the elements of your culture. And I do not think it is possible to get read of this even if one wants too. But what about hundreds of millions of people that some called "whites" which are in fact Brits, Germans, French, Polish, Russians, Spanish, etc. and are now just Americans? And what about all this millions of interracial international families with kids descending from many races and nationalities? Are they not melted? You seems to disregard the reality. But reality will not change regardless of your opinion.

And where are you getting your "facts" that hundreds of millions of "whites" have discarded their roots and are now "just Americans?" I doubt very seriously there will ever be a time in which almost everyone in this country just completely discards their roots and are "just Americans." And you know what, we should hope that NEVER happens. Diversity is what separates us from almost every other country in this world. The fact that anyone from any country can come here a find a community similar to their origins is the beauty of US. We should hope we never become a melting pot.

I never claimed that everyone will discard their roots. In opposite I said that this is impossible.
But this how new nations are created. The differences became less and less important and profound and common values and cultural uniformness increases. This how it always was and always will be.
At the end it will be no different nations and races on the Earth. It will be one common culture and all nations and races will mix.
This time is far remote but inevitable.
And countries who will advance on this pass faster will be always better of.

arkrud wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:Brooklyn is what America eventually be. All kind of people blended together in one huge melting pot.
Its like a creature budding with life with people not looking back at the places they came from.

America is not a melting pot, it more like a mosaic. We are not "blending together." It is possible to maintain your unique culture AND integrate yourself into the fabric of this nation, but some people don't get it. You can still be an American and enjoy and practice your Latino, Irish, Italian heritage. This notion that people have to forget where they've come from to be a real American is ridiculous. And you have to remember the past to make sure you don't repeat the same mistakes. And example of this are these bogus voter laws republicans wanted to implement in various states. African-Americans remember similar tactics being used back in the day to suppress their vote so there needed to be push back against it.

Obviously it is possible and cool to maintain the elements of your culture. And I do not think it is possible to get read of this even if one wants too. But what about hundreds of millions of people that some called "whites" which are in fact Brits, Germans, French, Polish, Russians, Spanish, etc. and are now just Americans? And what about all this millions of interracial international families with kids descending from many races and nationalities? Are they not melted? You seems to disregard the reality. But reality will not change regardless of your opinion.

And where are you getting your "facts" that hundreds of millions of "whites" have discarded their roots and are now "just Americans?" I doubt very seriously there will ever be a time in which almost everyone in this country just completely discards their roots and are "just Americans." And you know what, we should hope that NEVER happens. Diversity is what separates us from almost every other country in this world. The fact that anyone from any country can come here a find a community similar to their origins is the beauty of US. We should hope we never become a melting pot.

I never claimed that everyone will discard their roots. In opposite I said that this is impossible.
But this how new nations are created. The differences became less and less important and profound and common values and cultural uniformness increases. This how it always was and always will be.
At the end it will be no different nations and races on the Earth. It will be one common culture and all nations and races will mix.
This time is far remote but inevitable.
And countries who will advance on this pass faster will be always better of.

Nalod wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

nixluva wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:Brooklyn is what America eventually be. All kind of people blended together in one huge melting pot.
Its like a creature budding with life with people not looking back at the places they came from.

America is not a melting pot, it more like a mosaic. We are not "blending together." It is possible to maintain your unique culture AND integrate yourself into the fabric of this nation, but some people don't get it. You can still be an American and enjoy and practice your Latino, Irish, Italian heritage. This notion that people have to forget where they've come from to be a real American is ridiculous. And you have to remember the past to make sure you don't repeat the same mistakes. And example of this are these bogus voter laws republicans wanted to implement in various states. African-Americans remember similar tactics being used back in the day to suppress their vote so there needed to be push back against it.

Obviously it is possible and cool to maintain the elements of your culture. And I do not think it is possible to get read of this even if one wants too. But what about hundreds of millions of people that some called "whites" which are in fact Brits, Germans, French, Polish, Russians, Spanish, etc. and are now just Americans? And what about all this millions of interracial international families with kids descending from many races and nationalities? Are they not melted? You seems to disregard the reality. But reality will not change regardless of your opinion.

Arkrud you are so out of touch with reality that I can't even believe what you say half of the time. Do you not know that for MOST of this country's history if you have so much as a drop of African blood you were BLACK???

The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States asserting that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan-African ancestry ("one drop" of black blood)[1][2] is considered black (Negro in historical terms). This concept evolved over the course of the 19th century and became codified into law in the 20th century. It was associated with the principle of "invisible blackness" and is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

So under this kind of thinking someone who actually looked white could still be subject to Segregation and Jim Crow treatment. This is how seriously they took this notion of race. You well know that under Hitler's Germany they had similar thinking with regard to Jewish Blood. It is a repugnant practice but the history of this country was built on this thinking and it lasted well into the late 1960's:

The Civil Rights Act of 1968, (Pub.L. 90–284, 82 Stat. 73, enacted April 11, 1968) is a landmark part of legislation in the United States that provided for equal housing opportunities regardless of race, creed, or national origin and made it a federal crime to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone … by reason of their race, color, religion, or national origin.”[1] The Act was signed into law during the King assassination riots by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had previously signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act into law.

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is commonly known as the Fair Housing Act and was meant as a follow‑up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While the Civil Rights Act of 1866 prohibited discrimination in housing, there were no federal enforcement provisions.[2] The 1968 act expanded on previous acts and prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and since 1974, gender; since 1988, the act protects people with disabilities and families with children.

Victims of discrimination may use both the 1968 act and the 1866 act via section 1983[3] to seek redress. The 1968 act provides for federal solutions while the 1866 act provides for private solutions (i.e., civil suits).

Titles II through VII comprised the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, which applies to the Native American tribes of the United States and makes many, but not all, of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights applicable within the tribes[4] (that Act appears today in Title 25, sections 1301 to 1303 of the United States Code).

A rider attached to the bill makes it a felony to "travel in interstate commerce...with the intent to incite, promote, encourage, participate in and carry on a riot". This provision has been criticized for "equating organized political protest with organized violence".[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

So we're talking about 48 years since the 1968 Civil Rights Act. That's not a very long period of time. I'm older than that and so are many people in the U.S., so many remember how it was before 1968 and the early years after 1968 as the country struggled to change.

I am complicatedly out of touch with your virtual reality.
I am leaving in the world where AA people are a tiny minority among 7 bullion of human being I belong to.
I understand that everything which related to this group is magnified to you as you are a part of it.
But if you want this group to do better you should get out of your box and look at yourself from the perspective of all other people who populate this country and this planet.
Every race and every nation has history of pain, genocide, oppression, death, and despair.
We humans will need to leave this all behind and became as one... or degrade and disappear.
There is no other way.
Thousands of people all over the world are shot, raped, tortured, abused, and humiliated at this very moment.
All of them deserve compassion and help as much as every AA man killed at traffic stop.
They all are at the same level of importance to me.
And again - give me your plan of action. Time for academics is over. It is time to find the solutions.

You STILL don't understand. You live in America! This country was built with Slavery as a means to build it's economic power and this country fought a vicious and bloody Civil War over this practice. It then went thru another 100 years of Jim Crow which was further mistreatment of AA's.

As for your ignorant comment about AA's doing better, you're like Trump in thinking that AA's aren't doing better DESPITE all the crap we've had inflicted upon us. We are doing better. The only reason why we've not done better has been due in large part to the unjust treatment we've had over HUNDREDS of years in this country. Since 1619 until now AA's have not been treated completely equally.

Since you refuse to educate yourself on these things it's impossible for you to understand the problem. This isn't an African American problem, This is an AMERICAN problem. Not properly addressing these issues has been holding this country back from being greater than it is.

When my Great, Great Grandfather fought in the Civil War, with Company I of the 24th Regiment U.S. Colored Troops, it was in a segregated military. When my 3 Great Uncles fought in WWI they were in a segregated military. When my Grandfather fought in WWII and won a Bronze Star and Purple Heart fighting Germans in Europe, he was in a Segregated military. When my father was in Vietnam they had an integrated military but prejudice was still rampant and the country had not yet dealt with Civil Rights completely. I am fully aware of how far AA's have come in this country and what has held us back from achieving more. I'm trying to help you to understand all the many ways that AA's have been negatively impacted in this country. There is MUCH more you need to learn.

Man you are like some answering machine.
Give you some keywords and you reply with lecture on Black history...
Ask you about what to do and you reply "I don't get it..." and continue with lecturing.
Talking with yourself looks strange and is unproductive.

Black History is interwoven with American History. You can't separate the two. This is what they've tried to do with History books in this country. It's why so many White Americans lack knowledge about the true history of this country.

I'm trying to actually HELP YOU to understand the country that you live in. Not the fantasy version you seem to think exists!!! I'm rooted in this country completely and I've lived long enough to have experienced the good and the bad as a Black Man. You seem to have no idea of just what it's like. I can't hide my Blackness. Some ethnic groups can just blend into the majority White society and never really have to deal with as much racism as the average Black Person. The Klan still marches in my mother's home town of Benson, North Carolina. I don't think you realize that this is a reality in America. Down here in Georgia the AA's celebrate Juneteenth:

Juneteenth is the oldest known celebration commemorating the ending of slavery in the United States. Dating back to 1865, it was on June 19th that the Union soldiers, led by Major General Gordon Granger, landed at Galveston, Texas with news that the war had ended and that the enslaved were now free. Note that this was two and a half years after President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation - which had become official January 1, 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation had little impact on the Texans due to the minimal number of Union troops to enforce the new Executive Order. However, with the surrender of General Lee in April of 1865, and the arrival of General Granger’s regiment, the forces were finally strong enough to influence and overcome the resistance.

Later attempts to explain this two and a half year delay in the receipt of this important news have yielded several versions that have been handed down through the years. Often told is the story of a messenger who was murdered on his way to Texas with the news of freedom. Another, is that the news was deliberately withheld by the enslavers to maintain the labor force on the plantations. And still another, is that federal troops actually waited for the slave owners to reap the benefits of one last cotton harvest before going to Texas to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. All of which, or neither of these version could be true. Certainly, for some, President Lincoln's authority over the rebellious states was in question For whatever the reasons, conditions in Texas remained status quo well beyond what was statutory.

http://www.juneteenth.com/history.htm

Do you know what some White People call Juneteenth down here? Nigger Day! You may choose not to read and learn what i'm trying to teach you about this country but i'm going to keep giving knowledge so that maybe you can one day understand what's going on outside your bubble. It's not a History lesson as if these things are all in the past. It's a history lesson to explain why things are the way they are even today.

Nix,

I have lived in N.C. for thirty years and never heard of this. I read a bit of the website.
Until a few years ago I never had heard of the Tulsa Riots of 1921. I have discussed this with people and sometimes have then google it and they are like "WTF" is this!!! I consider myself educated and reasonably well read, but some things got by me at the same time. I have been naïve to many things regarding our history.

They started this Racist campaign to separate the races during and literally right after the Civil War. Look at this political ad from 1866:

The caption reads, "THE FREEDMAN'S BUREAU! An Agency to keep the NEGRO in idleness at the EXPENSE of the white man. Twice vetoed by the PRESIDENT, and made a law by CONGRESS. Support Congress & you support the negro. Sustain the President and you protect the white man." A barefooted black man lounges in the foreground, asking himself, "What is de use for me to work as long as dey make dese appropriations." The left-side background presents contrasting scenes of industrious white men chopping wood and plowing fields. In the background above the languishing freedman is the U.S. Capitol, with rays of light streaming from the Statue of Freedom. Appealing both to the visual imagery and shrill logic of white supremacy, prints such as these contributed to the gradual decline and eventual elimination of the Freedmen's Bureau. Proving once again that the artist's crayon is more powerful than either the pen or the sword, this print presents a depressing example of the immense power of political cartoons in domestic policy.

I have articles from that time that talk openly about so many lies designed to anger the average White man and make them see the Freed Blacks as the enemy. No different than the Jews in other times or Mexicans of today. It's an old trick that has worked.