The United States has bombed Iran

[Tyy7777]

I know you guys are talking about Bernie and his war chest of donor donations, but let’s be realistic in the grand scheme of reality in the world I live in —---

I've made a post about this before. The difference is where the money comes from. I'm not going to go over it all again but most Harris' money came through her campaign committee as opposed to Trump who received most from outside sources. She had a higher share of smaller donations.

I think it was the 7 largest donors were all Trumpers.

Billionaires give to Dems because they provide stability. Billionaires give to Trump because he does favors. That's a general rule of thumb.

[lurker]

Couple of points, nonargument wise.


I read it all and absorbed it. Really, I did. I do read your posts thoroughly. Might not agree with what you say, but I do read them. If I don’t understand your point, I ask. Always do.


I accept the good and the bad too. But again, for the most part, Obama wasn’t for me. Nothing he did <that YOU pointed out was positive for some> that affected me personally. It didn't.

He helped revive GM. Dan Akerson, who was CEO of GM, has said that if it weren't for Obama, GM would have been dead and buried. That would have been a huge hit to our auto industry.

Ahhh, the GM bailout. On another racing forum, many-many years ago, I said it —- and I’ll say it again. Let’em fail, and reboot. And if I’m not mistaken, Ford <and others> didn’t take any bailout money — and they survived. GM was pi$$poor managed, and WE bailed them out for their failures in that. That my friend is a terrible precedent we set.


Then we also had Cash for Clunkers, which totally ruined the “cheap” used car market — that is still felt to this day. Don’t believe me, ask a car salesman/woman, that was in the industry then, and still today. Cash for Clunkers did nothing but make people buy new cars, which most couldn't afford in the first place, and later got repossessed. Cash for Clunkers was a joke and financially <credit wise> hurt those that it was supposed to help. It ruined some peoples credit for years.

[Tyy7777]

Couple of points, nonargument wise.


I read it all and absorbed it. Really, I did. I do read your posts thoroughly. Might not agree with what you say, but I do read them. If I don’t understand your point, I ask. Always do.


I accept the good and the bad too. But again, for the most part, Obama wasn’t for me. Nothing he did <that YOU pointed out was positive for some> affected me personally. It didn't.





Ahhh, the GM bailout. On another racing forum, many-many years ago, I said it —- and I’ll say it again. Let’em fail, and reboot. And if I’m not mistaken, Ford <and others> didn’t take any bailout money — and they survived. GM was pi$$poor managed, and WE bailed them out for their failures in that. That my friend is a terrible precedent we set.


Then we also had Cash for Clunkers, which totally ruined the “cheap” used car market — that is still felt to this day. Don’t believe me, ask a car salesman/woman, that was in the industry then, and still today. Cash for Clunkers did nothing but make people buy new cars, which most couldn't afford in the first place, and later got repossessed. Cash for Clunkers was a joke and financially <credit wise> hurt those that it was supposed to help. It ruined some peoples credit for years.

I gave 13 reasons and you've criticized one. I'd say Obama did pretty well.

Ford had already put in protections earlier so they didn't need one.

Romney wanted GM to go bankrupt and reboot. Like I said, Ackerson said that this would have been the death of GM.

2009 was a very tumultuous period. It was estimated that 2.5 million jobs were on the line at the point across Ford, GM and Chrysler. The industry is very interconnected. If GM went down, Ford wouldn't have been far behind. Ford were struggling. The entire economy was struggling. Why would you take that risk? Remember these are working class people. The ones you claim Obama didn't care about.

Obama wasn't endorsing their management but something had to be done. I don't disagree about GM and it's management but that's besides the point.

The "Cash for Clunkers" thing is a toss up. I wouldn't say it was good but I also wouldn't say it was bad.

[lurker]

Obama was nothing more than a racist charismatic community organizer, social justice warrior, that was unqualified. A lot of people fell for his BS. I didn't. He was a puppet with an agenda for the Democratic party. And it worked. He was a Joke. Just my humble personal opinion.


https://manhattan.institute/article/obamas-ferguson-sellout

On November 24, 2014, President Obama betrayed the nation. Even as he went on national television to respond to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the looting and arson that had followed Brown’s shooting in August were being reprised, destroying businesses and livelihoods over the next several hours. Obama had one job and one job only in his address that day: to defend the workings of the criminal-justice system and the rule of law. Instead, he turned his talk into a primer on police racism and criminal-justice bias. In so doing, he perverted his role as the leader of all Americans and as the country’s most visible symbol of the primacy of the law.

[lurker]

2009 was a very tumultuous period. It was estimated that 2.5 million jobs were on the line at the point across Ford, GM and Chrysler. The industry is very interconnected. If GM went down, Ford wouldn't have been far behind. Ford were struggling. The entire economy was struggling. Why would you take that risk? Remember these are working class people. The ones you claim Obama didn't care about.

So you’re saying ? ? ? The USA economy <2.5 million people/jobs> relies on the auto industry as a whole for our success or failures?

[lurker]

If GM went down, Ford “wouldn't have been” far behind.

I think you meant “would have been”.


Not a true statement.

[Tyy7777]

Obama was nothing more than a racist charismatic community organizer, social justice warrior, that was unqualified. A lot of people fell for his BS. I didn't. He was a puppet with an agenda for the Democratic party. And it worked. He was a Joke. Just my humble personal opinion.


https://manhattan.institute/article/obamas-ferguson-sellout

You've lost me man.

What's the agenda? What is he a puppet for?

I've presented substantial evidence as to how helped America out of a bad time. He loved his country. A true statesman. He didn't reinvent the wheel but he sure got it back rolling after it fell off.

I look at Obama as a Democrat version of the W and H Bush. Guys that love their country and just wanted to serve it well.

Firstly, there is a problem with police brutality against black people. That is a fact.

Secondly, he didn't encourage violence. He condemned it. This is a quote from that speech.

"First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.” Michael Brown’s parents have lost more than anyone. We should be honoring their wishes."

I'm not really sure how calling out systemic racism is a being racist? Enlighten me.

[Tyy7777]

So you’re saying ? ? ? The USA economy <2.5 million people/jobs> relies on the auto industry as a whole for our success or failures?

What are you trying to say?

No the entire economy does not rely on the auto industry.

Those are 2.5 million people with real jobs. Do you not care about them? I thought Obama was the one who didn't care?

[Tyy7777]

I think you meant “would have been”.


Not a true statement.

The fall of GM would have had very big impacts on supply chains. It would have also seen investor confidence plummet. Ford was struggling quite badly already.

[lurker]

I gave 13 reasons —-----

Thanks for pointing out Obama’s 13 good deeds for our country, in your opinion. Seriously, thanks and it's your opinion that you are entitled to. I wish I could see it your way, but we don't and will never agree on Obama in the grander scheme of the picture.


As for my personal caring regarding the 2.5 million possibly displaced auto workers and auto suppliers, hmmmmmm? I’d say they all would have found jobs if the auto industry would have been reset with a reboot. Bankruptcy, investor confidence, and the likes thereof —- all goes hand in hand. That’s the chance you take investing in a company or the market. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it tanks.

[lurker]

Firstly, there is a problem with police brutality against black people. That is a fact.

That is a False Narrative.


I agreed with Bill Barr at the time, and still do now - https://www.axios.com/2020/09/02/barr-police-brutality-black-people


Opinion piece from, 2021 - https://nypost.com/2021/07/27/a-look-at-the-facts-shows-the-left-propagating-a-false-narrative/


Again, that is my opinion.

[Tyy7777]

Thanks for pointing out Obama’s 13 good deeds for our country, in your opinion. Seriously, thanks and it's your opinion that you are entitled to. I wish I could see it your way, but we don't and will never agree on Obama in the grander scheme of the picture.


As for my personal caring regarding the 2.5 million possibly displaced auto workers and auto suppliers, hmmmmmm? I’d say they all would have found jobs if the auto industry would have been reset with a reboot. Bankruptcy, investor confidence, and the likes thereof —- all goes hand in hand. That’s the chance you take investing in a company or the market. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes it tanks.

I just don't like it when opinions are formed off the back of poor information. That's why Trump is president. I can understand one having disagreements with policy etc. but to say Obama didn't care while delivering for that group of people in a very rough time is just flat out wrong.

The point with the GM thing is that had Obama not intervened it is speculated that GM would have gone under.

[Tyy7777]

That is a False Narrative.


I agreed with Bill Barr at the time, and still do now - https://www.axios.com/2020/09/02/barr-police-brutality-black-people


Opinion piece from, 2021 - https://nypost.com/2021/07/27/a-look-at-the-facts-shows-the-left-propagating-a-false-narrative/


Again, that is my opinion.

Both are nothingburgers.

The NYPost article is a load of nothing. I do agree with the overall premise that the media inflates peoples perceptions of reality but this is very much a real thing. They claim there was only 23 shootings of an unarmed black man in 2019. That's just flat out wrong and police shooting data tends to be a mess anyway.

I can elaborate further if you'd like.

[Tyy7777]

Ahh, why not.

I can go into other points about this topic but I think this is the most legitimate and certifiable point.

What really solidified my belief in this issue was a 2020 peer-reviewed study that analyzed 95 million traffic stops between 2011-2018 to search for potential racial biases. I'm going to present the most interesting findings from that study.

I think it is pretty obvious that if police were bias in one aspect (killing alleged criminals) then that bias would extend throughout all of law enforcement (ie traffic stops).

Firstly, they found that black people were more likely per capita to be pulled over. For state patrol stops it was 0.10 compared to 0.07 for white people and 0.20 to 0.14 in municipal stops. That on it's own isn't really meaningful and doesn't tell us much.

The real interesting stuff comes when they conducted a "veil-of-darkness" test. The idea started from the belief that officers who racially profiled people would be more unable to do so at night because it is harder to identify the driver of a vehicle. They found that as time got further away from sunset, black people accounted for a statistically significant smaller share of all traffic stops. It should be also noted that that figure may very well be underestimating racial profiling given that some areas could be well-lit with streetlights etc.

Next, and this is where it gets really interesting, they assessed search decisions.

State search rates were:

Hispanic: 4.1%
Black: 4.3%
White: 1.9%

Municipal rates:
Hispanic: 7.2%
Black: 9.5%
White: 3.9%

So pretty big discrepancy right? But, and you would agree, it doesn't really indicate much on it's own. After all, officers could have had more reason to suspect contraband with black people for example.

Well in order to test this, they analyzed the success rates for searches. After all, if the increased search rates of blacks and Hispanics was justified, the success rates would roughly match the proportions of search rates.

State success rates:
Hispanic: 24.3%
Black: 29.4%
White: 32%

Municipal success rates:
Hispanic: 11%
Black: 13.9%
White: 18.2%

The math ain't mathing. Blacks and Hispanics are 2-2.5x more likely to be searched, and yet they are less likely to have contraband. I don't have to explain what these numbers mean, do I? I think it's pretty clear.

They also examined states where marijuana was legalized and found that the relative gap between percentage of searches remained the same.

If you still don't think there's an issue after reading that, or at the very least you don't begin to become a little suspect, I don't know what to tell you.

[Morgs153]

Current data as of today in reference to just the city of Chicago.

Shot and killed : 164
Shot and wounded : 663
Total shot : 827
Total homicides :165

A person is shot every 5 hrs 11 minutes. A person is killed every 22 hrs 1 minute. 76% are male 24% are female. 72.6% are black, 19.4% Hispanic, 8% white or other.

Police involved shootings in Chicago year to date 2025 as of today 5 killed 6 wounded.

What those statistics don't really tell you is most assailants are often the same race as their victims. That's just the way it is. Whites most often have white victims, Native Americans have Native American victims, Hispanics have Hispanic victims, and blacks predominantly (but not exclusively) have black victims. It is the way it is because violent crimes are often committed against family, friends and people of the neighborhood/community of the assailant and offender relationship.

By and large gun violence statistics are skewed for the nation as a whole. The big factor is once you take away suicide you glean off a rather large number from the "gun violence" stat. Once you cut through the weeds you come to find that gun violence in this country is primarily a problem in some of our larger cities. That is why I used the Chicago example.

So, if you want to have effective policing in those communities you have to put your interdiction efforts into those communities. Chicago under Brandon Johnson cancelled their contract with Shot Spotter. Why? Probably because it was working too well. You don't want the cops responding to the areas where the gun fire came from if it results in uncomfortable arrests. Because that would be racial profiling. The Ferguson Effect is real. The trouble with it is that when police no longer police those areas it creates more victims in those areas, and those victims are minorities. But to police those areas means you have to interdict in those areas. A lot of that interdiction comes from traffic stops. Or you just ignore those areas for fear of being accused of profiling and the good people who live in those areas suffer for it. Professor Roland Fryer of Harvard put together a pretty good study on it. Link below.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-harvard-economist-finds-no-racial-bias-officer-involved-shootings/

Yes, the FBI data does show pretty much an annual trend of about 10-25 shootings of "unarmed" subjects and that goes back for years. The problem with FBI crime data is that many of our largest cities don't put their data in. Why? Who runs those cities? The other thing that is unclear is what the circumstances of the "unarmed" conflict were. An unarmed person attempting to disarm a police officer is fair game (as one example). An unarmed person trying to run over an officer with a car is likely to get a few through the windshield (as another example). It is not hundreds or thousands of unarmed black men like the left would like you to believe. It is maybe a couple dozen at best. Still troubling in some cases but without knowing the details of every encounter that had that result it would be problematic to paint with a broad brush. Are some cases screw ups? Yes they are. Cops who screw up lose their jobs and sometimes go to prison for screw ups. But those are rare in the big picture of things.

There is right around 750,000 police officers in this country. That is federal, state, county, municipal and other. When you divide that into shift components most work days because that is when your admin is in house along with much support staff and that's probably half your number. It is safe to estimate that in the dark hours you have maybe 150,000 on duty nationwide for a population of 330 million. That's actually impressive to think of it. By and large we're a well behaved country. Except for some he!! hole cities.

I did over 30 years in the job. I worked the road on patrol the entire time. I was regular a police officer and deputy sheriff, a training officer, crash reconstruction, SWAT for 17 of those years, a Sgt and then a Lt before retiring. Yes, please, tell me all about what I don't know about my experiences. Tell me how when I'm moving down the highway and my radar picks up a speeding vehicle nearly a mile away coming toward me that I'm supposed to know the ethnicity of who might be in the car. Tell me when I see a car with dark tinted windows blow a stop sign from a half a block away that I should know what the ethnicity of the occupant(s) will be. If you work in a white area, chances are they are white. If you work in a black area, chances are they are black. If you are focusing on high crime areas where open air drug sales are happening, or prostitutes are walking up on cars, or fights are breaking out by night clubs, guess what? You don't get to pick and choose who gets into that sh!t.

I thought this thread was about bombing Iran.

Are we profiling Iran?