richardmurray

@Mzuri no problem, I am unaware to the voting groups in the city where you live, so I will need the information from you in the same way, if I make an assessment to the city you live in. yes, even though my experience in the street of the city i was born and raised in is very positive, I don't chagrin anyone from feeling caution. if one hundred people live in a city and the odds are only one gets murdered, who wants to be the one who gets murdered?:) And that point you made leads to my biggest strategic issue with the NYPD, its current or former members like Eric Adams, or most importantly Eric Adams campaign. You want greater safety, the answer is better quality of life. If you are running for nyc mayor MZuri, and you want advise to make nyc safer. I can tell you what you need to do. Lower the rent/maintenance, lower the cost of living, generate more industries or legal labor situations, including deillegalizing. I went to a store and I saw a product called Hals potato chips. It is supposed to be a nyc/nys state product. I said to myself, I never had this, I will give it a go. I support local black business often, but I will rarely support white owned local business as well. But the store owner said this potato chip bag is one dollar and fifty cent. And I put it back. I am not hungry, I don't need potato chips. My frigerator has food. But, to my larger point. Eric Adams talks about safety. maybe stop trying to make people afriad of the law and start making their lives better. What if you are a child that may not be so loved and all you have is some change. What if you are someone just laid off and have no future job opportunity remotely near. The hsitory of the NYPD itself proves my point. the nypd was created by boss tweed, an irish mayor in the 1800s, who took a bunch of irish thugs off the street and gave them a legal job. that being thug others who supposedly break the law:) But you see the point. His community became indebted to him. He gave them jobs. that is all most people want. they want financial security. They want a job that pays well plus allow one to save well, has some level of cultural decency<most people don't want to work for sanitation no matter the wage>, and has a security of time<isn't a one year situation/one month situation>. Eric Adams wants to make the streets safer, then make peoples lives better. get to work. He said he wanted to be mayor, when he campaigned on being the police chief above the police chief. His view, like the nypd in general, is people just need to be scared of breaking the law regardless of their financial or personal desperation. and that view has never held up in history, especially history of big cities. Most people will not commit illegalities. BUT, as people get fiscally poorer, more will brave illegalities and be more violent for it, let alone people who assult based on their own frustrations with life. @ProfD no place is that bad, north korea/cuba, somalia has populaces that grow. The human myth of the hell hole is just that. no place in humanity is a hell hole. Even war ravaged places like syria have some places where parties are going on. The only question is, are you one of the people enjoying life where you are at or are you one of the people in misery with your life where you are at. In terms of gun violence, a city like sao paulo has more known incidents, but the night life for the have's in sao paulo, is fantastic. NYC is a great place if you have money and quite a large number of people in nyc have money. ... to flocking, the reason why humans are flocking to big cities throughout humanity is the dying of agrarian life. You must have seen some statistics, every month in the usa, a number of small towns die. The populaces from those towns flock to cities. an ever growing number of small towns have no industrial or financial base, to restate, no money can be made there.But, in NYC, you can beg the wealthy or those who have more on the street, the illegal business of prostitution requires cities and nyc is the biggest in the usa, many modern immigrants become slaves to their families for a place to stay. These things is why people flock to nyc or other big cities. Sometimes towns are near colleges or prisons or maybe even a manufacturing plant, but that is rarer and rarer in the usa or anywhere else in humanity. @Dr Francis Welsin I don't know the city you live in and don't state it, but if someone in your city/town's city council proposes a similar law that the city council of nyc passed and eric adams signed, what say you?

@Dr Francis Welsin the entire history of nyc, even when it was new amsterdam, is filled with frictions between peoples. Maybe you are right and black people in nyc, will find it unbearable in majority. but based on history, I think some black people in nyc, perhaps most, will thrive, other black folk will falter. @Mzuri voting block wise Adams had the advantage. Basic election strategy. Ocasio cortez became a house of representative member for the same reason. No matter what municipality you are in, if you can get the majority voting populace you win. Getting the nypd vote is massive in NYC. Adams is a cop, from Koch to Bloomberg with only a 4 year gap by dinkins, the nypd had 32 years of heavy support from the mayor of nyc. Koch/Guiliani/Bloomberg each gave the nypd the highest quantity of funds, the highest quality of protection or support from the mayorlty. In that time, the number of law enforcers in nyc went from respectable to a small army. That is a voting block. And in that time, law enforcement made sure they grabbed members of every major racial group in the city: phenotype/religion/gender/age/sexuality et cetera. In a city whose private labor base was shrinking in that same time, working for the government became the only path to get a job. NYC in the past was a diary hub, a manufacturing hub, but the federal level shift in the 1960s of usa firms being multinational, meaning cheap labor outside the usa, started quick in ny state or ny city. And the reason for that was to hurt black people. So you are right, most of the people who voted , voted for adams. but most of the citizens, exclude residents, didn't vote for Adams. They voted for... none of the above really. but nyc doesn't have a structure for when none of the candidates are quality. And in defense of adams, which is something I don't do usually, his competition was light. None of the candidates, any party or independent had anything remotely close to a policy plan. Adams had one tag, safety. But, that was enough in the field. Curtis Silwa's argument was a Scrtrumpian one. he wants to shake things up. But the problem with that argument is, most people in nyc, don't like donald trump and long before sctrumpf was into governance. I speak as a new yorker now. Many people have disliked Donald trump in NYC form the 1970s and 1980s. And silwa knew this, so trying that angle was foolish in my view. In cheap retrospect, Siwa should had attacked the policy quality of Eric Adams as brooklyn borough president or state senator, in which , adams, like obama as an illinois state senator or federal senator or Kamala harris as attorney general of california, did nothing. It isn't that Adams is bad or good policy wise, he is nothing policy wise. To your point MZuri, Adams is out for himself. He wants the jobs. The only reason Siwa had decent numbers cause Adams didn't have any thing remotely close to a plan, he just advertised the slogan to attract the steadiest voting block in nyc, who always feel nyc is about to erupt in crimes, which is a view based on nothing. To continue, most people who know nyc well know this city has never been as dangerous as some new yorkers profess. I can tell you that my clan has been in nyc for over 100 years and it has never been the tower of babel that some still keep trying to say it is. Yes, peopel get killed in nyc, yes. But, in a city of millions of people, comprehend many of whom are not known, many people live in the streets, you will get murders. You will get harmful acts but it doesn't mean the streets are a video game, like streets of rage or like that charles bronson film. So Adams didn't win because he was black, he won because most people in the city were not inspired to vote cause no one vying for the mayorlty had anything remotely close to a plan. But to the people who were inspired to vote, he was the option that fits their viewpoint, and that being he is a law enforcer. And that connects to my earliest point to you , that nyc quietly has a large extended family to the nypd. Cops have families/cousins/ sisters/brothers/wives... Votes. He didn't win cause he was black. he won cause he was a cop and the cops have a huge voting block and other candidates.. maya wiley/ andrew yang/ kathryn garcia/ siwa/mateo offered nothing that was going to invigorate a city of probably 20 million people that are without a financial base, going through a malaise of issues and looking for the kind of leadership that comes not too often in humanity. @nels maybe Mexico City will one day allow non citizen residents to vote in that city. Mexico city is huge and like NYC , the populace in the city may find it plausible. My only issue is you keep focusing on the federal level, this law is only to nyc, not nys, not the usa, not the state or federal level. so.. please focus on cities/counties. as nyc is technically 5 counties . Don't say England, say london. Don't say CHina say, Peking. Don't say russia, say st petersburg. Don't say mexico, say Mexico City. These are the comparables to the situation. Adams himself is historically against this. the city council passed it, but the city council of NYC is unlike any other city in the usa. cause nyc is unlike any other city in the usa in terms of demographics.

@Dr Francis Welsin black people have existed in new york city from the time it was new amsterdam, what factors today suggest black people are finished? I know some black people will thrive, some black people will be unchanged, and some black people will falter under the eric adams administration and what ever future exists for nyc. @Troy You didn't ask my views, and many who I shared this to have asked my opinion on this. I will still refrain. but, you ask a potent question financially. I Argue why don't all taxpayers have a say. I recall years ago when someone in the city council tried to push forward the idea of having the populace vote on where the tax dollars do go but the majority in the class of elected officials in NYC booed that diea, for obvious reasons. I think functional/plausible arguments support this law's creation. I also think functional/plausible arguments support this law's destruction. In the end, as I love history, this reminds me of BArrack Obama. when he became president his first act was saving the banks, with a blank check. The too big to fail moment. I recall that was very multivisive as well. Like this issue, whether you support or oppose the act, the one thing everyone can agree on is the act clearly requires the most delicate, most skillful policy making. This is not something to do with a hatchet and that is my biggest issue with Eric Adams approach to this. Like Obama's with too big to ofail, it is too open. This policy like the too big too fail is a big stone square, when it needs to be chiseled and smoothed into a free standing sculpture.

@nels history proves that human beings are entitled to make up their own set of facts. The usa is test case number 1, you may call them opinions nels but I have learned that when people see what they think is facts , it is very hard to get them to not see what they think is facts are not facts,. Maybe you have found it easy but I have not.

@nels I shared this about the internet so I can't say if that guest commentor will reply to you, but one thing is for certain, this issue is a multivider. It is not going to make bridges.

@Mzuri I quote you I asked what label will you give paula patton, you in your reply to me you said biracial or mulatto. That was what my first question asked. I didn't ask which is the right or wrong lable, I merely asked what you would label her, since you didn't in your original post. THe two quote above is from your post. Now I Quote myself I think from your quotes, me using the word tired is appropriate. Me saying you described PAtton as not black is appropriate, nothing you didn't say, no mysitcal inferences between lines. I just asked two questions. I didn't read anything in between lines. Thank you for answering the two questions. @nels only one problem exists with your position. while you and others of a similar mindset are certain in your label to someone like paula patton, she is not in agreement to you. THe way paula patton cuts it, your wrong. I am not suggesting who is right or wrong, but agreement has not been made and agreement is the key to positive discourse.

@Mzuri I read your comment and I have a few questions, you didn't state what phenotypical or lineage racial category paula patton need to apply to, can you state which one? I know you said you are tired of her or halle berry and you described the way in which patton is not black in your view, so is paula patton: not black, white, biracial in your view?

Weaving Our Stories Spring Resistance Magazine - submissions due january 15th 2022, use the following link for more details https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=1776&type=status

Ah cool @ProfD I had to make sure that is clarified cause in various online spaces, i read comments from various strangers that displayed a miscomprehension to this law as something that is for anyone in nyc just stepping off the boat so to speak or that it applies to all levels of government. It will be interesting if a state in the union makes a similar law, i wonder how the states rights argument will coincide to this, as states by the constitution have sovereignty over their legal code, and if the law goes through a legislature, not a mandate, then it is law.

@ProfD good point, like @nels the issue of the value of citizenship is being tested with this law. But a key point is that this law only applies to new york city, it doesn't apply to new york state or any federal level, so... I will like to ask you, if you go to a city in another country, do you think you have the right to vote in the elected offices for the city in said other country, if you are registered a resident, not an illegal alien, and you are not sentenced with any illegalities for thirty days, barring you still from voting for the county/state/federal level elected offices in said other country?

@nels yes, the concept of giving a non citizen voting powers is against the idea of citizenship being a valuable and unique item for involvement into the civic community in the usa. Your choice of language is energetic but I think alludes to falsehoods. This law was voted on by the nyc city council first. and then eric adams voted on it. So this law isn't an usurping and applies to legal resdients. so, nothing in this law is illegal. I admit it is aphilosophical to many, but it isn't an usurping or illegal. As for the condition of countries, the usa has the most powerful military on earth and involves itself in the affairs of every other country. A great statistic I learned from an opinion editorial article in the ny times stated that the three letter organizations of the usa/ cia/ fbi/et cetera have had hundreds of deaths in foreign countries in the last few decades. and this is what is known. So, I will not refute the responsibility of people living in a country to improve it. but empires, and the usa is an empire, influence militaristically lesser countries, usually to their detriment. So I think the usa has to evade the empire business before the people in it can demand the people influenced outside the usa by the statian empire are disinterested in leaving countries the usa has mangled. Isn't that fair? I ave countless examples to support my position. I support my position with iraq. An easy example. the usa invaded iraq, iraq did not invade the usa, nor was it behind the 9/11 attack. now many iraqis have come into the usa, but like the koreans/vietnamese/colombians and many others, the usa's role in their countries is a large part of their problem. anyone can have their reasons to support a policy. But, the party of andrew jackson supports this policy for the voting power it will bring. This will blockade the party of abraham lincoln in nyc, as the party of abraham lincoln will make an opposing policy by default. And it is plausible as this law is for a city only. So other cities have the right to make laws to ban such voting powers, as well as blockade or restrict immigrant communities. For me, this law is strategy. NYC was called by many in the party of abraham lincoln, a harbor city , and thus it is living up to that even more. Nothing is banning other cities from doing similar things in opposition. @nels just to clarfy, the law doesn't allow illegal aliens to vote, cause they are committing a crime. the law allows noncitizens to vote, but only noncitizens who are registered residents who haven't committed a crime in 30 day.