"We have a fundamental disagreement, you and I, I suspect, as to what is needed to insure that we do have orderly integration of society. I am not just talking about education but all of society. I do not know your total position. Mr. Taylor has stated his as have others. I am anxious to hear from Mr. Flemming of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point. We have got to make some move on this. You say I am throwing the brick. I am not as good at analogies and homilies as all of you are, but I think pushing busing in a way in which it goes beyond the constitutional mandates is like throwing a bus through the civil rights window. I think it has repercussions that are extensive in terms of the ultimate objective of seeing that we get integrated neighborhoods, of seeing that we eventually eliminate job discrimination, of seeing that we change housing patterns, of seeing alteration of the tax structure."
He may have been wrong on bussing, but attack the man on substance, not out of context quotes.
Been using the phrase "pwn" since it was coined nearly 20 years ago.
Zoomers were at the oldest, five at that time. It'd be really surprising to see a "zoomer" up to date on internet lingo like that and also understand what it means.
"...you ain't black." - Joe Biden
"I've worked like the Devil to get the support of black people - I've earned 'em." - Joe Biden
Heaven forbid he says "I don't care about the 'black vote,' I care about American votes." You know why he can't say that? Because CRT says so, and says if you're "color blind" you're actually a racist. Seems legit.
Lmfao. Had Trump said this you’d demand to have him impeached and yell racist at the top of your lungs. Remember, you can’t go into a 7-11 without a slight Indian accent and poor kids are just a as smart and talented as white kids. Also, if you don’t vote for him you’re not black.
You expect me to defend the stuff he said? I'm not part of a cult. It is insane to me that Biden is the candidate that got chosen to face Trump.
In this corner, you have an old white guy in red trunks who says stuff that we are pretty sure is racist, has accusations of acting improperly around women, has a Ukraine controversy, and has lied about ridiculous things on the record.
And in this corner, we have the same in blue trunks.
U must mean GIBBERISH AND NONSENSE AND POLITICAL JARGON ARE AWESOME, YEAH??
the guy is a racist, corrupt, useless, worked, fraudulent, falsified, child groping, 7 year old girl aureola on camera twisting, habitually lying, punkass, cheating, UNELECTED, unwanted, unworthy, criminal, illegally placed piece of shit. And things will be made right. Pun always intended.
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Despite the implications of the background, I don't know the context of these statements.
None of those statements include a lie. Without context, if these were all BLM//George Floyd related, then there is a tape of a cop kneeling on someone's back until they died. Trump as president had access to the same intelligence Barr had when he said no sign of significant fraud.
None of those people (to my knowledge) have a loyal following or access to the daily threat briefs the president does.
None of them are my representatives either.
But that aside, if in context they are called to violence, then arrest them.
I disagree, but not strongly. I don’t know their specific words or context.
I think Trump is either a moron or knew exactly what was likely to happen. He has to at least know it was possible. It was nearly an hour and a half between Pence being evacuated and him tweeting asking for people to remain peaceful.
I think they can plausibly claim they were asking for protests, not riots. trumps defense is harder to make. Also, they were his followers there for him. That is not the same relationship anyone had over BLM protesters or rioters.
0 ups, 2y,
This is just the tip of the iceberg with Joe.
"If you vote for me, you ain't black"
"You have to have an Indian accent to enter a 7-11"
"Barack is clean, well spoken and articulate"
"Poor kids are just as bright as white kids"
There's more, I just can't remember them all. I'll have to look them up.
I just know that if Trump, Bush or Reagan had said just one of the things that Biden said the media would've crucified him.
I'm not defending any of that. In a perfect world, we could have had ranked choice voting and a third party could have had a chance.
I'm not going to waste my time bringing up a list of things similarly offensive that Trump said, but know that it exists. And even if it didn't, climate change is real. That one thing would have been enough for me.
0 ups, 2y,
When the United States was started the president was the one who got the most votes or most delegates in the electoral college. The vice president was the one who got the second most votes or the second most delegates in the electoral college. But then parties got involved and they stopped that real quick.
George Washington was opposed to political parties. He thought they gave foreign entities a voice in America politics.
He's not wrong...but people are lazy. Its easier to vote on party lines. Would that it weren't so.
Ranked choice voting...here's hoping. Probably even less likely than campaign finance reform.
0 ups, 2y,
I've heard one solution that I almost like. Have people take a basic IQ test in order to register to vote. Some of the questions should be based on what you know about the candidates who are running and what their positions are.
This would weed out a lot of people who are only voting because they think it is their civil duty even though they haven't the slightest clue what the person they are voting for stands for.
The reason why I almost like it and not supporting it is because I am pro-freedom. You shouldn't have to prove your knowledge to exercise a freedom. But then why I do like it is because it would eliminate votes from people who don't know who or what they are voting for. If you get enough of them voting they could turn the election away from a really good candidate or vote in some really awful ballot initiatives.
I remember back in the 90's, when I still lived in California, California ballots started wording propositions in a way that if you weren't paying close attention to then you would end up voting the opposite of what you intended to vote. They may have done that in ballots before the 90's but I don't remember and I do remember people in California complaining about this practice in the 90's.
Low information voters could and are easily be tricked with clever wording of ballot initiatives.
Tests were utilized in the segregationist racist South as a tool to exclude certain people of a certain complexion from voting.
You might want to look that up.
Funny how you preach that guns are a right granted by none other than God (can you provide me the verse for that, btw? I can't even find guns in the Bible. Guess that's whatcha get for skipping Sunday School), yet are all - wait for it - gun ho for restricting citizens' right to vote.
Limiting voter participation...bad. I get what you are trying, but there is too much room for abuse.
as a counterpoint, Australia requires you to vote or pay a small fine.
That is actually one of the benefits of mail in voting that has been noted. You don't have the pressure of being there, you can research and make up your mind.
Good site to research what will be on your ballot. Yeah, the state I live in does similar things.
0 ups, 2y
That is an awesome website. Thanks for sending me the link. I am saving that one.
0 ups, 2y,
Yeah, I'm not fond of limiting voters either but it does have a plus side to it. I think we used to to have a poll tax in the early days also. I do know that we used to only limit votes to make landowners. I can understand the rationale behind making it only landowners because the founders used to think that unless you owned land you might not care about this country.
I'm not sure about mail in voting. All I've heard about it is that it increased voter fraud by about 20%. I'm not 100% sold on the idea of voter id's either. They can be forged. Not to mention the idea of a federal id card doesn't set well. There was a big stink when Social Security cards were first issued. The government said they would never be used for identification purposes. That promise clearly was never kept.
I do think if we are going to continue using electronic voting machines that there must be complete transparency and all parties must be given access to the source code plus all parties must have representation all during the ballot counting.
I also think that 3rd parties need to be given equal representation at all debates and any other type of campaign show. We have monopoly control over our election by the R's and D's. The media is totally compliant with that monopoly. As far as I'm concerned both parties have been pushing the worst of the worst candidates on us for far too long.
I'll take a look at that website when I get home. I'm on my cellphone right now.
I think 10% of voting age people in Florida are ineligible due to outstanding fines related to sentences served.
Even if it weren't being abused, rights shouldn't be provisional.
0 ups, 2y
Well it is part of the punishment for their felonies. I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other on this. It has become an issue in probably the last 20 years with a few people. If the policy changed to where people who served their time got their voting rights back it wouldn't bother me. But neither would it bother me if it stayed the same.
I'm against all attempts to limit voting. I think even prisoners should be able to vote...I didn't at first, but then was convinced based on the fact that limiting voting based on criminal record gives you a reason to criminalize things.
The potential to criminalize political activity is too great.
Aside, is you look at the metrics, young people and poor people have low turnout anyway.
0 ups, 2y,
"Agreed - but Florida also pushed back when non profits tried to pay off voters fines"
I wasn't referring to poll taxes, I was referring to punishment for crimes. That punishment, depending on the crime, could be a fine or prison time.
It does not matter what your financial status is, if you broke the law you should be punished to the full extent of the law. We will cease to have a civil society if only the lower and middle classes are punished for their crimes.
I think punishment should be doubled for politicians and they must be prosecuted. Politicians get away with more crime than white collar criminals. In addition to their crime they have betrayed the trust of their voters, which is why I think the punishment should be doubled.
If any politician who manipulate the law to remove their opposition should also be punished with prison time. Like the 2 times Pelosi brought bogus impeachment charges against Trump. You may disagree but Trump did not commit those crimes he was accused of. The first impeachment was based on a phone call. I actually read the transcript of that phone call. Trump committed no crime and the two charges were not violations of the law. They were vague charges that meant nothing.
In addition it all came out later that the entire Russia collusion scandal was a complete fabrication planned by Obama, Biden and Hillary the day Hillary lost the election. I'll bet Pelosi knew about it all along but still brought up impeachment charges. They all should be tried for treason for trying to bring down a sitting president.
Cane out that Obama - I'm going to cash that false. But just in case, Source?
I read the transcript as well, and disagree. Strongly. I don't see how anyone looking at what was said and the events around it could think it was a good call. Or the blocking off witnesses. Good luck the next time we need to actually investigate a president, because really horribly precidents have been established there. As far as Peloso, she pushed back on calls to impeach for years. We didn't believe her when she said it was pointless.
Honestly, I regained respect that had been badly eroded for the Democratic establishment. They handled things professionally and made an excellent case. I really believed if the Trump base were forced to look at the evidence they were so good at ignoring, they would realize... Shows what I know... But the 'trial' also have credibility to Pelosi's pushback.
Compare that to the Republicans who on one hand complained about the lack of evidence, but also refused to subpoena witnesses.
Trump did in a press conference call on Russia to find Hillary's missing emails. He claimed it was a joke and the press cutoff where everyone present laughed... But it was on cspan and the full video is available. Nobody including him laughed. That doesn't mean it wasn't a joke, but it looks bad.
This is a breakdown of the types of interference Russia used in the 2020 election. It is important to realize Russia is trying to make things worse. Americas internal strife is them winning. To paraphrase: they didn't start the fire, but they'll keep it burning
0 ups, 2y
"Cane out that Obama - I'm going to cash that false. But just in case, Source?"
I'll have to do some research on that. I heard/read that on the news several months ago. It wasn't the mainstream news and I don't remember where I heard/read it so I will have to track it down. What I had heard/read was that Trump declassified a whole lot of stuff, including the Area 51 and UFO stuff. Among what was declassified was transcripts or emails or whatever between Obama, Biden and Hillary about what to do over Trump winning the election. Hillary was set up to win that election. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win, even Trump. People were in place to make sure that there were enough fabricated votes to put her over Trump but not too much that it would be obvious. They just overlooked the electoral college, a mistake they would not make in the 2020 election.
So when Trump won they set about trying to bring false accusations against him to get him impeached.
In the end the whole scandal fell apart because there was no collusion.
However a very strong case could be made for Biden because he was right in your face with it. Biden shuts down our pipeline but helps Russia with theirs. What nation does he think he is president of?
"I read the transcript as well, and disagree." I looked again and link from Fox News to Scribd which has the PDF of the transcript (https://www.scribd.com/document/427409665/Ukraine-Call-Transcript#from_embed). I'll read again but not tonight.
I have no doubt that Russia was trying to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections. They have been trying to influence our election using nefarious methods ever since the beginning of the cold war (maybe even earlier). Lots of countries have tried to influence our election.
But what Russia was doing in 2016 and 2020 (and perhaps other elections) was trying to cause chaos in our election process so that they could undermine the integrity of our election progress.
But the UN beat them to it. The UN, World Economic Forum, the Open Society and several other external and internal forces pooled huge amounts of money to insure that Trump would lose and that any investigation or court case would be shut down. They wanted Biden in office because they could control him. He hasn't the mental capacity to think for himself. They want the Great Reset to happen to facilitate Agenda 2030. It is all about power and control under the guise of saving the planet.
0 ups, 2y,
Currently it is only convicted felons who are prevented from voting. I don't have a problem with that, especially if they have been convicted of a violent crime. They have lost their right to vote. It they were convicted of a non-violent crime of anything other than larceny or theft, then I might be okay with letting those people retain their right to vote.
I don't think anything has been criminalized just to stop people from voting. Murder, rape, pedophilia, larceny, battery, assault and several other crimes like that have been crimes since the first civilizations of mankind.
The first Presidents were selected by Congress, not elected.
George Washington was officially against political parties, but heavily under the sway of his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, he supported the Federalist Party and its big goverment ideals.