Wouldn't it be amazing if conservatives cares about the lives of dead Americans that were killed under a conservative president's watch. If only conservatives cared about what happened to the Marines who died under Reagan enough they could perform 9 investigations for them... O well, they only care about deaths of Americans only if it has partisan benefits.
It doesn't matter. Hillary is trying to capitalize on a false narrative of Michael Brown case. As we already know Michael Brown wasn't the choir boy the media portrayed. He was a thug, not a martyr. Hillary bringing his mother on stage is a slap to the face of all LEO but classless dems will do anything for that black vote.
Oh I imagine several would. Trump is seen as a racist (IMO rightfully so) among other things and the narrative that they are pushing is that all police shootings where a felon fights with cops is due to racism. The goal would be to link dead black people to Trump loosely....that said, the voting bloc they'd be targeting with that are almost entirely going to vote for whatever person is running as a Democrat no matter what so it'll be effective, but preaching to the choir. The reason they are bothering at all is an effort to get that demographic worked up enough to get out to the polls in large numbers now that they don't have the "Come vote for the black guy!" thing going for them anymore. We'll see how well that works.
Did the Reagan administration lie about the attackers' motivation like the Obama administration did? Don't think so.
Do you feel that black people, as a whole, are truly discriminated against in America in 2016? Or do you think this is exaggerated by the media and others? You can answer how you want. I have a dual take- I do feel that black people are still affected by discrimination in many ways in our society. But they can also benefit. As someone who's written 1,000s of resumes, I do know that many companies have diversity as a primary corporate objective and that, in some instances, a black person may have a benefit- strange as that may seem to some. One of my clients, a black man who was going for VP of Logistics position, had on his resume that he was a member of the Black MBA Association. It was a tough call on whether or not to include it. On the one hand, it might help with the whole diversity thing. On the other hand, it might be used against him. I think we went with taking it out, but also removing the entire Affiliations section b/c we wanted to include other more important items. So, this way, it wasn't like we were trying to just take that item out alone. Still, a very interesting discussion. What it came down to with him was that (a) he has faced discrimination and harassment before, and (b) he refused to let that stop him. And he's a very successful VP at a Fortune 500 company. So, I'm always torn on the issue. I always feel like you should rise above anything that challenges you, such as one's race, but I also feel it's still a problem that needs to be addressed.
What's funny about this is that if you look at Trump's history he is Globalist. He manufactures goods in China develops properties in the UK and licenses his name in Dubai. He also hires foreign workers to work his properties in the US.
Do you happen to remember the comparisons of Bush to a chimp? This website might remind you: bushorchimp.tripod.com
What is the racial connotation of comparing Bush to a chimp vs comparing Obama to a monkey? Please elaborate.
i really dont either. like "yes we can", it is an empty, meaningless catchphrase. there is nothing unusual about that in politics. what i find ridiculous is how often that line is parroted. the difference is that when obama was asked questions on policy his stock response was not "yes we can". you ask trump questions on policy and he answers by saying "we are going to make america great again". how many times did he say "make america great again" in that 60 minutes interview? probably a dozen times in 15 minutes?
