zlacker

> police kill members of their community at random.

I understand your emotion, but saying that the police walks in the street killing random black people is also unproductive.

You can imagine folks on the right showcasing your post as an example of the "loony left", then starting a discussion about the fact that more whites are killed by police, and so on.

Each time that happens, you lose a tiny bit of support, and that hurts what Obama thinks is important - the election outcome.

>>hkai+(OP)
no, trying to dismiss the point as emotion or leaning on name-calling are non-sequiturs. people are mad, rightfully so, and being good little citizens doesn't change anything.

you demonstrate my exact point: obama cares about elections and the slow, meandering civil process. he's insulated from the consequences of having that position, unlike the people on the streets.

>>clairi+D2
Perhaps some of your criticism is valid, but would you rather have Obama or Trump?

I think we rarely can choose between perfect and imperfect; we have to choose between two imperfects.

Both on the left and on the right, many people have to hold their nose and vote for the person they despise.

>>hkai+(OP)
> saying that the police walks in the street killing random black people is also unproductive

It's unfortunately true though. We have seen countless examples in the last few years alone where the victim was murdered by a cop. And those are only the ones that were recorded and managed to go viral.

>>hkai+R4
and the problem there is that the system is designed to present only 2 imperfect choices, so that the 2 parties can seize and hold power. they'd rather begrudgingly share power with each other than let any others join them in the sandbox. and both parties have been co-opted to serve the wealthy, not the people, hence their imperfection.

>>clairi+K6
I think that level of disillusionment is a bit dangerous, because I've seen people starting to support the Chinese way of governance because they say the American one is broken.

>>hkai+49
please don't presume a state of mind. a lazy response might be "obliviously complacent" and then we get nowhere. you could leave out the direct reference, such as "I think disillusionment is a bit dangerous, because..." (although you still need to tie in the relevance of such a statement) and still make a similar argument that better elicits a charitable response.

but that argument is presumptuous and fallacious as well. being disillusioned doesn't lead most peole to support single-party, state-controlled communism. being insulated and comfortable does lead to complacency and being out-of-touch however.

>>hkai+49
Haha how delusional do you have to be to think the US is worse than a communist kleptocracy that dabbles in death camps?

>>gotoel+Cp
Because we also have a kletptocracy where the government is designed to serve the wealthy, it's not about being worse by any margin, it's about pointing out what needs to change.