I Was Willing to Give Trump a Chance Until Now…
-
Does anyone still wonder why race can never be discussed?
:police: "you piece of shit" :police: Is a clear violation of the rules.
As usual, if I follow the forum rules I made years ago and punish the person, then I'm a racist. As the forum admin, I can't win for losing.
I clearly got too emotional in that post and I do apologize, but you will not be accused of being racist by me for punishing me. I did indeed violate the rules; therefore, I should be punished. I am just sick and tired of people trying to minimize the effects of slavery and Jim Crow on our lives today. It is wrong and it needs to be called out. You cannot erase the effects of the torture, enslavement and second-class citizenship of a people for centuries and then pretend like none of it happened and the descendants of those people have no right to feel any kind of way about this country's bloody history OR they have no right to make arguments about the effects of this country's bloody history. No one is calling for white guilt or any of the crap you keep ranting against. It's about acknowledgement and understanding. Why is that so hard to agree with?
-
And for those of you who keep trying to use Dr. King to shame black people, please remember (or lookup) that Republicans (many who are still in office today) were the main people arguing against making MLK Day a national holiday and urged Ronald Reagan not to observe it. Please watch the video in this post because there's no denying that it truly did happen: http://gogomrbrown.tumblr.com/post/155986485750/all-of-the-mlk-was-republican-people-need-to
-
Rep John Lewis is a liar.
He didn't go to GWB's 2001 inauguration because he didn't believe GWB was the legitimate President.
As I previously said, no one is so saintly that they are beyond reproach.
-
John Lewis acknowledges now that he did indeed skip GWB's inauguration. However, he now calls GWB a friend because GWB reached out to him and many other Democrats and met with them on many occasions. That has absolutely nothing to do with this. Once again, Donald Trump is our incoming President and he needs to show leadership and reach out in this instance. Only Donald Trump can fix this problem, no one else. There is a reason why he is so unpopular and why so many people (of all races) are out protesting in many cities and towns across this country. This is completely different than what took place in 2000 and 2001. For the umpteenth time, Donald Trump was fairly elected and is our legitimately elected president. That is not in dispute. What has upset me and many, many others is his disrespect of a Civil Rights hero with the comment that said Civil Rights hero is, "all talk and no action." He did not clarify what he meant by that statement so many have taken it as a shot at Lewis's Civil Rights record. That is not where we are going as a country and as a result, many are rightfully boycotting the upcoming inauguration.
-
If Trump does not apologize to John Lewis then he will not be my president
Hate to break it to you but in two 2 days he WILL be our president and nothing you can do will change that, short of denying reality. If you would like to make that reality, you can renounce your citizenship and become a Mexican citizen in which case Donald Trump will not be your president :funny2:
Also Martin Luther King was not a saint by any means. He was Marxist
-
So, the 2 most recent republicans John Lewis doesn't/didn't think is a legitimate President. It sounds like he's a political hack.
So many people are protesting because of identity politics. If you watch the YouTube videos were the protesters are interviewed, they are thick as shit. They spout whatever they read on Faebook or whatever TYT tells them.
-
And for those of you who keep trying to use Dr. King to shame black people, please remember (or lookup) that Republicans (many who are still in office today) were the main people arguing against making MLK Day a national holiday and urged Ronald Reagan not to observe it. Please watch the video in this post because there's no denying that it truly did happen: http://gogomrbrown.tumblr.com/post/155986485750/all-of-the-mlk-was-republican-people-need-to
yay more irrelevant shit. keep defending the DemoKKKrats. they're o KKK. or 'yes we Klan".
-
oh no a stereotype that may be accurate. and look, your anecdote is suddenly data? no one's lived experience matters a lick here.
Oh course they matter, not only as individuals, but especially when an experience is backed-up by scientifically-done statistical studies.
You are yet another example of someone who choses to be purposely Clueless, jojo.
oh, and good on you for being one of the privileged ones where all you have to worry about is white homophobes calling you names as you are suddenly making this about yourself and an issue of race..
REALLY? Is that what you believe he wrote??? You do NOT believe that Southern Republicans – who mostly are white -- tend to be far-right-wingers and racists?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/mississippi-republicans/349433/
Poll: 46 Percent of Mississippi GOP Want to Ban Interracial Marriage
Also, those folks are pretty keen on Sarah Palin
by Erik Hayden
Apr. 7, 2011
–------------------I have seen nothing to indicate there has been any change in such disgusting Republican Southern racism in the last 6 years.
In fact, I think the many events of 2016 have been further evidence of not only the continuation of the ultraconservative nature of many Southern whites, but a hardening of such attitudes as well.
Also note, I said "many", not "all". There are a number of whites, especially those in the larger cities in the South – such as Atlanta which has a law protecting the civil rights of gay people -- who are not hateful bigots.
let's totally forget "the new black" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lggB9c6KNgY
HA HA HAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAHA HAHA HA HA hee!You put up a blind link to a YouTube video – without including the title or the source -- and you expect others to look at it??? AND YouTube?! A great deal of YouTube is nothing but BULLSHIT; it is filled with political fake news -- and extraterrestrial aliens having built the pyramids. OH! FYI Trump's nominated Housing secretary, the bigoted Ben Cason who stated recently before Congress gays do NOT deserve "Special Rights" (i.e. equal civil rights), believes the Egyptian pyramids where for grain storage:
–------------------
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/10/egypt-to-ben-carson-no-the-pyramids-were-not-for-storing-grainEgypt to Ben Carson: No, the Pyramids Were Not for Storing Grain
Tuesday, 10 November 2015
–------------------Next time, jojo, do find a professional-journalistic, reputable, established source to post a link if you want a reasonable and rational person to look it at!
but hey, anything so you can circle jerk for trump hate when his opponent's husband put in Don't ask don't tell, and ran in the 2008 primary to not put in gay marriage.
I see you are extremely Ignorant of history as well.
–------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/dont-ask-dont-tell-timeline/A History of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'
After 17 years, the controversial policy has been repealed. Here's how it happened.
The Washington Post - Nov. 30, 2010.
–------------------Democrat President Bill Clinton wanted to repeal the ban of gay people serving in the military. It was Congress who STOP that from happening. Congress was the one who rejected a repeal of the ban – in fact, they reinforced Reagan's anti-gay military ban! Months later, President Clinton -- as the U.S. Commander-in-Chief -- went over their heads and did a bipartisan compromise which became "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
DADT was in fact a step forward for gays being able to serve in the US military – and in 17 years (not that long in a historical sense) it lead to being repealed in 2010, That also helped lead to the legalization of Marriage Equality in the USA in 2015.
OH, and the 2012 Democratic Platform specifically endorsed "Marriage Equality" and specifically used that term.
You an excellent example, jojo, as to why I generally try to avoid far-right-wing bigoted K00KS in my Life and usually avoid arguing with them – because reason and knowledge are USELESS when in comes to a discussion with those who have purposely-chosen to be Ignorant, Stupid, and Bigoted.
yawn
. . .
-
Under DADT, more people were kicked out of the military for being gay than before it.
"Dixie-crats" or southern Democrats were, if not still, the biggest bigots.
-
Under DADT, more people were kicked out of the military for being gay than before it.
"Dixie-crats" or southern Democrats were, if not still, the biggest bigots.
Once again, you are delving into something you have no experience in @raphjd. Do you know who Strom Thurmond is? He was a well-known U.S. Senator from my state who favored racial segregation until the day he died. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat and Dixiecrat BEFORE THE PARTY REALIGNMENTS. Please tell me you're intelligent enough to know there were party realignments in this country. Senator Thurmond did not die a Democrat. What party was he a part of in the last 20+ years of his career and life? That's right, he was a Republican. HE DID NOT CHANGE ANY OF HIS VIEWS and he BECAME A REPUBLICAN because that party now catered to those views, not the Democratic party. Please do not try to rewrite well-known history to fit your beliefs. He, along with many other former Democrats, went to the Republican party because the Democratic party became more open to and representative of people of color. The South flipped to the Republican party for a reason, and it wasn't because the party became liberal. I live here and I know the legacy of Strom Thurmond, I live in the legacy of Strom Thurmond and I can promise you it's not a good one. He is one of the people who inspired Dylann Roof to murder 9 innocent black church members in Charleston.
-
For the person who called Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. a Marxist, thank you for confirming my beliefs that many white people like using Dr. King to condemn black people but have no respect for the man at all.
-
I'm fully aware of Strom Thurmond and who/what he was.
Sen Robert Byrd never left the Democrats. Even as late as 2001, he twice used the term "white niggers" in an interview.
-
I'm fully aware of Strom Thurmond and who/what he was.
Sen Robert Byrd never left the Democrats. Even as late as 2001, he twice used the term "white niggers" in an interview.
False equivalence for a couple of reasons. (1) West Virginia stayed Democrat for much longer than other former majority Democrat states that flipped Republican because of its lack of racial diversity (2) Robert Byrd stayed in the Democratic party for that very reason. He would've lost his seat had he gone Republican. I can guarantee if he were alive today he would've joined the Republicans because now West Virginia is a Republican state. Strom Thurmond left the Democrats because the Democrats no longer believed in racial segregation and now represented the interests of more people than just white Americans. You cannot compare Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond without the context behind what they did when they did it. And once again, please do some research on the party realignments in this country and why they happened.
-
I don't know how anyone can consider Trump to be a legitimate President. After the election Trump questioned the legitimacy of the election he won when he claimed that millions of fraudulent votes were cast.
-
I don't know how anyone can consider Trump to be a legitimate President. After the election Trump questioned the legitimacy of the election he won when he claimed that millions of fraudulent votes were cast.
He's flipped on many, many things but I do believe he's a legitimate President. Even though he himself questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama based on a racist theory that he kept going on for more than five years, I still believe he's legitimate. Our system still works and unless Republicans pass landmark legislation directly banning millions of people from being able to vote, I think things will be changing drastically in the next midterm. Trump only has this year to change the overwhelming majority of this country's citizens' minds about him. If things keep going this way we're going to see a wave to the left in next year's elections.
-
No matter what, there will always be illegal ballots cast. It's just something that happens. Mentioning it doesn't mean he's saying he isn't actually President.
If the Dems stop pandering to the SJWs, then they have a good chance of winning the midterms and beating Trump in 4 years. Identity politics drove a lot of traditional liberals away from the Democrats.
-
If you want to whine about the KKK intimidating black voters, do you also whine about the New Black Panthers intimidating white voters in Phili in 2008? GWB arrested and charged them and Obama/Holder dropped all charges. I'm betting race had a part in why the charges were dropped.
Also, NO ONE IS A SAINT, THAT'S BEYOND REPROACH.
The best part about this quote above? It's not true, the charges were civil charges under GWB appointees, January 9th, 2009.
This means those outside the Obama administration also declined to pursue charges including local law enforcement and the district. These are all public record and easily searched. Or if facts are super important, there's Lexus Nexus. http://nullrefer.com/?http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/Perez_05-14-2010.pdf
Section II will be your most interesting read.
Finally, the civil conviction happened, but there is no criminal punishment for the crime under the law (hence the civil charges). So saying, "He should be in jail" like many pundits do shows a complete ignorance of the statute and the charges. The pertinent part is here:
Given the facts presented, the injunction sought by the Department prohibited Minister
King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on
any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b), (see
Order of May 18, 2009, at 4). The Department considers this injunction tailored appropriately to
the scope of the violation and the requirements of the First Amendment, and will fully enforce
the injunction’s terms. Section 11(b) does not authorize other kinds of relief, such as criminal
penalties, monetary damages, or other civil penalties.The Department concluded that the allegations in the complaint against Jerry Jackson, the
other defendant present at the Philadelphia polling place, did not have sufficient evidentiary
support. The Department’s determination was based on the totality of the evidence. In reaching
this conclusion, the Department placed significant weight on the response of the law enforcement
first responder to the Philadelphia polling place on Election Day. A report of the local police
officer who responded to the scene, which is included in the Department’s production to the
Commission, indicates that the officer interviewed Mr. Jackson, confirmed that he in fact was a
certified poll watcher, and concluded that his actions did not warrant his removal from the
premises.Took 30 seconds on Lexis Nexis. Maybe 20 seconds on Google. For things like this, it's best to get the actual results, presented evidence, and the resulting legal opinion. This is in addition to when (GWB Administration Appointees) made civil charges and how. Most people's propensity to obtain their news from Facebook is more or less what led to the results of this last election.
-
No matter what, there will always be illegal ballots cast. It's just something that happens. Mentioning it doesn't mean he's saying he isn't actually President.
If the Dems stop pandering to the SJWs, then they have a good chance of winning the midterms and beating Trump in 4 years. Identity politics drove a lot of traditional liberals away from the Democrats.
The problem is the repeated comments about illegal ballots isn't about their existence, it's about their supposed numbers.
Voter fraud is amazingly insignificant. It sits at about 0.000000002% of all votes (give or take the timeframe and government source of prosecutions). You can see the definition, methodology, and identification of voter fraud here: http://nullrefer.com/?https://www.eac.gov/assets/1/workflow_staging/Page/57.PDF
Between 2000 and 2010 there were 649 million votes cast in general elections and 13 cases of in-person voter impersonation convictions.
53 people die of bee stings each year.
Trump maintains the numbers are in the millions. His numbers fluctuate constantly but it's always high. I find it interesting that:
1. When he mentions it, it's dismissed by supporters as, "Well it DOES happen." So does death by lightning strike, but I don't know that the US is as terrified of lighting as they seem to be about voter fraud (death by a lightning strike is more likely when you compare actual deaths versus voter fraud convictions.)
2. He attempts to make the election (either for or against his position) seem illegitimate. So the argument others are trying to undermine him seems to overlook that he's doing a great job of that himself. Can he identify the illegal ballots? Better yet, can he say those votes were for his opponent? The typical result is people assume he means minorities and illegal immigrants voted against him. (He has said outright illegal immigrants at one point). But voter fraud is a two-way street. Even if there was fraud you can't assume (unless, well, you're racist) that it was all against him as he claims without any evidence. -
Maybe you should go back and check that PDF again. Look at the name of the author and do a bit of research. Thomas E Perez
He was one of Obama's boys, not GWB's.
He chose to only do a civil enforcement, not a criminal prosecution. He made a career out of defending people like the ones he's supposed to prosecute as AAG in this case.
-
Maybe you should go back and check that PDF again. Look at the name of the author and do a bit of research. Thomas E Perez
He was one of Obama's boys, not GWB's.
He chose to only do a civil enforcement, not a criminal prosecution. He made a career out of defending people like the ones he's supposed to prosecute as AAG in this case.
You keep stating that but it's not true.
The civil charges were brought on January 9th under the GWB administration and he was found guilty of those civil charges under the Obama administration, making both of your points false.
1. Civil Charges brought on January 9th, this is 11 days before the Obama Administration.
2. He was found guilty:Given the facts presented, the injunction sought by the Department prohibited Minister
King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on
any election day in the City of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b), (see
Order of May 18, 2009, at 4). The Department considers this injunction tailored appropriately to
the scope of the violation and the requirements of the First Amendment, and will fully enforce
the injunction’s terms.3. Thomas E Perez was the one to write the summary because by the time the case was complete it was under the Obama Administration.
So to sum it up, no, the charges were not dropped, he was found guilty of the civil charges, and the lack of criminal charges were because the GWB administration didn't charge him criminally. It's that simple.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login