Total posts: 4,222
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Ohhh... they want to be historically accurate. I’d bet they are tearing these statues down because nobody was actually 15ft tall and made of marble. Good catch!
I never said it was about history. Dr.Franklin said that. I was pointing out how dumb that is. It isn't about history. It is about the racist undertones of changing the race of jesus to make him white when he was very obviously middle eastern.
They are trying to destroy all monuments of white people to destroy white history
Jesus wasn't white. So this is obviously not an accurate statement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
who gives a shit what race he is? thats not protecting "history" its a religious symbol
lol you literally just said they were tearing it down "because they dont like history".
And again, I don't agree that it would help. But i can see where they are coming from. If it is just a religious symbol, then why wouldn't they make jesus the correct ethnicity? Why intentionally change his ethnicity to being white? There is a reason they did that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
because they dont like history
no. If history was important to people then there would be no statues of a white jesus. Jesus wasn't white. So calling for inaccurate statues to be torn down is actually much more in line with protecting history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
ok, so a few fringe voices in a massive movement call for something weird. That is pretty much inevitable. There are lots of voices in right wing movements that call for white supremacy. I'm sure if I looked I could find a couple that wanted to bring back slavery outright. But these people do not represent the movement as a whole. But right wing groups are working hard trying to find the most extreme cases they can to paint everyone as extremists. Like when they called 10's of thousands of peaceful protesters "antifa" and "terrorists" because a few people carried out violence.
specifically, he that guy doesn't seem to be calling for statues of jesus being torn down. He is calling for statues of a white jesus to be torn down. Jesus was middle eastern. He wasn't white. But racists prefer to see a white "saviour" than the ethnicity he really was. So I can at least understand his underlying point. But i don't particularly see the value in tearing down the statues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I'd need to see some legitimate proof of that. Out of all state prisoners, .1% of them are in jail for just marijuana possession. It may be tacked onto another charge, like robbery, but that isn't why "a black guy" is going to jail in the first place.
Sure. there's probably where alot of them have "resisting arrest" or "assault" tacked on. A cop harasses a black guy. Someone naturally doesn't like being harassed and tries to defend them self and now they are just another black criminal. The cops can then tack on whatever charges they feel like.
Well, he blocked me. It seemed as though he was claiming it was the largest factor, not necessarily the only.
it is a large factor. Rich people with poor homes lives are still rich and don't need to turn to crime. Poor people with poor home lives have nowhere else to turn and are much more likely to commit crime to get by.
It would only be a factor in property crimes, not crimes like rape. You don't rape people because you are poor.
no, because once you get into a world of criminality, crime can escalate. If you have to rob people in order to survive, then you are going to have to hurt people most likely. Once you are comfortable hurting people to get what you want, it opens up more doors for other crimes. Also, prisons are excellent training grounds for this. Police harass and punitively arrest black people for something minor. Being imprisoned ruins their lives and forces them deeper into criminality. They also learn new criminal skills and make new criminal contacts in prison. Then they get out and their crimes escalate. Police will use this as evidence that more resources are needed for police to fight the problem, when in fact they are actually fueling the problem.
You said discrimination is causing higher crime rates. I said, now that there is job and collegiate discrimination against White and Asian people, why hasn't their crime rate risen?
no, there is a push to give people of color a place. That isn't discrimination against white people.
He was bragging that it was lowest ever.
true. but since he did absolutely nothing to affect this, it just makes him look like a jackass.
He never has bragged about accomplishments for white people during his administration.
are you kidding? He does racist dog whistles all the time.
It is a big incentive for the rich- that is the point. Who has the capital to invest in these types of neighborhoods? Rich people do, so obviously, you are going to target the largest capital pools in the country.
but that is the point. The rich invest, make tons of money. But this is just pushing poor people out of those neighborhoods. It isn't helping them. Trump's friends make out like bandits and everyone else gets screwed.
I haven't seen enough historical evidence to know if these will actually work, don't think I'm defending opportunity zones, but they are doing what they are supposed to by giving rich people a tax break.
This is exactly my point. They are doing what they are meant to. They are making the rich richer. That is exactly what trump intended. But he is lying and saying this is somehow helping poor people. That is a lie.
Trump backed the bill and pushed for a floor vote.
did you actually read that? It says trump opposed the bill. He was talked into not actively trying to screw over black people by Jared. Jared had to call in favors from fox news to try to convince him to support it. Trump reluctantly agreeing to not screw over black people doesn't scream "i'm not a racist".
Odd, though, that cities such as Rio de Janiero for instance have lower rates of homicide than Baltimore and St. Louis? Education, employment, and standards of living are much worse in Brazil.
true, there are of course other factors. For example, rio doesn't have an ethnic under class that the police viciously suppress. It also doesn't have america's problems of guns being readily available to any criminal who wants one.
The black community and media would have to be blamed for saying the police are their enemy.
why should they be blamed for telling the truth? The police are an enemy to their community.
Only nine unarmed black men were killed by police last year. White people are more likely to be shot by police per 100,000 violent crimes committed.
it isn't just about how many black people they killed. It is about the systematic abuse and suppression of black people. You don't have to kill them in order to abuse them or wrongfully imprison them.
They try to cry about 'overpolicing', but why wouldn't you send more cops to more dangerous neighborhoods?
Overpolicing is part of the problem for those neighborhoods. Imprisoning so many young people only makes more hardened criminals.
Maybe glorifying thugs has something to do with all of this?
it definitely does. Unfortunately america loves to glorify thugs who happen to have badges and guns.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Why couldn't they just say no to drugs? It was mainly targeted towards fiends that want to poison our nation's children with drugs. (based on main offense, over 94k in prison for trafficking vs 247 for possession)
for the same reason white people don't say no to drugs. But if a white stock broker gets caught with cocaine he gets a slap on the wrist. But if a black guy gets caught with the smallest amount of marijuana, they are imprisoned.
Madman blamed it on poverty.
Poverty is absolutely a factor. But i don't believe he meant to imply that it was the only factor.
Racial discrimination? You mean like affirmative action? I'm surprised White and Asian crime rates haven't skyrocketed as a result.
lol because helping a community that has been targeted means that other communities must do worse? That doesn't even make sense.
Trump must have shouted about African American unemployment over a hundred times
of course he did. but then he did nothing about it. so all that shouting is just hot air.
He has set up "opportunity zones"
sure, and those "opportunity zones" helped out rich people alot. Poor people, not so much. Here is a link. Trump knows how to funnel money to the rich. In this case he also tricked people into thinking he was actually trying to help poor people.
let a lot of them out of jail with "prison reform"
So trump was talked into not opposing reforms written by other people. Is that supposed to convince me he loves black people? Just because in this one specific case he didnt go out of his way to hurt black people? That is a low bar.
But I'll humor you: how does being poor and the government not liking you make you rape and murder people at much higher rates than any other group?
being poor makes you much more likely to turn to crime. You lack the resources to get a good education or a stable home. Without this education or stable home environment it is much harder to seek or gain employment. If you have no chances of building a successful life legally, you are much more likely to seek a living illegally.
The government actively suppressing you also contributes to this. You learn not to trust government serves. You certainly can't trust the police. If someone steals from you and you know you can't trust the police, you are more likely to turn to other methods to deal with the situation. This helps foster a culture which increases criminality. If you teach people that you don't want them to be included in your society (for example, by having the police harass and abuse them) then you should not be surprised when they reject the rules of that society.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
One of the poorest areas in the entire country, has a property and violent crime rate well below country average, homogeneous society. Obviously more to it than just being poor.
has anyone argued it is strictly due to poverty? There is also racial discrimination and suppression by the police and elected officials. There is the very well earned feeling that politicians don't give a shit about you and only want you to shut up.
Let's also not forget the war on drugs which is also used to target minorities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
My theory is that Trump is too much of a cheapskate to outbid his rivals for media hush rights.
you are right that he is a cheapskate, but you are a forgetting a core part of his history. He gets people to do stuff, but he then refuses to pay them. So he does other stuff for them instead. Like saying making a massive tax cut for the rich. Or race baiting for fox news' core audience. He creates a scenario where Fox news directly profits from spreading his lies and would be financially punished if they cross him (because trump attacks anyone who dares to challenge his lies).
As long as trump's base stays loyal to trump, then fox news and other right wing news outlets need to keep from being attacked by trump in order to keep making money. so they will continue to avoid questioning his mistakes and spread his lies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I said it before. Attacking someone's family is a tool of organized crime.
no one in that clip attacked anyone's family. In fact he was being quite explicicit that he wanted to protect everyone's families. so please cut the straw mans.
Imagine a world where CPS takes your child away due to your skin-color as a parent because..."...Clearly I’m more concerned about [your child] than you are."
what the hell are you even talking about? They were discussing police reform. No one mentioned parenting at all, let alone CPS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Exactly. Gaetz TOTALLY overreacted to the simple fact every Democrat knows instinctually. That the government is a better parent than you can ever be.
why do you keep going back to this obvious straw man? Cedric wasn't talking about parenting. He was talking about police reform. Do you not understand that this is what he was talking about, or are you conscious of the fact that you are using the same straw man argument gaetz was?
“Black people in the streets are getting killed and if one of them happens to be your kid, I’m concerned about him too. And clearly I’m more concerned about him than you are,”-Cedric Richmond
exactly, and that has absolutely nothing to do with parenting. It has to do with protecting black children from being harassed, assaulted and potentially murdered by police. You could be the best parent in the world or the worst, if a cop decides to drive his knee into your kids neck until he is dead, then it will make no difference. Being concerned about that and trying to do something about it has nothing to do with parenting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Again, it's not a moral attack. It's a clear statement of a fundamental Democrat principle.
that democrats care about black people, yes. Even black people who are children of republicans. That has nothing to do with telling people how to parent.
That a government of elite oligarchs knows best over a parent, Especially the 77% fatherless black children in Democrat-run urban dystopias.
no one is or was talking about parenting. The conversation was about police reform. then Gaetz threw a fit and started crying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't think Cedric did anything "morally wrong" by stating a solid Democrat principle. That a government of elite oligarchs knows best over a parent, Especially the 77% fatherless black children in Democrat-run urban dystopias.
cedric never mentioned parenting. He is talking about police reform. He is talking about caring enough about them to reform the system killing them. Please stop engaging in the same straw man arguement gaetz did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I assume you don't have children but your parents did. If someone told your parent that they cared more about you than they did what type of a reaction would you expect? What would there to be gained from making such an inflammatory statement do you think?
Gaetz baited that comment. He was trying to get the conversation to shift that way so he could play the victim. Cedric is trying to talk about a real issue and save lives. Gaetz is trying to score personal points and cry. Do you really think it is Cedric that is the problem?
you say extremely mild? you obviously aren't a parent, and they he adds insult to injury by asking him if he struck a nerve?
this is just sad. Cedric was talking about the issue. Matt was trying to prevoke him to change the conversation. If gaetz had been doing his job and discussing the actual topic at hand, then there would be no outrage for you to cry about.
you just can't break out of that old lying habit, not yet anyway, though I thought you had made great progress and I un-ignored you, I'm disappointed actually, no idea why you would revert back like that, sad.
so to clarify, do you think that trump is "civil"? Or do you think that civility only matters when it is a democrat?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I mean the guy literally said he was clearly more concerned for the welfare of Gaetz' child than Gaetz was.
to be fair. Gaetz is unmarried and has no children. So it's not like the guy was actually talking about a real world situation. it was hypothetical. And yes gaetz has subsequently come out and said he has had a boy living with him.
That's a solid Democrat ideology. That government controlled by a Democrat oligarchy knows better than a deplorable parent.
except that the discussion has absolutely nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with parenting at all. Gaetz wants it to be about that because he knows it plays well to his base, as it is doing with you 2 right now.
The issue is that the democrats are trying to pass police reform to protect the rights and safety of black people and the republicans are doing everything they can to water it down, block it, or just distract from it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just now saw the clip. The black guy was just being a typical democrat, saying a democrat knows what's best over an actual parent. That the government should be raising kids, not fathers. I don't see it as a racial attack. Just a difference in ideologies.
In that clip the black guy is discussing a police reform bill. This conversation had nothing to do with governments telling people how to raise their kids. Gaetz was trying to force the conversation in that direction so he could cry and play the victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The left has no intention of cleaning house. Hence...Joe Biden.
joe biden is not on the left. he does not represent the left. The left would love to clean house. Unfortunately that isn't possible right now.
I don't know much about cedric. I had never heard of him before this clip. but based solely on this clip I see nothing wrong with him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you don't have to explain, I get it you are justifying bad and imo horrible behavior because the other person started it, I remember the playground and elementary school and it's common for siblings to say "they started it" and yet the left still tries to claim some moral superiority, you are letting your ideology blind you imo.
No, it is nothing like that because i fundamentally don't agree it is bad behaviour. Matt goes out of his way trying to force the conversation away from the issue Cedric is discussing and trying to create a situation where he (matt) can cry and play the victim. He succeeded in getting a relatively mild comment out of cedric at which point he milked the hell out of the "how dare you say such a thing!!" argument.
This sort of distraction by crying just shows how weak people like matt are. They will continuously talk about how the left needs a "safe space" but then whines and cries about a comment he baited out of his opponent. It is sad and pathetic.
it's whatbout isms, Oromagi is posted up a whole bunch and wonders why I ignored them.
it isn't whataboutisms at all. Cedric's comment was extremely mild. all he said was that he cares about children of color more than matt does. On a scale of severity, that is super low. Simply on the issue you want to talk about, this is nothing. We then segue into you whining about how terrible this guy is for saying he cares about black kids because he isn't being "civil" enough, while simultaneously supporting trump who has : banged and bribed hookers, made many many misogynist comments, commented white supremacists etc. The idea that Cedric's comment is somehow horrible, but you think trump is a hero shows how fundamentally intellectually dishonest you are.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's true, Trump was a vicious Democrat before he switched parties.
he was a vicious a democrat, he is now a vicious republican. The problem is not his political affiliation. The problem is he is vicious and has no morals. I'm sure he'd gladly join the nazi's or the communists if it would benefit him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Whatever you think Gaetz did wrong that justifies the response?
gaetz is a toxic shit. He has proven he doesn't give a shit about lots of people. Saying you care more about children of color than he does is not a response that really needs to be justified. It is reality. =
Rhetorical question of course a leftist would say yes, rather than saying he should have been the bigger/better man and not stooped to the level.
but this is sort of the problem. Cedric is talking about the issue. He is talking about trying to fix the problem. Matt tries to sabotage that conversation by making it personal and succeeds in baiting out a comment he can take offense from and be able to play the victim. If matt weren't a toxic little shit, he would have been talking about the issue and not have made it personal so he could play the victim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
yeah the left attacked Barron Trump when he was like 14
I don;'t condone attacking children. But no one did that in this clip. Cedric said he cares about everyone's children. Matt then used a straw man argument to try to distract and pretend like Cedric somehow attacked children. Which he didn't.
Bottom line, this is a standard republican tactic. Pretend your opponent said something they didn't. Cry and feign outrage. Play the victim to try to discredit someone when you have no real way of responding to what they are saying.
It is sad and pathetic. The fact that you think this clip somehow makes Cedric look bad is also sad. Doubly so because you defend trump, the least civil (and probably least moral) politician in america while simultaneously pretending like a politician trying to protect people from abuse is somehow the problem.
Created:
Posted in:
Each time I rewatch this clip, the dumber mat gaetz's performance is. I mean it is just such ridiculously stupid outrage.
"How dare you care about my family!!!". "How dare you fight for my families rights!!".
Matt looks like such a jackass. It is a painfully obvious straw man argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Also, it's telling that civility and morality are super important now, but when trump says he sexually assaults women or that white supremacists are "good people", for some reason civility doesn't matter.
either civility matters, at which point you must agree trump is the worst politician in the country, or it doesn't matter. You can't play it both ways when it suits you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
i'm sorry, what in that video was supposed to be punishable behavior?
Cedric Richmond says that he wants to get meaningful legislation passed. Matt gaetz tries to distract the conversation by pretending Cedric said none of them had family of color, which Cedric never said. Cedric got annoyed that Matt Gaetz was being a disruptive asshole and said that he cares about children suffering, even Matt's kids. He also said he cares more about them that Matt does since Matt fights hard to prevent meaningful reform from taking place, thus proving he doesn't care if black people suffer.
It all seemed pretty straight forward to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
They might be conservative on other things.
but that's sort of my point. the term "conservative" can mean alot of different things to alot of people. So a KKK clan member's conservatism would be different from say, mitch mcConnell's (i hope). Similarly, saying you are "pro-life" in and of itself doesn't really mean anything. Does that mean you oppose all abortions? Does that mean you oppose late term abortions? Does that mean you don't really care but "pro-life" just sounds good?
So circling back to my point. If you ask if someone is "pro-life" or "pro-choice", the answer doesn't actually tell you all that much.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Trump has done so many terrible things I have lost count. If that's the one that jumps out at you as the worst that seems a little odd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Something is wrong with how people poll.
it's the way the question is phrased and the loaded terminology. For example, if they had asked something more like "do you think there are circumstances where a woman should have the right to end a pregnancy?", then it wold probably be higher.
but "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are loaded terms. in the same way someone might tell you they are conservative, but then if you asked, they tell you they support medicare for all. they know they "should" be conservative so they identify that way, but on specific issues they are actually much more left than they would admit (even to themselves).
lots of people will tell you they are "pro-life" even if they do support a woman's right to choose. But it is a terminology issue.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
you used the phrase "pander to queers". If you think that protecting people's basic rights is the death of conservatism, then you think "conservatism" is synonymous with "bigotry". That is the exactly what the KKK think too.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
What a joke. Conservatism is dead, American "conservatives" are liberals from 2 decades ago.
if by "conservative" you mean cross burning KKK members, then yes. That time is gone and it very much needs to stay that way.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I kinda think they were both right. Gays should have the same protections as women, but the SCOTUS really needs to have Congress do these changes to the law.
but they won't. The republicans know there is a relatively small, but very vocal chunk of their base that will turn on them if they ever allowed these sorts of protection to be passed into law. They also know that legislating openly against LGBT rights is a massively unpopular position in large parts of the country and would hurt them pretty badly. So they simply won't do anything. They will ignore the issue and hope it goes away.
But the part that might piss off the right the most in this, is that it is exactly their preferred method of interpreting the law that caused the court to rule this way. The right loves to push textualism (basically ignoring what the intention or purpose of a law is and solely looking at the text of it instead). In this case, the text says you cannot use sex to discriminate. so:
"If the employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee's sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee's sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Please show me videos of “hundreds” of cops abusing people or standing around as their fellow officers abuse people. I would love to see a number anywhere near 100.
you want me to go out and find you dozens of videos? Well i have already shown you several of them and every single time you say something similar to "well they deserved it". Why would I go to the effort of finding evidence that you have proven you will immediately dismiss? I mean in the clip this post started around there are at least a dozen people being attacked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I wouldn't say they're clueless. Rather, they're said to be often undertrained, or trained poorly, so as a result they're quick to rely on lethal force instead of effective grappling holds and stuff to restrain suspects.
it's not about that. It isn't that they can't restrain people without hurting them, it is that they want to hurt people. I've seen videos of guns rights protests full of armed angry people (usually all white). No cop pepper sprays them or shoots them. But a black person yells at cop about police brutality and a group of cops curb stomp him or pepper spray him in the face.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why does there need to be women?
the reason i mentioned that part was that the whole point of the protests is the abuse of people of color by white (primarily male) police. So the optics of it being an entire crowd of white, male police whining about wanting respect while they simultaneously carry out the brutality people are protesting is just worth noting.
NYC is made up of majority white and many cops are from the suburbs which is even more white so why does it surprise you there are white cops, they a re plently of black cops around the nation, one of them killed in the protests
it's the optics of it. the protests are about white cops abusing black people. so they lined up alot of white cops so that they could whine about how unfair it is that they don't get enough respect while they are also carrying out crimes that would get anyone else thrown in prison.
what is so terrible right now, a few rioters get beat up, so what
that is not what anyone is talking about. What people are talking about is the hundreds, if not thousands of peaceful protesters being attacked by police. In those clips you can see some of them. Like that guy on his bike trying to get home while a cop is beating him with a club. That isn't a rioter. But that cop won't be punished for beating him. That is exactly the kind of thing people are protesting against.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Burden of proof is on you homie. Videos of 20 bad cops don’t show the “vast majority” of cops are bad considering there are 800,000 law enforcement officials.
there are dozens of videos which include hundreds of cops either directly abusing people or standing around as their fellow officers abuse people. There are very, very few that include a cop trying to reign in the abuse of their colleagues. Expecting someone to be able to provide a video of every cop in america being abusive is obviously bullshit. The fact that there are hundreds of cops culpable in this extremely damning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
A vast majority of cops are honest and hardworking. A vast majority of cops aren’t racist.
what evidence do you have for that assertion?
There are tons of videos right now of police beating on and abusing unarmed protesters. I can only think of 1 video where an officer attempted to prevent or chastise one of these abuses. Even if there are good cops, they aren't doing much good if they stand back and watch their fellow officers commit crimes.
The videos are evidence of a big problem spread over much of the country. The fact that no one is trying to stop them, and the only time they actually get punished for it is when a viral video goes up, shows that the cops around them are complicit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There's nothing wrong with being a white man. But the protests about about cops abusing black men. so the fact that he is standing in front of a crowd of cops with no women or people of color in sight, while praising the NYPD for being worthy of respect even though they are engaging in countless acts of police brutality.
The optics of the group of cops given the terrible things they are doing and why, is terrible. But that is mostly just subtext. It is the whining about how they demand respect while simultaneously doing things that make people respect them less. They are just in a different reality than normal people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Wait, if Trump’s making money by being corrupt, how has his networth declined?
because of something the right loves to talk about, the free market decided. allow me to explain.
Trump is a heartless, wannabe tyrant who also happens to be pretty much incompetent. Before he was president, alot of people knew what an asshole he was, but alot of people didn't. His name brand was worth alot of money. Once he became president and most of the world realized what an asshole he is, the value of his brand plummeted. The free market decided his brand was worth alot less and people stayed away from it. Therefore, his wealth declined.
That however does not erase his many, many cases of corruption. He has made many attempts, some of them successful and some of them were stopped, to enrich himself from public funds, sell influence etc. However, due to how badly his behavior has damaged his brand, he simply can't steal enough, fast enough to make up the loss.
So you see, he is poorer because of capitalism. But he is still super corrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Well, the NYPD did decrease violent crime by like half since 2000. We should abolish the NYPD right?
violent crime rates have been falling all over the western world for decades. That doesn't mean the NYPD did any of that without abusing alot of people and committing alot of crimes.
They are currently involved in a huge amount of abuse of their power and at the same time are whining about how they should be respected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not CNN
so? lots of outlets cover trump's corruption. Why do you think I can only use CNN to show evidence of that?
Attempt means he reconsidered. No infraction no foul.
Oh, i see. So if I try to rob a bank but they stop me before I can get the money, then I'm totally good right? Trump tried to abuse his office for personal gain. The fact that he failed does not prove he is somehow uncorrupt.
Pre 2016
he never divested from his business. He still has every one of those ties.
Not CNN
again, so what? Just because it is from another outlet doesn't mean it isn't evidence of his corruption.
Try again. I only trust CNN to uncover actual money Trump personally gained since 2016 as a result of being president.
why? You have repeatedly said you don't trust CNN at all. So why the sudden insistence on rejecting all sources of information except one that you don't trust?
Created:
Posted in:
here is a link to a video of the US police department union president. He is standing in front of a wall of cops. They are all male. they are all white despite the city they "protect" being diverse. He then goes on to whine about how great New York cops are and that he is proud of the work they do. It is inter-cut with some of the behavior of new york cops to peaceful protesters.
I think he honestly believes the things he is saying. He believes that the police are acting nobly as they club and beat people whose only crime is protesting or not "giving them respect". He doesn't understand that respect is earned. And the actions of the NYPD during the protests proved they don't deserve that respect. They did act like thugs. Their actions were shameful. The fact that he doesn't see that is a huge problem.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump Never got the dirt.
He got caught committing influence peddling and couldn't the dirt. How does that make him innocent?
Influence peddling is normally used to acquire wealth, not dirt.
The definition of influence peddling is "the use of position or political influence on someone's behalf in exchange for money or favors."
Having the Ukrainians slander Joe biden was the favor. Which he only failed to get because of the whistle blower.
Like I said if Trump actually did anything wrong and made money off of it, CNN would have been all over it.
they have reported it over and over. republicans just don't care.
An article about trump's selling access at Maralago for 200,000 a pop.
An article about trump's attempting to award the G7 summit to his own resort, a move that would have made him millions. He only backed down after almost everyone pointed out the blatant corruption.
Here (again) is an article about his relationship with the saudi's. He is gives them preferential treatment (including when the crown prince ordered the murder of a US journalist) because they pay him ALOT of money.
Here is an article about the Saudi's funneling money into trump's hotels. Here is an article about groups booking up huge blocks of rooms at trump hotels and then never staying in them, (essentially just straight up bribery)
Trump is making millions off of being president through blatant corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
crony capitalism?
influence peddling
the most famous case would be the ukraine scandal. Trump asked a foreign government to give him dirt on a political rival at the same time he was holding up money for ukraine.
There is maralago which is sort of both crony capitolism and influence peddling. They sell overpriced memberships to lobbyists specifically advertising that it buys them access to the president.
there was his attempt to hold the G7 conference at his own resort so he could get the government to pay him millions and millions of dollars. That's not exactly influence peddling since it was on his own behalf, it was just straight up corruption.
there is his relationship with the saudi's. Trump has said in the past that he loves the saudi's and he has tons of business contacts with them. He also constantly praises them and makes policy decisions that benefit them. Here is an article about his ties to the saudi's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Honestly, I don't think you understand why every career politician in DC accumulates wealth 10 times more than their salary.
i totally agree. the establishment politicians are corrupt, for the most part.
1) Influence peddling (which Biden is the master of, even moreso than Hillary.
totally agree. lots of, if not most, establishment politicians do this. But trump absolutely does this too.
2) Insider trading (Hillary is the master at this.)
since we know nothing about trump's finances (because he refuses to tell anyone), there is no way to know if he is doing this. Although the fact that he refuses to tell anyone is not a good sign.
3) Crony Capitalism where a politician gets kickbacks for either subsidizing companies or regulating a company's competitors out of the market. (Obama was the master at this)
trump absolutely engages in crony capitalism.
Trump has been under the micro micro scope, so there is NO chance Trump could possibly get away with any of these 3 methods without the MSM going batshit crazy.
trump does at least 2 of them, potentially all 3.
Believe me, CNN would let me know the moment it happens. I definitely believe that.
they've reported lots of cases of him doing these things. You simply only pay attention to trump ass kissers.
That's a nice conspiracy theory, But Occams razor suggests Trump actually doesn't care about losing wealth as president.
ok, trump has spent his entire life attempting to gain money and power. He then ran for president. You think the simplest explanation for why he did that is not that he wants money and power, it is that he suddenly decided that he was wrong all of his life and he only wants to do public service?
He cares bout something more than just a Forbes spot.
true, he also cares about fame and power. But again, the reason his wealth has decline is because he won and is an incompetent, wannabe tyrant. If he had gotten what he wanted (ie, running, becoming more famous and boosting his brand, then losing) he would have gotten wealth, fame and power (via influence of his followers) without losing anything. The fact that he won is a tragedy for him personally as well as America as a nation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pretty sure other people pay taxes, and other people make money and create jobs from businesses allowed to operate.
the tax cuts on the rich were perminent. The tax cuts for the working class and poor were temporary and tacked on at the end to sell it as being something other than a giveaway to the rich. Trump made millions from those changes.
Diverting government funds to his hotels and resorts makes him millions.Riiiiggghhtt.. Give up a Billion to make...millions. Makes sense.
1) we were talking about giving up his salary. His salary is $400,000. He makes millions off of graft by abusing his office. If giving up $400,000 gives you cover to steal millions, that is a great investment. Clearly it is working on his followers.
2) he didn't plan to win. He planned to lose. Then he gets all the benefits of the name recognition and boost to his brand with none of the down sides of being loathed for being an evil tyrant. Unfortunately for us all, more people bought into his bullshit that even he planned for.
Wow lol, Trump is such a failure that he can't even manage to lose properly. I wish we could all be that stupid.
I always say trump is a great con man. He wanted to sell himself enough to get in the spotlight and boost his brand. Unfortunately for all of us, his lies were too convincing and he managed to get elected. Thus permanently damaging his brand as well as doing serious damage to the country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
I don't know that much about politics so can any of y'all tell me why Trump was elected in the 1st place?
given that i think trump is terrible, i might not be the best to answer that question. But my interpretation is this.
Obama swept to victory promising change. In many cases promising fairly dramatic change. Once he got elected though, he didn't do it. he went back to the same shitty policies that have been pushed for years. Over the course of his tenure in office, dems lost like 1000 seats in state and federal government. Once obama was gone, his successor assumed that the coalition that elected him would elect her too. But Obama had failed them, and hilary's platform was basically a "more of the same" kind of campaign. She didn't promise significant change. Trump did. His campaign was full of lies and half truths, but at it's core he was promising that things would change and get better.
But now that things haven't really gotten any better. I think alot of those people that swept trump into power (IE voters who switched from voting for obama to voting for trump) now see that he isn't an improvement. he is in fact much worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
He donates his salary
he makes way, way more off of graft that the salary of his office. Diverting government funds to his hotels and resorts makes him millions. If giving up a few hundred thousand convinces his followers he isn't out for himself, then it is a great investment.
plus he went into the campaign knowing his brand was going to take a Billion dollar hit just running for president
nope, he was planning to lose. If he had lost he would gain a huge amount of name recognition and clout which would boost his brand. he could continue to be the outsider that right wingers love, but no one else would care about. he would make huge amounts of money. but instead he won and now he is hated for being corrupt, incompetent and fairly evil.
While he certainly enjoys the spotlight and the fame, he is definitely not president to make money, and that's a nice change over Barry O who earned 100 million as president.
umm what? I ran for president to profit from it. That, and get more famous. That is why he does pretty much everything.
Passed a ton of legislation that affected and helped people other than himself.
like what? he cut taxes, which made him tons of money. he's been slashing regulations, which makes him tons of money. What exactly is he doing that helps others?
Created:
Posted in:
As Secretary of State to Obama, you think she was a war hawk?
I think she is a classic neo-lib who believes that america has the right, perhaps even the responsibility, to bomb people who get in america's way. She was fully in favor of bombing iraq. She was fully in favor of ramping up the war in afganistan as obama wanted to ramp down. She was fully in favor of economically sabotaging Iran, then bombing them if they tried to do anything about it.
did she always favor war over peace? no, probably not. She's no John Bolton. But did she want peace over war when she thought it would get her what she wants, I don't think so. Painting her as some blood thirsty monster is obviously false. But painting her as a great peacemaker is also false.
Created:
Posted in:
Same old corruption? Even at her most corrupt, Hillary was making deals to establish world peace and that's a fact you cannot deny.
i'm not certain which deals you mean. but she also was a war hawk. She wanted more troops in Afghanistan, she supported the war in Iraq, she wanted more sanctions on Iran and repeatedly made statements refusing to rule out attacking them and directly saying she would. "Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
so it is not exactly accurate to imply she was some agent of world peace.
Trump is genuinely corrupt even in the motive behind his corruption. He's literally solely out for himself, not even his family just himself.
I agree
The fact he won that many States, votes etc is beyond my comprehension. I'd rather established semi-caring corruption than brutal genuine rich bitch establishment to the core corruption.
this is kind of the problem. The reason trump won is because the democratic establishment can't understand it either. They stopped giving a shit what most of those people actually think and retreated to their own bubble. The dem establishment are corrupt (so are the republican establishment). they have been for a long time. Their corruption isn't as flashy as trump's but it is just as bad, in some cases worse.
Trump was Establishment even more so than any other candidate except for Jeb Bush in that election.
that depends on how you define "establishment". If that just means rich, then yeah sure. But that's not what it means to most people (as far as I know). To me being part of the establishment means wheeling and dealing in the halls of power. It means having power and influence in the government. Trump definitely did not have that. Most people in the government hated him (because he is awful). In that sense he is very much not an establishment candidate.
Again, it bears repeating that I don't agree with the reasons people support trump. But if people who are in the middle/left don't try to understand the concerns and desires of trump's supporters, then they can't ever try to bridge that gap. Although, alot of them are unreachable and simply "owning the libs" is actually a reason for them to do terrible things.
Created:
Posted in:
I can definitely understand the sentiment. But it is usually more helpful to try to meet people where they are and trying to understand why they feel the way they do. Most people who support trump are not evil people. They support him for a reason. I don't pretend to perfectly understand those reasons because I find trump repulsive.
But I think for many of them, they support trump for similar reasons to why people support AOC or Sanders. The establishment of both parties is SUPER corrupt. They don't represent anyone but themselves and their corporate donors. Trump promised to go in and drain the swamp. He promised to change things. If your options are the same old corruption that has been "destroying america" or trying something new that will shake up that established corruption, then it is worth trying. To them, what other option do they have? They can go back to the corruption that created the problems in the 1st place, or they can support trump.
again, i'm not saying I agree. Trump is awful. but getting a handle on why people support him gives you a much better shot at convincing people not to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
So this whole thread was started because protesters were cleared out of a park 25 minutes before curfew?
no. the thread is a about a criminal abuse of power where the president ordered peaceful protesters to be shot so he could have a photo op. This thread is about whether america is a free democracy, or a police state. Greyparot votes it should be a police state.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
If the mob gets to define what is peaceful, you live in an anarchic state bro.
No, we as a society decide what is peaceful. Most people would agree that actions that have virtually no chance of harming someone is not "rioting". Most people would also agree that the right to protest is a core belief of america and if the police have the power to shut it down whenever they want for any reason at all, then that is completely contrary to the spirit of america.
Created: