The American Politics Thread

HackettFan wrote: rushfan4 wrote: I'm not quite sure what HackettFan is trying to get at with his post, but I assume it is because I do not have a PhD in linguistics (congrats on that by the way).  The only reason that I typed the word Black in bold was to stress the word that people to tend to have a problem with in that catchphrase.  Yes, you were adequately describing what their problem with it was by placing 'black' in bold. And I explained that that does not comport with what any and every native speaker understands about the language. They are being disingenuous by forming that interpretation. They are changing its meaning. Let's put it this way. A 'Black lives matter' activist would speak in a fashion as to put the sentence stress on 'matter' (place 'matter' in bold). This is the normal default way to utter sentences in English according to how information is typically packaged. If I say horses have four legs, one is not free to say that I am saying that sheep do not. If I say animals matter, one is not free to say that I am saying that humans do not. If I say that Linguistics is a cool cognitive science, one is not free to say that I am saying that Psychology is not.

Gotcha.  What you say makes sense to me now.  And I agree that there is a falseness to this interpretation.

I read far too many comment sections on CNN and other news websites.  The more real argument that is made is if "black lives matter" so much why do they only show up when there is death by police officer.  In the city of Detroit numerous blacks are murdered each and every day.  Chicago is a war zone.  More blacks die in Chicago then soldiers in the war on ISIS.  Where are the black lives matter folks then?  If black lives matter so much why are they not protesting these murders? 

Personally, I was raised to believe that the police are the good guys, and I still think that this is true.  I have no idea what the true story is behind all of the police officers shooting black people.  Almost every story that I have seen has involved a black man breaking the law and being shot by a police officer who was doing his or her job.  Police brutality?  Excessive force?  Fearing for their own lives?  Unlike the gang bangers who are killing each other without a second thought, I am pretty sure that every one of these police officers who may feel justified in what they have done, would if given a second chance tried to have found a way to have tried to end things differently.  I agree that most of these men did not commit a crime that deserved for them to be executed, but if they hadn't been committing the crime that brought them to the police's attention then the events that occurred resulting in their deaths wouldn't have happened.  Forgive my possible naïve point of view, but I don't think that I am alone in this point of view.  I think that this is mostly the white point of view.   

Don't get me wrong. I agree 100% that black lives matter as much as all lives matter.  It makes me sad that anybody would kill anybody else.  And I think that it is sad that each of these situations resulted in someone's death.  Anyhow I'm going off the rails on a very touchy subject.  I don't think that I have said anything too radical but just trying to provide a counter point of view.

One can easily say that in terms of the President himself and the nation around him.... that only after 7 months Trump has already moved past 43 past Presidents .. only behind Lincoln himself as the most historically important US Presidents. Will Clinton, Bush, Kennedy.. even FDR be studied intensely many many years down the road. No.. not like Lincoln... nor Trump.  Not surprisingly both involve the division of this country. We were at a crossroads as a nation under Lincoln and arrived at it due to his election.. and we are that as well under Trump. That place in history that unlike other Presidents is merely continuing down paths previously established... but are firm places due to them from which the future and where this country goes are quite uncertain.

This is history man... and we are not merely audiences to it. But part of it ourselves.

game changer?  I do think it was Scott.. but not for the reasons you are touching on here.  Not the electorate at large.  Trump has his core support. Roughly a third of the population. Where he won, or more to the point.. where Hillary lost.. was in battle for the middle third of the electorate. Those that hated both of them but saw Hillary as the status quo.. and Trump the agent of change. If the polls are to be believed.. Trump's support has cratered among those.. but it wasn't Charlottesville that did it.. it has going on for months. If he doesn't regain them...  he gets crushed 1964 Goldwater style who only had the votes of racists and bigots. They exist here... but nowhere near enough to win elections at a national level.

Where I do think it was a game changer.. was pure and simple.. . was whether he survives politically.  When you have Republicans... Republicans that stood on the sidelines previously regarding his past outrages haha.. finally come out and question his judgment, temperament and the COMPETENCE to be President.. that means yes.. it was a game changer.  Which means unless things change very quickly...  the notion of the Republicans impeaching him if and when Mueller comes out with his findings is much more real today than it was a week ago.  

Indeed, and the fact so many people jump to that conclusion, must speak to something. Which is nothing new, we never did deal with our race issue, just keep ignoring it and moving around to avoid it.