If Trump gets back in?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xelasnave.1947, May 11, 2020.

  1. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Just because people call themselves anti-fascist doesn't mean they are. Anyone can claim to be anything at all. That doesn't mean you have to believe them.
    Fascism suppresses opposition, so does antifa and the far left. Nazis were not on the right, in terms of the US political spectrum. The US political spectrum goes from far left, big government, and authoritarian to right, small government, libertarian, to far right anarchy (anarcho-capitalism). So yes, the far left in the US is more authoritarian, hence cancel culture, calling for banning books and movies from online vendors, threatening people's livelihoods, etc..

    The Democrats who fought for slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow, filibustered the Civil Rights Act and had a smaller percent vote in favor of it than Republicans, currently favor Planned Parenthood (who kills more black babies than are born), welfare (to maintain generational poverty), etc..

    The event was a protest against removing Confederate statues. There were people who just wanted historical statues to remain and weren't white supremacists.
    The victim of the white supremacist was a woman. And no, only a moron would believe anyone would call him one of the "very fine people". I don't usually take you for a moron.

    Motivated reasoning will make you ignore the consensus among believers and even just plain ol' reading comprehension.

    Not when you erroneously label people fascist just to justify your partisan attacks.

    So...you think the US ending WWII was fascist? What the hell are you on about?

    You actually believe any of those run/ran the US? That's idiotic!

    You, or your source, actually removed a bit there. The whole quote is:
    “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” ​
    So yes, if you have the full context, it's clear to any rational human with a modicum of reading comprehension. And in that same press conference, Trump explicitly said:
    “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

    So again, it's your motivated reasoning at play.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Yes, they were. Not just rightwing, but extremely so - very far to the right.
    They still are.
    This is pretty basic stuff.
    You, for example, are not anti-fascist.
    All authoritarians suppress opposition if they can. The authoritarian left in the US is no exception. But the "far" left is not authoritarian, for the most part. Also, none of the "far left" has political power in the US - they can't suppress opposition no matter how much they want to.
    Nonsense. The first bunch is long dead, and does nothing "currently".

    You should learn the difference between dead people and living people. It's important. It's especially important when the police are making living ones into dead ones for no good reason, the only visible reason (good or bad) is that the ones they are killing are disproportionately black, and the police doing the killing are almost entirely Trump supporters. It's a clue to what will happen in the US if Trump is not removed from power, and (hopefully) prosecuted under the law.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Aside from Trump being elected, is this true?

    A guy that has his dog lick his bum and posted the video on social media.

    America does make some great Movies/TV but are the presidential debates going to be beyond the bounderies of awesome as we know it?
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2020
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Sounds like you are backpedaling away from "that's what it says" to "that's what the consensus is." Very good! I eagerly await your next backpedal.
    I'd say that police that murder black people - and then defend those actions - are an excellent definition of fascist.
    Nope. Just using your definitions. You think they are nonsensical? Good! That they are.
    Really? Do you deny that the US government once mandated that black people use different schools, different bathrooms and different seats on the bus?
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    That's so cute when you think no one will notice you quote a sentence fragment, when the whole sentence was:
    "Motivated reasoning will make you ignore the consensus among believers and even just plain ol' reading comprehension."​
    You see, the consensus is based on the reading comprehension you seem to lack.

    Who's defending Chauvin?

    No, that's your own ignorant straw man.

    No, the Democrats who founded the KKK certainly did mandate segregation, and that would seem to be the only group you listed with government power.
  9. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    yes but no. in the aggregate yes this is true. but it is also shows why people who don't understand statistics shouldn't be allowed anywhere near them. a higher percentage of southern( confederate) democrats voted for it than southern republicans did. in fact every single southern congress person who voted for the civil rights bill of 1964 was a democrat. in the north(everywhere that wasn't the confederacy) only about 85% of republicans voted for it while over 90% of democrats did. a more accurate statement would be that democrats were more likely to support civil rights but pro civil rights areas were more likely to elect republicans.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. It is based on ignorance.

    Most people believe what you do, that the stories are self-consistent. They are not. But most Christians feel they must believe that they are consistent; to do otherwise would repudiate their faith!

    I learned the reality of what was going on from a Marianist brother years ago. He was one of the few religious scholars I met who was willing to contemplate things outside the "approved" beliefs of the Catholic church. He was careful to couch his words in language that allowed for belief - but was also honest about what the Bible said, which was refreshing. "Look, I believe in the message of the Bible, but I'm not going to defend Numbers or Leviticus" was one of his common refrains.

    The reality is that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are two completely different stories. They were written 400 years apart from each other. They were written by different authors. They are in two different styles (metered poetry vs prose.) They use two different words for God. The orders of creation are different. There are two separate introductions. The P text (Genesis 1) was actually written later, and it was an explicit attempt to capture the Babylonian/Egyptian creation mythology (dry land rising from the flood of the Euphrates/Nile) and import it into Christianity, in order to sway Babylonians into their new religion.

    They contradict each other because there is no reason for them not to; they are different stories, written in different times, for different purposes and based on different mythologies. They are effectively unrelated.

    You were unaware of that, of course - which made you certain that you were correct and I was the fool. You were ignorant of the history, which made you unable to recognize your own ignorance - and instead you decided that you were the expert and I was the fool. There's a term for that . . . .

    (Eagerly awaiting your next "but . . . but . . . . I knew that all along!" excuse.)
    Again, I was using your logic. Glad you agree it is ignorant.
  11. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Yes, but nothing. People who don't understand basic numbers shouldn't be allowed anywhere near statistics. While what you say is true, comparing 100% of 11 Southern Republicans to 93% of 115 Southern Democrats is deceptive, if not downright dishonest. Big whoop that a whopping 8 Southern Democrats out of 115 voted for it. Obviously many more (ten times more) Democrats were in power in the region most against the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. And claiming those measly 8 votes out of 115 as some sort of victory or justification is pure nonsense. In every version of the Civil Rights Act, Republicans voted at least 80% in favor, while Democrats never voted any more than 69% in favor. Regardless of how you try to disavow parts of the Democrat party as "confederate", they were Democrats nonetheless. The same party that fought for slavery, founded the KKK, instituted Jim Crow, filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and to this day favors Planned Parenthood (which kills more black babies than are born in the US), welfare (which contributes to generational poverty), lenience on crime (which promotes dangerous communities), etc..

    Here's a novel idea. Why don't you take all this off-topic religion talk back to the thread it came from, and whence I've already fully addressed your repeated ignorance and straw men.

    No, you really weren't, but go ahead and tell yourself whatever makes you feel better (you seem to need the affirmation).
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    and yet people like you still keep doing it.
    not really. only a right winger would think context is dishonest.
    still relying on strawmans i see. im not saying its a victory its merely a fact. i get why you don't like facts, but sorry you don't get to ignore them cause they prove your bs wrong.
    only in aggregate. the fact you feel the need to ignore that democrats consistently voted more in favor of it than republicans when controlled for region is telling. try being honest for change.
    yet another strawman. why are you afraid to address the actual points. is it you to intellectially defiecient to debate an argument where your not responsible for both sides arguments?
    all of whichj is irrelevant to what ever lie you trying to push
    the old eugenics and morality bs. maybe if republicans didn't favor predatory economic practices black women wouldn't feel the need to abort.
    no it doesn't learn some economics. the vast majority of people who end up on welfare are of relatively quickly.,
    and the flat out lie. notice you didn't mention the war on drugs started by republicans( nixon) which has probably been the single most destructive force on POC communities in the past 50 years. so please don't act like you give 2 shitsa about black people. your distorting history and chronology that has been repeatedly debunked. maybe leave the bubble and learn something for a change.
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Hey, if you really think comparing 11 Republicans to 107 Democrats is honest, that's your personal problem.
    Honest is not buying the bs that members of the same party are inherently different in different regions. The Northern Democrats just agreed with LBJ, "have those ******* voting Democrat for the 200 years". And many Democrat policies since, and to this day, still reflect that tokenism and lip service just to get votes.
    If you don't know "what ever lie" you think is being told, you really have no clue if it's relevant or not. But simple reasoning obviously isn't your strong suit.
    Unsupported bs that utterly fails to account for the prevalence of PP clinics in black neighborhoods, and perpetuating a racist lie that somehow economic practices can harm one race more than another, as if one were inferior.
    "are of relatively quickly"? Presuming you meant "off", got any statistics to prove that?
    But it is true that welfare only contributes to the generational poverty primarily caused by a culture of blame promoted by Democrats.
    Then why did black communities actually ask for the Clinton crime bill decades later? You think they liked the drugs and drug-related violence in their communities? Again, you seem to treat black people as though they are somehow inherently different from you, who would, no doubt, not like drug crimes in your own community. I obviously care more about black people, 94% murdered by other blacks, where most people here are only interested in BLM addressed to whites and cops, which is a gnat in comparison.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    They didn't.
    Some black people did, others did not. The "black communities" as a whole did not.
    The prevalence of welfare and charity services in black neighborhoods is easily accounted for by glancing at the economic statistics. No point in wasting time on repetition of the obvious.
    Racist economic practices common in the US for decades now - such as redlining and loan rigging and selective enforcement of tax laws and denying access to government service or aid and abusive law enforcement destroying employment opportunities and so forth - often harm one race more than another. They are set up to do that, and they do work as set up.

    The US is still badly afflicted with the harms done by slavery, Jim Crow, Reagan's Drug War, and the ordinary racial bigotries of people like you.
  16. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    and ignoring the fact northern democrats voted for the civil rights act in higher percentages than northern republicans is honest? looking at percentages to compare unequal is honest. im sorry you don't like you bullshit being called. civil rights wasn't despite your lies a republican good democrat bad issue but a south versus rest of the country issue.
    so its dishonest to acknowledge a historical fact? just how batshit in the bubble are you. and the democrats don't due lip service and tokenism that be your party.
    you misunderstand me. the fact i don't know which bullshit racist lie you pushing doesn't change that it being a lie makes it inherantly irrelevant.
    true i prefer complex reasoning with logic. ill leave the simple stuff to you.
    are you seriously confused as to why a family planning clinics designed to help low income women would naturally be in areas that are low income? nothing racist about it. they are going where the need is. and perpetuating a racist lie that somehow economic practices can harm one race more than another, as if one were inferior.
    ill provide sastistics when you do
    no it doesn't. please learn something instead of repeating talking points. can you think for yourself Iago?
    they didn't. i have seen no evidence that the communities negatively impacted by that supported it.
    your white ass doesn't speak for black people. plus this is a non sequiter.
    no i don't. seriously you must own a farm to get all the straw for these strawmen you keep building
    you care so much about them you bring up racist talking points? you are a special kind of stupid. black people don't need your racist white ass's opinion on black on black crime. so please keep this up. i've been depressed lately and slapping down your dumb racist ass is a great mood booster
  17. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    do you enjoy the irony of someone using a literal racist dog whistle to prove how much they care about black people.
  18. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Speaking of:
    On tapes secretly recorded by former president Richard Nixon, Congressman Charles Rangel can be heard in closed door meetings urging Nixon to be more aggressive on the "War on Drugs."

    “Public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive,” the Harlem Democrat can be heard saying in words that Nixon would later mimic.

    Rangel opposed drug legalization and embraced police militarization. He stood proudly by Nancy as President Ronald Reagan signed another drug-war law.
    And if you don't know who Rangel is:
    Charles Bernard Rangel (/ˈræŋɡəl/;[1] born June 11, 1930) is an American politician who was a U.S. Representative for districts in New York from 1971 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the second-longest serving incumbent member of the House of Representatives at the time of his retirement, serving continuously since 1971. As its most senior member, he was also the Dean of New York's congressional delegation. Rangel was the first African-American Chair of the influential House Ways and Means Committee. He is also a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

    America's black leadership supported the drug war for decades in large part because of the efforts of one man.

    Charles Rangel, a former federal prosecutor and Korean War veteran, emerged as one of the dominant figures in the nation's politics.

    He was also a fierce supporter of tough crime policies and was once described as the "front-line general in the war on drugs" by Ebony magazine.
    He urged the the president to view the spread of heroin and cocaine as a “national crisis” and warned that if Nixon didn’t act fast, more Americans would demand that narcotics be legalized.

    “It seems to me that more white America is saying, let’s legalize drugs because we can’t deal with the problem,” Rangel cautioned.

    Just three months later, Nixon formally launched his national war on drugs, echoing much of the language Rangel used that day at the White House. “Public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive,” he said.
    You get that, right? From urging Nixon to be more aggressive in the drug war until 2017, he was reelected by Democrats. That's no distortion. That's history.
  19. Vociferous Valued Senior Member


    Accepting that Southern Democrats were still Democrats is honest. The Dixiecrats by and large stayed Democrats long after the Civil Rights Act. Looking at percentages of the whole party is honest. Anything else is cherry-picking.
    Again, the facts are that, in every version of the Civil Rights Act, Republicans voted at least 80% in favor, while Democrats never voted any more than 69% in favor. That is indisputable, and we can look at the previous two civil rights acts to prove it consistent.
    The bill passed 285-126 in the House of Representatives with a majority of both parties' support (Republicans 167–19, Democrats 118–107)[10] It then passed 72-18 in the Senate, again with a majority of both parties (Republicans 43–0, Democrats 29–18).[11] President Eisenhower signed the bill on September 9, 1957.
    Just shy of half the House Democrats and more than half the Senate Democrats voted against it. That one was also filibustered by a Democrat.
    The final vote in the House of Representatives was 311–109 (132–15 in the House Republican Conference and 179–93 in the House Democratic Caucus) with 11 members voting present or abstaining,[2] while in the Senate the final vote was 71–18 (29–0 in the Senate Republican Conference and 42–18 in the Senate Democratic Caucus) with 11 members voting present or abstaining.
    Again, the same pattern. More than half of the House Democrats and over 40% of Senate Democrats voting against it.
    Here's some historical fact for you:
    The opponents of civil rights have always been Democratics. But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationists remained Democrats, and how many switched parties:
    Notable Dixiecrats who remained Democratics after 1964:

    Rep. John Rarick D-LA
    Commissioner of Public Safety Bull Connor D-AL

    Racist & Segregationist Democratic Party Governors:

    Gov. Orval Faubus D-AR
    Gov. Frank M. Dixon D-AL
    Gov. Benjamin Travis Laney D-AR
    Gov. William H. Murray D-OK
    Gov. George Wallace D-AL
    Gov. Lester Maddox D-GA
    Gov. Fielding Wright D-MS

    Racist & Segregationist Democratic Party Senators:

    Sen. B. Everett Jordan D-NC
    Sen. A. Willis Robertson D-V
    Sen. Olin D. Johnston D-SC
    Sen. Sam Ervin D-NC
    Sen. J. Lister Hill D-AL
    Sen. John C. Stennis D-MS
    Sen. James Eastland D-MS
    Sen. Allen J. Ellender D-LA
    Sen. Russell B. Long D-LA
    Sen. John Sparkman D-AL
    Sen. John “Little” McClellan D-AR
    Sen. Richard Russell, Jr. D-GA

    Sen. Herman Talmadge D-GA
    Sen. Robert Carlyle Byrd D-WV
    Sen. Harry F. Byrd D-V
    Sen. Al Gore, Sr. D-TN
    Sen. Spessard Holland D-FL
    Sen. Herbert S. Walters D-TN
    Sen. George Smathers D-FL

    The opponents of civil rights have always been Democratics. This list, this long list of Democratic Party racists and segregationists – this list of haters, Klansmen, lynchers – evil opponents of the most basic of human rights? They all remained Democratic Party members til’ the day they died. None censured, none shamed, none were kicked out of the party they called home. Their Democratic Party home during America’s most horrible years of racism & bigotry – murder & mayhem – hatred & terrorism – intolerance & exclusion. But let’s take a look at how many Dixiecrat segregationists became Republicans after 1964. Only these three (3) switched parties, how surprising!

    Gov. Mills E. Godwin, Jr. D-VA
    Sen. Jesse Helms, Jr. D-NC
    Sen. Strom Thurmond D-SC

    So where did the Dixiecrats go? Contrary to legend, it makes no sense for them to join with the Republican Party whose history is replete with civil rights achievements. The answer is, they returned to the Democrat party and rejoined others such as George Wallace, Orval Faubus, Lester Maddox, and Ross Barnett. Interestingly, of the 26 known Dixiecrats (5 governors and 21 senators) only three ever became Republicans: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwind, Jr. The segregationists in the Senate, on the other hand, would return to their party and fight against the Civil Rights acts of 1957, 1960 and 1964. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower proffered the first two Acts.
    How, exactly, do Republicans pay blacks "lip service"? Care to back up that ridiculous claim?
    How, exactly, do Republicans commit tokenism? It would seem to be your own racism to presume that blacks can't align with Republicans for their own reasons, especially once they know the long history of Republicans fighting for civil rights.
  20. Vociferous Valued Senior Member


    Wait. Why are you equating "black neighborhoods" with "areas that are low income"? That's one hell of a racist presumption. PP isn't killing more white, or even poor, babies than are born in the US. They are killing more black babies than are born in the US. But you don't care about those black lives any more than you care about the overwhelming majority of black lives taken by other blacks. That's lip service and tokenism doing actual harm to black people.
    You're claim, either support it or we'll just assume you can't. Shifting the burden is always a fallacy.
    Quit projecting.
    Then you just haven't looked beyond your own confirmation bias. From an article cited above:
    Curiously, Rangel was among the 11 Congressional Black Caucus members who voted against Clinton's Crime Bill, which did not lack of black support. In addition to the dozens of pastors who signed a letter in support of the bill, it also had the support of black mayors. Kurt Schmoke, the first elected black mayor of Baltimore, was a vigorous supporter.

    Even then U.S. Representative Kweisi Mfume, then chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who understood the bill was a means to “find better ways to incarcerate people” eventually buckled, not only supporting the bill, but was ultimately responsible for its passage by rallying a majority of CBC members to vote for it after the bill was nearly derailed on a procedural issue.

    And so what did the government do? For many years, the answer I heard was "not enough." If white folks had been getting killed, if their houses were getting broken into and their neighborhoods were being ruined, government would've done something. But the sense was that because black people were suffering and dying, no one cared.

    That's why many of the African-Americans who voted for Bill Clinton also supported that now-infamous crime bill. Lots of people were willing to take "help" in whatever form it was offered, whatever the future consequences might be. Otherwise, many had a hard time seeing any future for themselves, their families or their cities.
    Now, I suppose, you're going to tell me that blacks had nothing to do with electing those in the Congressional Black Caucus or black majors, didn't agree with those black pastors, and never feared other blacks, drugs, and violence in their own neighborhoods. You're going to try speaking on their behalf? Lemme guess, it's not their proper place, right? How racist.
    No, I speak as a fellow human, who presumes they dislike those things just as much as any white person. You're avoiding the question, likely because you can't square your argument with your underlying racist assumptions.
    Then try answering simple questions. Why are you so squirrelly about whether blacks dislike drugs and violence in their communities? If they're your equals, then certainly they'd have just as much reason to support the Clinton crime bill as you would have had in similar circumstances. But...maybe you like drugs and violent crime.
    Quit projecting your own racism, demonstrable in leftist policies that actually harm blacks to this day. No one needs your callous disregard for the vast majority of black killings. You just keep giving lip service and tokenism to "keep them in their place". After all, the majority of police brutality is occurring in cities/states run by Democrats for decades.

    The farce of dog whistles were made up by Democrats to cover their own racism. Black communities never really doing much better under Democrat policies (best proven under Obama) has always been by design.
  21. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    I've heard CIA agents have said they've seen the type of discontent in America in other countries - just before their government was toppled.
  22. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Hey, did you catch the one when he was going off↗ about black on black crime, was told↗ that's an ongoing discussion among black people, so he complained↗ that it was "overshadowed by the comparatively minuscule instances of whites killing blacks", which, you know, kind of misses the point about this being police violence, but what, really, does anyone expect of this routine, and all. Still, though, when he was informed↗ that the discussion among black people is not subject to the satisfaction of white supremacism—(okay, are you ready for this?)—he actually came right out and said↗, "Yes, it is".

    All things considered, black people would probably be better off if he didn't give a damn about them.
  23. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    What if Vociferous pays a black person to say how wonderful he's been to their community while sappy piano music plays in the background? Wouldn't that prove you wrong about everything?

Share This Page