I Was Willing to Give Trump a Chance Until Now…
-
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.
-
You need to go back to that PDF, specifically page 5.
You are right that on 7 Jan 2009, GWB did a civil filing.
HOWEVER, in the paragraph before that, it says that in July 2009 the AAG declined to file criminal charges.
-
I was holding out hope and I really didn't want to be like so many of the disgusting Republicans who believed the racist theory that President Obama wasn't born here and/or called him a Muslim, but I will no longer refer to Donald Trump as president. He has not changed or made an effort to show he is the president for all of us. President Obama didn't use this offensive and disgusting type of rhetoric nor did he ever believe crazy conspiracy theories such as "4 or 5 million people committing voter fraud." How do you win an election and continue to focus on the fact that you did indeed lose the popular vote by a wider margin than any other elected president in recent history? The people in his administration are highly incompetent and do not deserve the titles that they were given in his administration.
Beyond that, he never apologized to John Lewis nor did he prove John Lewis wrong. We have absolutely no idea what ties to Russia Trump has because unlike every other president in recent history, we have no public access to his tax returns. He has not fully divested himself from his companies and is currently being sued because of it. If he doesn't have ties to Russia or hasn't done anything illegal, why not release the tax returns? After the White House petition gained enough signatures, the response from the White House was that he will NEVER release his tax returns. #NotMyPresident
-
You need to go back to that PDF, specifically page 5.
You are right that on 7 Jan 2009, GWB did a civil filing.
HOWEVER, in the paragraph before that, it says that in July 2009 the AAG declined to file criminal charges.
But curiously you weren't upset that the GWB administration and local officials also declined to file criminal charges. So technically everyone failed to seek criminal charges but only one participant gets the blame. Even now, it's sort of an "ah-ha!" moment that the Obama Administration also declined criminal charges. Where's the "ah-ha" about the GWB administration?
I feel like thorough and equitable analysis isn't at the forefront of your consideration.
In any event, it's a pretty poor pattern for politics overall. Everyone makes outlandish promises they can't hope to actually succeed. From Sander's Universal Healthcare (which might succeed…in 2104) to Trump's border wall paid for by the Mexican Government, everyone wants whatever the demagogue is peddling.
Then they fail to deliver the impossible. Confidence in the government continues to erode.
Rinse and repeat. Except each time there's a repeat the rhetoric amplifies. Eventually, there's a breaking point where words aren't quite good enough and I think we're getting closer to that more quickly than many expected.
As the above example probably illustrates, people don't tend to spend time looking for facts, understanding economics/science/law/history, or contemplating consequences beyond the end of their own nose. They operate on knee-jerk reactions, snap judgment, and emotional appeals. Poor education, laziness, and general disaffection aren't really the politician's fault. If the public chose more intelligently when it came time to vet a candidate the field would look completely different than the choices we had.
As the celebration of ignorance continues I'm reminded of a quote by the vacuous Food Babe, "these issues are too important to leave up to the experts."
Pray tell, if not the experts, then who the fuck should we ask?
-
Beyond that, he never apologized to John Lewis nor did he prove John Lewis wrong.
Did Rep John Lewis apologize for lieing to the American people about never missing a Presidential inauguration before Trump? Maybe he's too senile to remember that he skipped GWB's 2001 inauguration because he too was an "illegitimate President" according to Lewis.
-
I Was Willing to Give Trump a Chance Until Now…
More fool you!
-
Beyond that, he never apologized to John Lewis nor did he prove John Lewis wrong.
Did Rep John Lewis apologize for lieing to the American people about never missing a Presidential inauguration before Trump? Maybe he's too senile to remember that he skipped GWB's 2001 inauguration because he too was an "illegitimate President" according to Lewis.
John Lewis is not the president of the United States so I don't see your point. John Lewis is a Civil Rights hero who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and nearly died trying to change this country and keep racist white people from murdering black people and other white people who tried to help black people in the South vote. He has a right to his opinion and the only way to disprove what he has said is for Donald Trump to release his taxes and divest himself from his businesses. As of now, Donald Trump has not released any proof that he has no ties to Russia or that he has fully divested himself from his businesses; therefore, it is fair to call him corrupt and not the leader of this country. Simple as that.
-
CONGRESSMAN John Lewis is not beyond reproach. He blatantly lied to the American people. He has also declared the last 2 republican President as "illegitimate". He's a partisan hack.
Trump is a douche bag, nobody is denying that.
The John Lewis you keep talking about hasn't existed for at least 30 years.
-
CONGRESSMAN John Lewis is not beyond reproach. He blatantly lied to the American people. He has also declared the last 2 republican President as "illegitimate". He's a partisan hack.
Trump is a douche bag, nobody is denying that.
The John Lewis you keep talking about hasn't existed for at least 30 years.
Once again, this is irrelevant since John Lewis is not the President of the United States. He is not our commander-in-chief, nor has he campaigned to be. He is a Civil Rights hero who nearly died for trying to bring Dr. King's dream to fruition. As you know, Dr. King was indeed murdered by a racist white man in connection with the American government. You can say all you want that the actions of this country's past have no effect on our lives today, but they actually do. Now we have as you put it, "a douche bag" in the White House who is nearing the point of out of control. The things he are doing are beyond partisanship at this point and as a result, millions are now on the side of he is not our president and he does not represent us. Those of us who wanted to give him a chance have been pushed away by his actions and will be active in urging our elected leaders to impeach him when the time comes. There will be no honeymoon period for his first 100 days and there will be no peace with him in office.
-
everyone wants whatever the demagogue is peddling.
Then they fail to deliver the impossible.
If only you knew about Mexican politicians…you'd be surprised as to how long that tactic has been used and it keeps succeeding everytime.
That's why I don't vote...or if I really cared, I would go to vote, and then make my ballot null (leaving it blank seems worse, ripe for the cheaters)
