Portland.

[Bhaalizmo]

Perfect? You think 2 parties is an effective and democratic way to govern a country of 300+ million people? If it were perfect then why are buildings burning, why are you so pissed off at democrats, why is the US leading the pack GLOBALLY of corona fuck-ups, why do we have the worst education, literacy and highest amount of citizens in prison in the world? I think we can both agree our country is not perfect right now. And the election system we have is not helping that, it is in fact dividing americans so those in power (on BOTH sides) can fuck us normal people over. You think its only democrats who could ever do wrong i suppose, but its happening on both sides. I identify as a liberal, but I am not behind my party on MANY issues. I try to see conservative side too and do appreciate some things, but the two parties we have now are far from fitting my political views.

I think you may have interpreted "No system is perfect" as "No. System is perfect"

[Bhaalizmo]

You are absolutely correct and I'm sure we're just getting started... stay tuned, heh.

Looking forward to it

[drauz]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-...d-constitution

“The federal government can use federal assets to protect federal property,” Napolitano said.

“Stated differently, the Department of Homeland Security can send police into Oregon to protect a federal courthouse in Oregon, use that as an example.”

He went on to say that the federal government cannot, however, enforce the general criminal law.

“They can't supplement or replace the police,” Napolitano explained. “They can't go throughout the streets and say, ‘Hey, you’re committing a crime. We’re going to arrest you.’”

“They certainly can't do what they have been doing in Oregon, which is arresting people without a warrant and without probable cause, holding them for a few hours and then letting them go,” he went on to explain. “So they have to be restrained and they have to confine their activity to the federal property.”

“Their law enforcement duties must absolutely be confined to the protection of federal assets, so says the Constitution, which leaves the general police power in the hands of the cities and states and not the federal government,” Napolitano said on Tuesday.

He also noted that federal agents “have to wear uniforms that identify them.”

“They can't wear fatigues with a piece of tape that says ‘police.’ Why not? Because if you have an encounter with one of them, you are entitled to know the name of the human being with whom you are having an encounter,” Napolitano explained.

[ClydeR]

If Trump was not behind in the polls, would these troops still be in Portland? I don't think so. Sending the troops to Portland is politically risky. A candidate who is ahead in the polls does not take risks. A candidate who is behind must take risks.

[Tgo01]

Perfect? You think 2 parties is an effective and democratic way to govern a country of 300+ million people? If it were perfect then why are buildings burning, why are you so pissed off at democrats, why is the US leading the pack GLOBALLY of corona fuck-ups, why do we have the worst education, literacy and highest amount of citizens in prison in the world? I think we can both agree our country is not perfect right now. And the election system we have is not helping that, it is in fact dividing americans so those in power (on BOTH sides) can fuck us normal people over. You think its only democrats who could ever do wrong i suppose, but its happening on both sides. I identify as a liberal, but I am not behind my party on MANY issues. I try to see conservative side too and do appreciate some things, but the two parties we have now are far from fitting my political views.

Err...I said NO system is perfect, I didn't say our system was perfect.

Our system doesn't really cater to a two party system, it's just that the two parties have been working together for over a hundred years now to make impossible for a third party to have any chance of winning an election. The problem isn't our system of electing politicians, it's the fact that the two parties have basically created a duopoly so they only ever really have to compete against one other party.

Bernie Sanders had TWO opportunities to run as a viable third party candidate. Would he have succeeded? Probably not. Would both runs pretty much ensure a Trump win? Probably yes. Would he have won some states and showed that third parties can make it in US politics if they stop being so afraid of "But if I run then the other person will win!" Again probably yes. But both times he chose to back down to maintain the status quo of Republicans and Democrats dominating our elections.

Blame weak people like Sanders for being weak, don't blame the system that in no way prevents a third party candidate from running or winning.

[Tgo01]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-...d-constitution

Doesn't this guy have like a 90% track record of being wrong in his anti-Trump screeds?

[Bhaalizmo]

It's not even so much that they look the other way as it is that our state laws dictate that nudity is a valid form of artistic expression and political speech. It's also why exotic dancers here are permitted to get fully nude unlike many other places.

And that is one of the many things I love about Oregon.

[FlayedAngel]

And that is one of the many things I love about Oregon.

Portland rules, in a lot of ways.

[FlayedAngel]

Like I said I'm willing to hear your thoughts on who is setting fires and assaulting people and destroying property in Portland: ghosts, BLM, Antifa, or perhaps the feds are setting the fires themselves? Conspiracy theories abound! Or we can rely on good ol' Occam's razor and say it's Antifa.

I did state that most of the violence is due to antagonization. Collateral damage sometimes happens, beyond that I'm not really in a hurry to attribute it to any particular group... except for maybe ghost cowboys.

Because you're looking at this in a vacuum, like I just chose implicit bias at random. I explained why I felt this way, I'm not just saying words, hence the analogy to a random word like racism doesn't work.

I am also referring to the principle. My problem isn't with the word "implicit" nor "bias" specifically.

In what way am I looking at this in a vacuum? I get that it's difficult to prove or disprove a bias, that doesn't mean they don't exist -- that's why I elaborated to limit to self-examination as a criteria, in fairness.

You don't think it's a pretty serious accusation to accuse someone of treating someone differently based on the color of their skin? I sure as hell think that's a very serious accusation and I want to see evidence to support said accusation. But that's the beauty of implicit bias isn't it? You don't need evidence, you just say it exists and tell everyone they are guilty of it.

So does the word "racist" bear weight, or not? I need a verdict here.

There is nothing to change your mind about when it comes to implicit bias, remember it's something you do unconsciously.

Becoming aware of implicit biases allows you to change your thinking or behavior in a way that's less harmful, both individually and (ultimately) systemically.

This is a fairly gross understanding of what I'm saying. I've read about implicit bias, I know what it's about, I know who pushes it, I happen to disagree with its premise. Me disagreeing with it doesn't mean I live in an echo chamber and limit my exposure to conflicting viewpoints.

I was extemporizing on how implicit biases are formed. I neither made that correlation, nor accused you of limiting your exposure to conflicting viewpoints.

Of course it is, that was my entire point. Everyone reading that list knows exactly which thing I listed you are referring to without you even having to say it, because that's a perfect example of what racism used to mean. But now there is a sizeable segment of the population (even right here on the forums) who would argue all 4 things I listed are examples of racism, and that's the problem.

When you say buying Goya products is comparable to Neo-Nazis then you have taken the bite out of the word "racism." Someone who gladly continues to buy Goya products isn't going to be swayed by accusations of racism anymore because they know they aren't comparable to Neo-Nazis yet they are being compared to one anyways.

Except that your argument there completely disregards any scope or context, which is important, and downplays the complexity of the social issue as a whole; your alleged "fatigue" of the word is only one element, which is its use (or its debatable overuse) as a pejorative. The problem is that if someone observes casual racism in someone else -- even if that someone is devoid of any malicious intent -- such is often treated by both parties (the accused and the accuser) as having the same connotations as the full-blown KKK-imbrued usage of the word. There aren't different words for different "degrees" of racist, which is unfortunate... that's why context matters.

[FlayedAngel]

Well, this is just rude:

https://katu.com/news/local/video-sh...pepper-sprayed