A Message from the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump:

[Fenring]

The other reason for resistance to class first approaches is that historical they end up being white first as well. So a lot of people are skeptical of claims that the way to be progressive is just to forget about race.

I think "forget about race" may be jumping the shark. But it might be sufficient to at least ask whether the best way to address black poverty is by addressing racism, or by addressing...poverty. Based on my phrasing you can probably guess where my vote lies.

[DonaldD]

This question has been asked - and answered.  Color blind policies implemented in a framework of historical, structural racism end up being... not color blind.

Dealing with "poverty" won't deal with the ongoing effects of red-lining, gerrymandering, inequitable school systems, inequitable hiring practices, laws tailored to affect blacks worse than whites, and on and on.

And since "addressing poverty" won't survive the next election cycle, hoping for trickle down economic racial equity will no more happen in the next ten years than it has in the past 100.

[Fenring]

And since "addressing poverty" won't survive the next election cycle, hoping for trickle down economic racial equity will no more happen in the next ten years than it has in the past 100.

Except is has happened...unless you are saying that black people are in the same situation they were in 100 years ago?

[TheDrake]

The other reason for resistance to class first approaches is that historical they end up being white first as well. So a lot of people are skeptical of claims that the way to be progressive is just to forget about race.

I think "forget about race" may be jumping the shark. But it might be sufficient to at least ask whether the best way to address black poverty is by addressing racism, or by addressing...poverty. Based on my phrasing you can probably guess where my vote lies.

You have to do both. Rich black people are also victims of racism. Such as rich black people who are steered to worse neighborhoods by realtors. But the problem is that they are less likely to be able to become rich in the first place because of racial profiling and other inequities that create more resistance for them to succeed. You help people in poverty, great, and those other things still exist.

[DonaldD]

Really Fenring?  Employment rates of blacks and whites are the same?  Median income is the same?  Rates of incarceration the same?  Education levels the same?  Even remotely so?  And do you really believe the gains that have been made in the past 100 years occurred because of trust in color blind policies?

[NobleHunter]

I think "forget about race" may be jumping the shark. But it might be sufficient to at least ask whether the best way to address black poverty is by addressing racism, or by addressing...poverty. Based on my phrasing you can probably guess where my vote lies.

That would be true if poverty was addressed so thorough that it not longer existed. Since that doesn't seem to be in the cards right now, it becomes questionable. An initiative that increases white incomes by 5% while lowering black incomes by 5% would still be "successful" at reducing poverty. The initiative "addressed" poverty but didn't exactly help black people.

[Wayward Son]

But is there really much difference between classism and racism?

Racism was used over the decades to make sure certain races (blacks, hispanics, etc.) were kept in the lower economic levels, which is most likely the primary reason large fractions of these minorities are still in those levels.

That the outward effect may be momentarily overlapping has nothing to do with whether they're the same thing. If classism is at the heart of it then the rich wouldn't want the poor around regardless of their skin color, and would take concerted efforts to keep anyone down who is already down. If racism is in play then these people wouldn't approve of black neighbors whether they are rich or poor. Not saying these don't both happen, but saying they may be the same thing is specious, unless you subscribe to the new far-left playbook where nothing is relevant for discussion other than final effects. Under that rulebook, if more blacks are poor than whites proportionately then that IS racism, regardless of any other considerations or motivations. But for most people, it does involve both intention and personal outlook and actions, and as such I think you will find that hatred of the poor is quite different from hatred of members of different ethnic backgrounds.

If the outcome is the same (blacks are being held down) and the basic reason is the same (because they are poor, which is because they are black), then it is specious to argue there is any significant difference between the two.

If someone is about to shoot you, does it matter if the person is doing so because he hates blacks, or because he hates poor people and you are poor because society actively made your parents were poor?  Either way, you're about to be shot because you are black, and the person shooting you hates you.

Is it really so much better to want to keep poor people away instead of colored people?

[Fenring]

Really Fenring?  Employment rates of blacks and whites are the same?  Median income is the same?  Rates of incarceration the same?  Education levels the same?  Even remotely so?  And do you really believe the gains that have been made in the past 100 years occurred because of trust in color blind policies?

So the hill you're dying on is that until there is 100% parity across all categories of success then things haven't improved in the last 100 years? Your point hinges on "hoping" for the last 100 years not being enough. But if conditions are getting closer to parity over that timeframe then your point IMO becomes specious.

[rightleft22]

If classism is at the heart of it then the rich wouldn't want the poor around regardless of their skin color, and would take concerted efforts to keep anyone down who is already down

I would argue that the rich don't want any poor around and use the tool of discrimination justified by racist reasoning to distract the 'useful idiots' - the poor and middle classes of all races - from effectively dealing with the problem. Its a win win for the rich who do not care about the color of the poor only that they the keep their distance.

Watched how the poor and middle class successful protested and kill Seattle plan to tax Amazon for support of affordable housing. A issue Amazon rich mangers exacerbated by driving up the cost of homes. So much so that even those with full time half descent jobs were homeless. Though the lack of affordable hosing affected more Black people proportionately it also affected negatively many of those who protested and killed the plan. Even if they didn't realize it. Much of the reasoning for their protests were based on racist reasoning.   

[DonaldD]

It's especially specious since the mechanisms for dispossessing blacks in this way have been explained, publicly and shamelessly, as part of the southern strategy, for decades.  To ignore this, especially in a forum such as this, pretty much marks oneself as a tool.

Your point hinges on "hoping" for the last 100 years not being enough. But if conditions are getting closer to parity over that timeframe then your point IMO becomes specious.

No, but congrats on ignoring the substance.  I pointed out that the gains that were made were not the result of color blind policies, so pointing to those gains as evidence that color blind policies could work is a non sequitur.

[Fenring]

If someone is about to shoot you, does it matter if the person is doing so because he hates blacks, or because he hates poor people and you are poor because society actively made your parents were poor?  Either way, you're about to be shot because you are black, and the person shooting you hates you.

Your example is more telling than you perhaps intended, because it invokes an adrenaline-filled and reactionary tone to a situation that in real time unfolds over decades. But reacting to it as if it's a bullet heading your way is part of why people seem to have trouble telling the differences between (a) improvement versus total completion of a goal, and (b) underlying causes and visual effects. In both cases if it's a bullet then it doesn't matter, you need to react immediately and with a direct and focused action, right or wrong. If it's a 10-50 year solution type of problem, then reacting fast (right or wrong) is wrong, even though it taps that feel-good button right now. Social media has only exacerbated the 4-year election cycle tendency to look at things only in the short term.

Is it really so much better to want to keep poor people away instead of colored people?

Why does it have to be better or worse, why can't it both be bad? Do you take hurricane insurance when you're in earthquake country, because 'what does it matter which way my house was destroyed'?

[Fenring]

No, but congrats on ignoring the substance.  I pointed out that the gains that were made were not the result of color blind policies, so pointing to those gains as evidence that color blind policies could work is a non sequitur.

I doubt very much that it is possible to identify which policies yielded which part of the result. And I mean that - it is out of the reach of our intellects and science at the moment to pinpoint direct lines of causation in this way, this system is far too complex. Doesn't mean we can't say anything at all about it, but I actually think it is physically impossible that you could have the knowledge that color blind policies did not play a part in equalizing the conditions for minorities in America. I'm not even saying you're wrong, per se, just that you're making an incredibly strong claim which you actually have to make anyhow for your point to stand.

[TheDrake]

If it's a 10-50 year solution type of problem, then reacting fast (right or wrong) is wrong, even though it taps that feel-good button right now.

Do you want to explain to a 20 year old black man that sorry, maybe there won't be equality until his great grandkid finally grows up in equality?

Maybe we shouldn't have had a revolution, all we had to do is wait 56 years for the Reform Act. We should find waiting around for justice intolerable. I don't think we should be complacent because we're treating minorities better than China treats the Uighurs.

[DonaldD]

Donald J. Trump, once again saying the quiet part out loud:

They want $3.5 billion for something that will turn out to be fraudulent, that's election money basically. They want $3.5 trillion -- billion dollars for the mail-in votes, OK, universal mail-in ballots, $3.5 trillion. They want $25 billion, billion, for the Post Office. Now they need that money in order to have the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots...

<snip>

Now, if we don't make a deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they can't have universal mail-in voting, they just can't have it. So, you know, sort of a crazy thing. Very interesting.

So, not only does his bag man Louis DeJoy eviscerate the USPS, Trump is now pondering, out in the open, blocking all coronavirus assistance in order to hamstring people's ability to receive and cast ballots, and for those who do mail ballots to have them counted. This is not normal. But it is normal.

[Fenring]

Do you want to explain to a 20 year old black man that sorry, maybe there won't be equality until his great grandkid finally grows up in equality?

You are conflating statistical trends with his particular outcome; stats don't work that way. You can't explain a particular person's life situation via a statistical trend, nor can you make positive predictions for such in his case. You can look at aggregate results, but it doesn't map onto why that person did or did not 'succeed' or get a job of a particular income, or accumulate savings over his life, or start a company and have it thrive. They are not unrelated issues, but there should not be a case in practice where you *need* to explain to a particular person why his income level is a certain % lower than his white buddy who he feels is no better qualified. The one example where I do think immediate explanations are needed would indeed be where blatantly unequal or double standards of law are implemented by either the police or courts. And I fully support the objections against the police in general, partially because of this, but also for other reasons. But when the word 'inequality' becomes a catchall any meaningful analysis turns into culture wars. 

[TheDrake]

Well explain it to the whole statistical group then, if you prefer. Explain why they need to describe strategies to deal with cops that white parents don't have to. Explain to that group why realtors steer them away from certain neighborhoods.

Busing, affirmative action, and other programs that are not color blind are designed as accelerants to achieve equality more quickly.

As for those color blind poverty fixing policies?

One way to track the generosity of state benefits is something called the TANF-to-poverty ratio. It measures how many families are receiving benefits for every 100 families living in poverty. The Urban Institute, using data from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, found that the whitest states have the highest TANF-to-poverty ratio. They include Vermont, which gives TANF to 78 families for every 100 families in poverty, and Oregon, which gives TANF to 46 families for every 100 families living in poverty. States that have the lowest TANF-to-poverty ratio are those with high shares of African Americans, including Louisiana, which gives benefits to four families for every 100 living in poverty, and Arkansas, which gives benefits to seven families for every 100 living in poverty. (For more on Arkansas’ changes to welfare, read my story from 2016.) About 56 percent of the country’s African Americans live in the 25 states that rank lowest on the TANF-to-poverty ratio, the Urban Institute found, as opposed to 46 percent of white people.

Oops.

[Wayward Son]

If someone is about to shoot you, does it matter if the person is doing so because he hates blacks, or because he hates poor people and you are poor because society actively made your parents were poor?  Either way, you're about to be shot because you are black, and the person shooting you hates you.

Your example is more telling than you perhaps intended, because it invokes an adrenaline-filled and reactionary tone to a situation that in real time unfolds over decades. But reacting to it as if it's a bullet heading your way is part of why people seem to have trouble telling the differences between (a) improvement versus total completion of a goal, and (b) underlying causes and visual effects. In both cases if it's a bullet then it doesn't matter, you need to react immediately and with a direct and focused action, right or wrong. If it's a 10-50 year solution type of problem, then reacting fast (right or wrong) is wrong, even though it taps that feel-good button right now. Social media has only exacerbated the 4-year election cycle tendency to look at things only in the short term.

How do you know it is a 10-to-50-solution-type problem?  How do you know there aren't things we can do to solve the problem now, or at least make it nearly solved?

You know who most strongly believes it is a 10 to 50 year problem?  Those who don't want it to be solved.  Then they can tell you, "oh, well, it's just a few more years out..." 

But to the person who is having the problem, to whom the injustice is happening to, it is an immediate problem.  Why should anyone tell him that he has to wait to get justice?  Justice delayed is justice denied.

Maybe we have to wait 10 to 50 years for the problem to be solved.  But that in no way means we must not do everything we can now to mitigate the problem.

Is it really so much better to want to keep poor people away instead of colored people?

Why does it have to be better or worse, why can't it both be bad? Do you take hurricane insurance when you're in earthquake country, because 'what does it matter which way my house was destroyed'?

That's the point--they are both bad.

So why argue that it is actually suburban people disliking poor people living in their neighborhoods and not suburban people disliking blacks and minorities living in their neighborhoods?  What is the substantive difference between these two nearly-equally bad reasons, that have an equal affect on minorities?

[DonaldD]

And speaking of racism in the Trump campaign... senior legal advisor to "Team Trump" Jenna Ellis retweets latest birther conspiracy questioning Harris' eligibility:

Jenna Ellis Retweeted

Tom Fitton
@TomFitton
Is Kamala Harris ineligible to be Vice President under the U.S. Constitution's "Citizenship Clause"?

If they really wanted to avoid the racism label, maybe they should stop, you know, being racist?

Following up... and now, Trump removes any doubt:

I heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements, and by the way the lawyer who wrote the piece is highly qualified, very talented. I assumed the Democrats would've checked that out before she gets chosen for vice president.

[DonaldD]

And since "addressing poverty" won't survive the next election cycle, hoping for trickle down economic racial equity will no more happen in the next ten years than it has in the past 100.

Except is has happened...unless you are saying that black people are in the same situation they were in 100 years ago?

Interestingly, in relation to White people's wealth, Black people are in effectively the same situation that they were in over 50 years ago: WaPo: The Black/White economic divide is as wide today as it was in 1968.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1968 is not a year famous for displaying economic equity for Black people in the USA.

And as of 2016, the average White family had 10 times the wealth of the average Black family.

A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. Gaps in wealth between Black and white households reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this nation’s inception. The Black-white wealth gap reflects a society that has not and does not afford equality of opportunity to all its citizens.

[Fenring]

A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical white family is nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. Gaps in wealth between Black and white households reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this nation’s inception. The Black-white wealth gap reflects a society that has not and does not afford equality of opportunity to all its citizens.

I don't love playing the who can find the best stats game, but I just Googled it and Master Google says the average net worth of an individual American is something like $692,000. I find that number staggering since a scant time ago I remember fun facts that sounded more like half of Americans have a negative net worth. Of course perhaps the figures get messed with to include or not include certain data. For instance if you're talking about average Americans it would include everyone (presumably over the age of 18?), whereas white people obviously only includes white people. Depending on your selection method you might or might not be including people like Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates in your calculations, which in terms of actually assessing how things are in America is pretty useless. Switching to median net worth USA it comes out as $97,000 per household, a far cry from $692,000 per person. I don't know where Master Google is getting these numbers but anyone I have my doubts about exactly what these figures mean.

But let's leave the Google-fu aside and look only at your figure: if the 'white household' figure includes Jeff Bezos then it's obvious (to me) that this will skew things. But you do list two scenarios that affect the landscape: old money (or leverage), and new opportunities. The former is interesting because it's true that a couple of generations alone will probably not fix this aspect of it no matter what the laws are (within reason) and no matter how well or poorly anyone acts. It can take a while to accumulate a fortune or a power base under normal circumstances outside of very rare cases. The new opportunities side of it seems most relevant if you're taking a young black kid and a young white kid and comparing what they can expect out of life. I don't really know how an average (or even median) net worth figure is going to be able to disentangle the 'old money and power' side of it from the new opportunities side of it. I guess for the sake of this definition we'll define new opportunities as 'all things being equal how well do they do.' The problem here is that looking at aggregate figures won't - in the short term - help you to easily see how well they do all things being equal, because all the data from where things are not equal gets figured into it.

The good response now would be - aha! the fact that things are not equal is exactly the point! Well, yes, but in what way? Unequal in the sense that having had a head start the old money families will be tough to catch up with? That's true, but also not that relevant to a young black kid. Unequal in the sense that starting out poor puts you at a disadvantage? This one I would agree with, since it could affect the ability to have a stable enough life to get through school, go through college, etc. So I would definitely be happy to agree with an argument that poverty puts people at a disadvantage, and history of poverty for an ethnic group certain makes it hard for them to hit parity in the short term. In the long term, all things being equal, we would expect parity to be reached eventually, or at least asymptotically, assuming their performance is equal to that of a group that had a head start. But what I would like to know is whether a poor white kid has better chances than a poor black kid, all things being equal; and if so, what the impediments were to the black kid. I guess my hunch is that if poverty is such an impediment then a good test for whether the money alone is the issue would be a UBI test, and to see what effect that has. Take the baseline out of the equation by making sure having money for food and rent isn't an issue, then see how things go after that for the white and black kids.

The problem is right now we have a lot of anecdotal evidence and IMO not much solid basis for knowing what our conclusions should be. Far be it for me to say there is no racism in America, that would be silly. But too quickly people will use stat-fu to make some short circuit analysis and clamor for legal remedy, whereas in reality we know practically zero about economics to my satisfaction, and even less than that about psychology in any hard sense. 'Experts' claim all sorts of overblown stuff that they "know" but I think it's mostly smoke to justify a paycheck. The ability to reasonably calculate why one person has one result in life and why another has another is probably far beyond us, maybe hundreds of years away. Data is nice, but can be misleading. In fact it might not even be data in the sense of observations as physics means it.

I know, I know, 'color-blind strategies don't work', I guess. I mean, if you're able to find stats to show that the lot of black families hasn't improved since practically Jim Crow then I don't know what to tell you, other than it sounds like voodoo hocus pocus to me. Go look with your own eyes at the state of black people in business, government, science, professions, and you'll really tell me it's just like it was in 1960? That sounds actually crazy to me. Maybe Jeff Bezos and the Waltons are throwing the numbers off, who knows. I mean, it's also possible that certain conditions are creating a huge amount of debt and negative net worth, which is a whole other topic that tbh I haven't studied, but it's only one of many possibilities for how a grand number can come to what it is. Maybe having huge debt means you went to college, which kills your net worth but also increases 'how you're doing in life'; maybe many black people are buried under student debt and this is affect the figures. And hey, if so I'd be on board to criticize the student debt situation. The complexity of it all is staggering, though.

[TheDrake]

The quote was about "the typical white family" meaning they probably excluded Bezos.

source: Brookings Institute

They are using median wealth, which is a much more useful view of the data than the mean. Donald was a little sloppy calling it the average.

As an Objectivist, the biggest problem of all is the hugely unlevel playing field created by historical family wealth. Ayn Rand made it pretty clear in Atlas Shrugged that people should not extend an advantage to their children by setting up jobs for them. Like the Donald Trump effect where Fred set him up with every advantage he never had to earn. He's not unique in that regard. It's one of the reasons I've come around to ideas like full public tuition for college. Despite the fact that it violates other concepts, like transfer of wealth to accomplish other goals of equal opportunity.

[Fenring]

They are using median wealth, which is a much more useful view of the data than the mean. Donald was a little sloppy calling it the average.

Ok, fair enough. Although I still have huge suspicions about numbers like this.

As an Objectivist, the biggest problem of all is the hugely unlevel playing field created by historical family wealth. Ayn Rand made it pretty clear in Atlas Shrugged that people should not extend an advantage to their children by setting up jobs for them. Like the Donald Trump effect where Fred set him up with every advantage he never had to earn. He's not unique in that regard. It's one of the reasons I've come around to ideas like full public tuition for college. Despite the fact that it violates other concepts, like transfer of wealth to accomplish other goals of equal opportunity.

To me the problem always has been not so much the family wealth - or at least it's becoming less relevant over time. The issue to me (which is endemic to capitalism) is that certain actions in an open landscape have increasingly and vastly disproportionate return, so that two people working equally as hard and even equally as cleverly can still make orders of magnitude different amounts of money. To me this far overshadows the fact of family wealth, as the problem of inheritance is that it's extremely hard by itself to leverage wealth exponentially unless there's a magic recipe in place. Old money had a habit of drying up unless they did the (gasp!) unthinkable of trying to actually create an income stream. Having a huge sum to start with is certainly a help, but frequently that won't get you beyond small-time. What's $50 million really supposed to get you when comparing to billionaires, after all? The magnitude of wealth overall is increasing rapidly as technology and distribution do. The result of this isn't easy to track across purely racial lines, because unfortunately it's more than just effort or even chances in life that can create a mega-fortune. In fact the same is probably true of even creating a modest fortune.

That said we're not really meant to be talking about the top 0.01% but rather median net worth (I guess), and from that standpoint we really have to be able to nail down that nasty "all things being equal" parameter. The issue of old money is a collective issue in society, but not a specifically racial issue; or at least it's not by definition a racial issue, notwithstanding the fact that everything affects everyone and therefore race is part of the mosaic (as are all other factors). But when talking about uneven results I think a reasonable person needs to be referring to uneven results from a similar starting point; otherwise we're just talking nonsense. What a person is concerned about is whether he/she gets a fair shake in life, not whether those who started off rich have a leg up; it's trivially obvious that they do and no theory about race is required to assert this. Nor is it of any help to say that because more white people than black people started off rich in a given generation that more white people than black people will have large fortunes; this again is not a statement about race but is almost trivial as a proposition. In fact if this last fact were not true it would imply something quite alarming. To me the key issue is whether the gap for an average person has been closing since 1960, and I find it deeply suspicious that DonaldD seems to have found some figure suggesting it hasn't. If that is so then it *must* be because of some factor other than the ability for a black person to get a well-paying job, since that playing field has largely been leveled. Is it completely level? I don't know. But that's not the game; the game is to close the gap over time. If there is an upward trend towards parity then the situation is good; if not then it's good to ask why, and I would be the first to be on board with asking.

[DonaldD]

You can debate the exact value of what people own - but do you really think the Brookings Institute was off by an order of magnitude - or even 50%?

As far as level playing fields, and it having been "largely" levelled - where?  Not in the likelihood of being convicted of crimes, not in the sentencing of identical convictions, not in salary, not in access to jobs or even of getting interviews, not in access to credit, not in interest rates when credit is made available, not in access to housing nor of healthy food, not in access to schooling, not to mention the historical economic starting points.

[wmLambert]

...If there is an upward trend towards parity then the situation is good; if not then it's good to ask why, and I would be the first to be on board with asking.

Old money is insurance- not potential. Too many born into wealth lose it all. Most people in Trump's situation were born into a profession. ..The family business. In Donald's case, it was rental income. He took it way beyond what his father had.

What is more visible is the "old boy network." Too many professional CEOs move from leadership of a company to others, even though that CEO may have ruined former companies he headed for awhile. You see this with the fraternity system in college. A person may have a medium grade point, but be appointed to jobs later in life because of the fraternity connections. Skull and Bones is just the same thing.

The proof in the pudding is how inventers and engineers who found companies get pushed out by bean counters who get to move the money around, and end up easing the creator of the company out of the picture.

Family money does help, but is dwarfed by reality. The skills imbued into families is much more important.

[TheDrake]

When I talk about family money, I don't only mean trust funds. I mean growing up in better neighborhoods with better schools. I mean having a stay at home parent, or a dad who can put in a good word with somebody he knows from the golf club. I mean someone who has an education fund to pay for college.

[wmLambert]

When I talk about family money, I don't only mean trust funds. I mean growing up in better neighborhoods with better schools. I mean having a stay at home parent, or a dad who can put in a good word with somebody he knows from the golf club. I mean someone who has an education fund to pay for college.

No - that is just excuse, or else the life of Ben Carson or Justice Thomas are irrelevant. Getting a head start in a race is important, sure, but running the race is what counts.

[TheDrake]

A heart-warming anecdote, like somebody in the inner city who overcomes all odds and gets a full ride to Harvard doesn't mean there aren't inequities. Would you enter in to a footrace where you weren't allowed to have shoes? There are some great barefoot runners. But shoes are still an unfair advantage in general.

[TheDrake]

In fairness, I succumbed to that thinking for a long while. I grew up in a single parent family on government assistance, made my own way to college on a scholarship, and made a success of myself by most measures. But I did have the advantage of being a white male. At the time, my mother was allowed to stay on welfare until I was 10 years old without being pressured to get back to work. So she was able to teach me everything from moral values to mathematics to piano. I received government subsidized lunches. In an 'oh well too bad' world, I would never have had a chance. If I had also been in a high crime neighborhood surrounded by bad examples and influences, I would never have had a chance. It's easier to think that everyone should just have ''personal responsibility", but the reality is that a variety of supports from the government made my success possible.

[DonaldD]

STATEMENT BY NCSC DIRECTOR WILLIAM EVANINA: ELECTION THREAT UPDATE FOR THE AMERICAN PUBLIC:

RUSSIA – We assess that Russia is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former Vice President Biden and what it sees as an anti-Russia “establishment.” This is consistent with Moscow’s public criticism of him when he was Vice President for his role in the Obama Administration’s policies on Ukraine and its support for the anti-Putin opposition inside Russia. For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine former Vice President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors are also seeking to boost President Trump’s candidacy on social media and Russian television.

President Trump: "I'd tap that" (/sarc) - CNN: Trump retweets Russian propaganda about Biden that US intel agencies say is intended to influence 2020 election 

President Donald Trump on Sunday night retweeted Russian propaganda about former Vice President Joe Biden that the US intelligence community recently announced was part of Moscow's ongoing effort to "denigrate" the Democrat ahead of November's election.

Late Sunday, Trump amplified a tweet that contained audiotapes of a 2016 conversation between Biden and then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko -- material that was released earlier this year by Andriy Derkach, a Ukrainian lawmaker named by the US intelligence community in its August 7 statement about Russia's disinformation campaign against Biden. US authorities labeled Derkach's efforts as disinformation because they are intentionally designed to spread false or misleading information about Biden.
By retweeting material that the US government has already labeled as propaganda -- and doing so with the 2020 Democratic National Convention kicking off on Monday -- Trump demonstrated once again that he is willing to capitalize on foreign election meddling for his own political gain.
There is no proof of wrongdoing on the tapes of Biden and Poroshenko. But Trump and his allies, as well as Kremlin-controlled media outlets, have used the tapes to foment conspiracies about Biden's dealings with Ukraine.

My guess is that he did this to distract from the Democratic convention, but for whatever reason, the president repeating disinformation previously publicly identified by his own intelligence services as Russian meddling aimed at interfering with the upcoming US election should give even wmLambert pause.  It won't, but it should.

[Wayward Son]

Not nearly as bad as actively promulgating Russian propaganda, but it does show how utterly clueless our current President is:

“You’ve seen what’s going on in New Zealand? Big surge in New Zealand. It’s terrible. We don’t want that.”

— President Trump, quoted by the Washington Post, after New Zealand reported 22 new coronavirus cases in two days. The United States is currently averaging 50,000 new cases every day.

[DonaldD]

Not nearly as bad as actively promulgating Russian propaganda, but it does show how utterly clueless our current President is:

To his 'credit', it may instead show how utterly clueless he believes the citizenry of the USA to be... or maybe just his base.

[DonaldD]

When the president's single-sentence attention span gets himself into trouble

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Christie
@ChristieC733

I’m hearing some Republicans, pundits say we should “move on” from the #MullerReport in order to heal the nation...

I disagree.

We are a nation of laws, and until we start enforcing the very same laws congress holds us to, there will be no healing in this nation.

Am I wrong?

 Sounds like Trump very much wants himself prosecuted

[yossarian22c]

The white St. Louis couple who attracted national attention for brandishing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in June will be back in the spotlight next week, this time as speakers at the Republican National Convention.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/18/903478960/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-at-black-protesters-to-speak-at-rnc

Not sure what message Trump is trying to send with this one. But this was discussed briefly here and I agree the man probably shouldn't have been charged but the woman was pointing her pistol at the protesters. Just don't see what putting these two on stage at the RNC is meant to accomplish, other than BLM protesters are "scary."

[TheDrake]

"We are going to win four more years," Trump said at a rally in Oshkosh, Wisconsin on Monday. "And then after that, we'll go for another four years because they spied on my campaign. We should get a redo of four years."

He'd better get busy working on that Amendment.

[Wayward Son]

Naw, he'll just issue an Executive Order declaring that it's legal for him to be President as long as he wants.  That'll cover him until the Supreme Court one day gets around to seeing the case, and then he can ignore the Supremes if he still feels up to it.

I mean, what are they going to do?  Impeach him? 

[Fenring]

Naw, he'll just issue an Executive Order declaring that it's legal for him to be President as long as he wants.  That'll cover him until the Supreme Court one day gets around to seeing the case, and then he can ignore the Supremes if he still feels up to it.

I mean, what are they going to do?  Impeach him? 

If only you were joking...

[rightleft22]

Naw, he'll just issue an Executive Order declaring that it's legal for him to be President as long as he wants.  That'll cover him until the Supreme Court one day gets around to seeing the case, and then he can ignore the Supremes if he still feels up to it.

I mean, what are they going to do?  Impeach him? 

If only you were joking...

We think such things could never happen in the US but if the last few years have shown the strongest voices that might have insure such things don't happen are remaining silent. So one wonders

[DonaldD]

The president retweets a QAnon believer congratulating the internet's proudest Republican islamophobe on her primary victory

Donald J. Trump Retweeted

Marjorie Taylor Greene For Congress
@mtgreenee

US House candidate, GA-14

Congratulations to Laura Loomer on her primary win! 

Now Twitter should re-instate her account.

The Republican party is dying, if it's not already a zombie.

[TheDeamon]

The white St. Louis couple who attracted national attention for brandishing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in June will be back in the spotlight next week, this time as speakers at the Republican National Convention.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/18/903478960/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-at-black-protesters-to-speak-at-rnc

Not sure what message Trump is trying to send with this one. But this was discussed briefly here and I agree the man probably shouldn't have been charged but the woman was pointing her pistol at the protesters. Just don't see what putting these two on stage at the RNC is meant to accomplish, other than BLM protesters are "scary."

Oh, that story became more interesting in time. The gun had been used as a prop in a court case the year before and never used since. As part of its use as a prop, the firing pin had been place in the gun backwards. There was no way for that gun to fire a round.

That said, after the police confiscated the gun in question, they logged this fact, and an agent of the prosecutors office had them assemble the gun correctly(firing pin placed into the gun as designed) and then used that to justify pressing charges. IIRC the prosecutors office now has someone being investigated for evidence tampering, among other things.

[TheDeamon]

Naw, he'll just issue an Executive Order declaring that it's legal for him to be President as long as he wants.  That'll cover him until the Supreme Court one day gets around to seeing the case, and then he can ignore the Supremes if he still feels up to it.

I mean, what are they going to do?  Impeach him? 

If only you were joking...

We think such things could never happen in the US but if the last few years have shown the strongest voices that might have insure such things don't happen are remaining silent. So one wonders

That's because we're left with choosing between a steaming wet turd, and a turd. We'd rather have neither. In any case, Trump can bloviate all he wants about a third term, it isn't happening, the Republican Party won't back it. Trump Junior or Ivanka might be another matter, but it won't be Donald.

[Wayward Son]

The white St. Louis couple who attracted national attention for brandishing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in June will be back in the spotlight next week, this time as speakers at the Republican National Convention.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/18/903478960/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-at-black-protesters-to-speak-at-rnc

Not sure what message Trump is trying to send with this one. But this was discussed briefly here and I agree the man probably shouldn't have been charged but the woman was pointing her pistol at the protesters. Just don't see what putting these two on stage at the RNC is meant to accomplish, other than BLM protesters are "scary."

Oh, that story became more interesting in time. The gun had been used as a prop in a court case the year before and never used since. As part of its use as a prop, the firing pin had been place in the gun backwards. There was no way for that gun to fire a round.

That said, after the police confiscated the gun in question, they logged this fact, and an agent of the prosecutors office had them assemble the gun correctly(firing pin placed into the gun as designed) and then used that to justify pressing charges. IIRC the prosecutors office now has someone being investigated for evidence tampering, among other things.

The prosecutor's office will certainly have to explain why they changed the firing pin, but I don't see how that has much to do with the assault charges, since there was no way the people she was pointing the gun at could know that the gun was disabled.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why the Republicans think a couple brandishing guns deserves to speak at their convention. 

[TheDrake]

The white St. Louis couple who attracted national attention for brandishing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in June will be back in the spotlight next week, this time as speakers at the Republican National Convention.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/18/903478960/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-at-black-protesters-to-speak-at-rnc

Not sure what message Trump is trying to send with this one. But this was discussed briefly here and I agree the man probably shouldn't have been charged but the woman was pointing her pistol at the protesters. Just don't see what putting these two on stage at the RNC is meant to accomplish, other than BLM protesters are "scary."

Oh, that story became more interesting in time. The gun had been used as a prop in a court case the year before and never used since. As part of its use as a prop, the firing pin had been place in the gun backwards. There was no way for that gun to fire a round.

That said, after the police confiscated the gun in question, they logged this fact, and an agent of the prosecutors office had them assemble the gun correctly(firing pin placed into the gun as designed) and then used that to justify pressing charges. IIRC the prosecutors office now has someone being investigated for evidence tampering, among other things.

Did the guy know it was in backward? Given his behavior, I'm not sure he would. If he did, he's an even bigger idiot. You don't brandish a replica, a non-functional, or an unloaded weapon, and you certainly don't point it at people. That's a pretty good way to get yourself shot.

I'll let her lawyers argue it out. Even an inoperable or unloaded or toy gun is generally still a misdemeanor. Maybe they'll plead out. Although, unless the AR-15 was also disabled, Mark isn't off the hook, at least on that basis.

There should be an inquiry into the prosecutors actions as well.

[DonaldD]

That's because we're left with choosing between a steaming wet turd, and a turd.

And by turd, I guess you mean generous, caring, empathetic, honourable, faithful, experienced...

[TheDrake]

The white St. Louis couple who attracted national attention for brandishing guns at Black Lives Matter protesters in June will be back in the spotlight next week, this time as speakers at the Republican National Convention.

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/08/18/903478960/st-louis-couple-who-brandished-guns-at-black-protesters-to-speak-at-rnc

Not sure what message Trump is trying to send with this one. But this was discussed briefly here and I agree the man probably shouldn't have been charged but the woman was pointing her pistol at the protesters. Just don't see what putting these two on stage at the RNC is meant to accomplish, other than BLM protesters are "scary."

Oh, that story became more interesting in time. The gun had been used as a prop in a court case the year before and never used since. As part of its use as a prop, the firing pin had been place in the gun backwards. There was no way for that gun to fire a round.

That said, after the police confiscated the gun in question, they logged this fact, and an agent of the prosecutors office had them assemble the gun correctly(firing pin placed into the gun as designed) and then used that to justify pressing charges. IIRC the prosecutors office now has someone being investigated for evidence tampering, among other things.

The prosecutor's office will certainly have to explain why they changed the firing pin, but I don't see how that has much to do with the assault charges, since there was no way the people she was pointing the gun at could know that the gun was disabled.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why the Republicans think a couple brandishing guns deserves to speak at their convention. 

BTW, who is to say that they didn't flip the firing pin before the gun was confiscated? It wasn't taken into evidence right away. Admittedly, they probably never thought they did anything wrong and probably didn't do that, but they could have.

[TheDeamon]

The prosecutor's office will certainly have to explain why they changed the firing pin, but I don't see how that has much to do with the assault charges, since there was no way the people she was pointing the gun at could know that the gun was disabled.

Ah. but we're dealing with protesters tresspassing onto a private road, on private property in a state with the strongest Castle Doctrine laws on the books.

All the reversed firing pin demonstrates is that less than lethal force was being threatened with regards to her gun, it was "security theater" as people in that industry would say.

But because of Castle Doctrine, and the relevant laws, it's unlikely that any legal charges are going to stick, if the case even makes it to court.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why the Republicans think a couple brandishing guns deserves to speak at their convention. 

I'm not even going to try to hazard a guess as to why they've been invited to speak, although I guess it could be to talk about their experience with highly politicized and partisan Prosecutors running amok across this country.

[TheDrake]

We already know that the Governor has pledged to pardon any conviction. Funny how nobody ever offers a pardon to people accused of other crimes in dubious circumstances, isn't it? Where are the pardons for the random citizens fighting against cops when they are harassed for no good supportable reasons?

[TheDeamon]

We already know that the Governor has pledged to pardon any conviction. Funny how nobody ever offers a pardon to people accused of other crimes in dubious circumstances, isn't it? Where are the pardons for the random citizens fighting against cops when they are harassed for no good supportable reasons?

Your redress for that is, or should be, in the courts for that. That's something that can be addressed legislatively.

What has often been ignored in all of this attention to police brutality towards minorities(or even whites for that matter) is that for every person who dies in police custody, several more police officers have died at the hands of someone they were trying to detain/question.

Getting violent with the cops is never a good option, and society should be attacking on two fronts, neither of which are being addressed by BLM and the like at this time.

People need to relax when dealing with the cops, do NOT encourage or foster an environment where an encounter with the police starts inducing panic attacks or fight/flight responses.

There also needs to be more/better mechanisms for police accountability, in which police body cameras and new legislation are avenues to pursue in regards to holding officers accountable for their own inappropriate actions.

The challenge on "police accountability" of course is also the matter of their being human beings, they're fallible, so there is a balance to strike between leniency/"learning experiences" and making sure those who were wronged also get their grievances redressed within reason.

Limited immunity needs to have legislative action to put some hard curbs on how far it extends, and in some case, possibly needs to have some laws amended to include circumstances that can only apply to someone operating in a LEO capacity(because the other criteria won't reliably fit with them).

[DonaldD]

1. Your redress for that is, or should be, in the courts for that. That's something that can be addressed legislatively.
2. What has often been ignored in all of this attention to police brutality towards minorities(or even whites for that matter) is that for every person who dies in police custody, several more police officers have died at the hands of someone they were trying to detain/question.
3. Getting violent with the cops is never a good option, and society should be attacking on two fronts, neither of which are being addressed by BLM and the like at this time.
4. People need to relax when dealing with the cops, do NOT encourage or foster an environment where an encounter with the police starts inducing panic attacks or fight/flight responses.

1. The executive power to commute and pardon is defined constitutionally, is it not?
2. In 2019, there were 48 police officers who were killed in the line of duty as a result of felonius acts (41 others died in accidents) whereas more than 1000 people were shot and killed by police. 
3. This ignores that not getting violent is also not necessarily a good option (see shopping while black, playing while black and sleeping while black, etc).  BLM is protesting a specific thing.  They are not raising funds to fight cancer, they are not protesting against religious symbols in government buildings, nor are they protesting animal cruelty.  Why would you expect people who are drawing attention to racial inequity, and specifically how racialized minorities are being treated by society, to also protest against violence in society generally, and against the police specifically?  This is one of those excuses brought up so often to ignore having to act on valid points brought up by righteous movements.
4. This is almost hilarious: we live in a society where nearly every Black mother and father have 'the talk' with their children explaining how they will be stopped by the police and how they must act in order to survive the interaction.

[TheDrake]

People need to relax when dealing with the cops, do NOT encourage or foster an environment where an encounter with the police starts inducing panic attacks or fight/flight responses.

OBEY! Never mind if they are violating your rights with an illegal search, or demanding to see your ID without cause, or if they are trying to knock the camera out of your hands, or if they are beating on some guy in the street. Don't even raise your voice to them, because they might kill you for it. Is that your message?

[DonaldD]

The cat finally got the president's tongue...

Geoff Bennett, NBC: "Respectfully, sir, it's not just Steve Bannon. It's Roger Stone, it's Michael Flynn, it's Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen. What's that say about your judgment that these are the kind of people who you affiliated with, and the culture of lawlessness around people who were involved in the leadership of your 2016 campaign?"

Donald Trump: "[I have] no idea." followed by calling the requisite whambulance: "butbutbut OBAAAAMMAAA" (OK, literally, "There was great lawlessness in the Obama administration. They spied on our campaign illegally.")