RNC 2020: Democrat Vernon Jones delivers blistering attack on his party

I'm waiting for the predictable reaction to the "traitor" DINO...

Traitor is a term to be used only used in war.

But you have to question his thinking and motivation where a large chunk of Trump's supporters still consider him a monkey as was made evident again yesterday. Appeasement of racism does not lead to solutions to eliminate racism

But you have to question his thinking and motivation where a large chunk of Trump's supporters still consider him a monkey as was made evident again yesterday. Appeasement of racism does not lead to solutions to eliminate racism

The truth is some of these people will never learn. I didnt see all the speeches last night  but I understand at least one of them included a defense of the offensive monuments. 

I fought through the entire night.  I think it is important to take in information from that which I may be disagreeing with as sort of a recalibration check.  I saw nothing new to challenge my thoughts on voting against Trump, only more data points that reinforce why we should all be voting against him.

You are a better man than I am. No way was I going to pollute my brain. Just listening to summaries is enough doom and gloom for me.

I have had my fill of the left is going to destroy America crap.

That is actually a little reassuring. 

What did you think of the St Louis gun couple?   I didnt see their performance. 

Shows me the lie that they were 'Liberal'.

More stoking of racial fear that speaks of a 1968 George Wallace mentality from the couple.  

From what I understand they are not well thought of in their neighborhood....... That coupled with the felony charges related to gun use.   So much for do unto others.....

But you have to question his thinking and motivation where a large chunk of Trump's supporters still consider him a monkey as was made evident again yesterday.

Horseshit ...... how so?

Sparty...... it was caught on tape just yesterday at Trumps event in NC.  Trump grinned about it.

???? Link?

I've listened closely, the term "monkey" is clear, it was not spygate as some want to portray it as.

Trump heard it that way too, otherwise he wouldn't have said "lets be nice"... and "only in North Carolina".

So one man, in a partisan audience that shouts "monkey," is a large chunk of conservatives?

C'mon man .... you can do better than that.

Traitor is a term to be used only used in war.

Since when?

one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

Trump heard it that way too, otherwise he wouldn't have said "lets be nice"... and "only in North Carolina".

So Trump admonished them...

Watch the video CK...... It was right up there with his "good people on both sided" statement......

Have you forgotten Charlottesville?  Support from David Duke?

newsweek

snopes

Seriously...... I can do this all day

Not all Trump supporter are racist, but all racists support Trump......

Since when?

Since the United States Constitution, Article III, section 3 which reads:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Trump and Republicans who downplay or ignore Russian bounties on US soldiers and Russian attacks on our elections are "giving aid and comfort" to our enemies.

Seriously...... I can do this all day

Seriously ...... feel free to keep doing so.   It doesn't change jack-shit.

Your supposition that a "large chuck" of conservatives are somehow racist and against minorities is one of the most obtuse comments i have ever seen here on NT.   You point to a few isolated incidents and now its a large chunk?   Ridiculous!  

Yeah i know, that's the narrative the hive wants you to push but it's ridiculous and insulting to those of us who are conservative and are no more or less racist than you or your average liberal.   It's a partisan dog whistle.   Nothing more, nothing less.

And i can keep telling you that all day long as well so lets go.

So Trump admonished them...

LOL. You're joking , right? 

"Knock it off" would be an admonishment. 

a man in the crowd yelled, quite audibly, that Obama was a "MONKEY," to which Trump, grinning, said "Let's be nice!" to a chorus of laughs. Warmed by the yuks, his smile widened and he added, "Only in North Carolina."

Widened smiles and grins are not admonishment, they are sideways approval. 

a man in the crowd yelled, quite audibly, that Obama was a "MONKEY," to which Trump, grinning, said "Let's be nice!" to a chorus of laughs. Warmed by the yuks, his smile widened and he added, "Only in North Carolina."

Why does Trump joke about Obama being called a "monkey" ?  Give us a clear to the point answer. 

It doesn't change jack-shit

For those that don't care about jack shit of course.....  For those of us that do give a shit.....well. 

He loves it as he doesn't have to say it himself.

He can sit back and smile and laugh.

Why does Trump joke about Obama being called a "monkey" ?

Did he?   

Are you sure that is what he was responding to and what he intended?  

Absolutely sure not just TDS ridden sure.

There you go again .....  jumping on that sanctimonious high horse without knowing what you are talking about ...... yeehaw!

The reason that people give you a hard time is because you make an excuse for every single bigoted and idiotic thing Trump does. 

Now you are going to tell us that he didnt hear the word "monkey" and that wasnt what he was referring to when he immediately joked about it, even though there are numerous news stories about it. 

Do your thing, and undoubtedly people will keep giving you a hard time.

The Tea Party yesterday = The Trump Party today

colorlines

The video shows...

It was right up there with his "good people on both sided" statement......

You just totally gutted your own argument with that reference right there as it has been proven time and again that this particular comment was taken totally out of context.

As to him giving a " wink and a nudge " to someone denigrating someone else who has been calling him a "racist, sexist, nativist"

Doesn't necessarily mean he approves, just that he found it amusing that Obama (and a lot of others apparently) can't tell the difference between Trump's supposedly racist comments  and a real racist comment like the one on display.

"Let's be nice!"

That's not an admonishment? Since when.

Widened smiles and grins are not admonishment, they are sideways approval.

I would think those are signs of amusement. [Deleted]

Since the United States Constitution, Article III, section 3

So now we are limited to just the one definition as used in the Constitution defining treason against the State??? 

ROFLMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oops, I'm smiling...I guess that means I agree with what you said...DOH!

Taken out of context.....? Only by someone that thinks racism is acceptable.  Next think you will tell me is there never was an Access Hollywood tape....

BTW.... Lets see your proof that it was taken out of context..... Links please.

All you have to do is type it into your browser window.

dailycaller

politifact

Maybe looking at more than one or two selected sentences that people who don't like Trump are always pushing would go a long ways towards understanding the context of his remarks, which some on the left simply refuse to even look at.

one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

So whose trust did Jones betray or what obligation or duty was he false to? Please be specific. 

Only by someone that thinks racism is acceptable.

Knock off the Personal Attacks and stick to facts.

From the transcript of the interview (emphasis added)

Trump : "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- 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 as 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."

And you well know he was talking about the people protesting the removal of the statute and their counter-protestors when he spoke of the two groups having fine people on both sides. He also started out by condemning the violence of BOTH sides earlier in the transcript linked to above!  If you didn't before, now you will no longer have the excuse as I have provided you with the entire transcript to read.

I'm not surprised when confederate sympathizers make excuses for Trump. 

Please be specific. 

The Democratic Party, Joe Biden, and apparently Democrats in general as the current news cycle has their outrage on full display!

The Tea Party yesterday = The Trump Party today

Only they are a lot more nastier and meaner

but all racists support Trump......

Really??? Well whaddayaknow...

I'm surprised they crossed over like that. Got a link to the story???

That wasn't a personal attack..... Do you see your name there or the word "you" in the sentence?

Makes one wonder...... 

Do you see your name there or the word "you" in the sentence?

Hmmm, let's see, am I saying it was taken out of context? Just in case you are unsure, I most certainly am! How do you feel about people who say it was taken out of context?  Your words (emphasis added;

Taken out of context.....? Only by someone that thinks racism is acceptable.

So now you want to walk it back??? Why not just apologize for the sweeping generalization and name calling instead of trying to distance yourself from what you said so proudly???

Makes one wonder...... 

Indeed it does...

The Democratic Party, Joe Biden, and apparently Democrats in general as the current news cycle has their outrage on full display!

So you assume that the Jones was trusted by ANY of them? What lead you to that conclusion? 

Or is it your posit that Jones had an obligation or a duty to them? If so, and Jones was false to that, it says more about him don't you think? 

Both links are non-starters.  There is ample evidence that Trump is a racist... It just comes down to being willing to admit to facts.

Blaming judges because they are Mexican, Going after Gold Star parents, failing to condemn white supremacist's while they campaign for him, the central park five.... it goes on and on. 

who has been calling him a "racist, sexist, nativist"

Why post a link that doesn't support your comment? 

Both links are non-starters.  There is ample evidence that Trump is a racist... It just comes down to being willing to admit to facts.

Switching horses in midstream, are ya?

My links were in direct response to your post:

Post 1.1.30  "Taken out of context.....? Only by someone that thinks racism is acceptable.  Next think you will tell me is there never was an Access Hollywood tape....

BTW.... Lets see your proof that it was taken out of context..... Links please."

I provided the asked-for links, which you now claim have no relevance, Weird shit---get exactly what you ask for, then ignore it and claim something new. Is it because the links show that the Trump quote WAS taken out of context?

Never mind. The answer is obvious.

There is ample evidence that Trump is a racist... It just comes down to being willing to admit to facts. Blaming judges because they are Mexican, Going after Gold Star parents, failing to condemn white supremacist's while they campaign for him, the central park five.... it goes on and on. 

Strawman. Do better.

More word salad from you CK.   

You can't run away from the fact that Trump is a racist, and that you are seemingly in support of a racist by what you have posted.  Thems the facts. 

You might like Trump for other reasons, which you think are more important, but it doesn't clear you of supporting a racist which he clearly is.  

Strawman...... ?????   Try facts Tex.  All of those listed are well documented episodes of racial slurs.

If so, and Jones was false to that, it says more about him don't you think? 

Yes! It means as he says, he has left the Democratic Plantation that has worked so diligently to murder black children, tear apart their families, and keep them in poverty!

Strawman....?????

Yes, No need whatsoever for the question marks.

 Try facts Tex.

I did.

You just didn't like them because they don't agree with your point of view, so of course, to you, it is fake or irrelevant.

All of those listed are well documented episodes of racial slurs.

You asked for links, I provided them, and now you don't like the links.

Be careful what you ask for--especially when you don't know the answers already.

I thought that you and yours decried any and all ratings by SPLC.

You must have missed the RNC Resolution denouncing SPLC, where they state:

WHEREAS, The SPLC makes a practice of incorrectly labeling persons and organizations as “hate groups”; 

I know, it's a lot to keep up with...

If you didn't before, now you will no longer have the excuse as I have provided you with the entire transcript to read.

It won't do any good if the links are not read and understood.

0-2 is a bad way to start!

I think your argument (and mine) is falling on deaf ears.

Or perhaps something is impeding the hearing?

49 seconds in to the video when he is discussing "those in power", exactly whom do you think he is referencing ???

You might like Trump for other reasons, which you think are more important, but it doesn't clear you of supporting a racist which he clearly is.

And you ain't black if you don't vote for Biden...

I guess that makes you a Racist too, eh? Now which one of the two is clearly showing their Racism??? Hell, even the VP pick called Biden a racist along with his policies. Are you saying Kamala Harris is wrong and that Joe Biden has done more for the Black Community in 47 years than Trump has done in 3 1/2 years???

Or perhaps something is impeding the hearing?

I understand that a lack of any obstruction in the way  will cause sound waves to continue in their progression without impediment, therefore I believe there is actually something missing rather than blocking the message...

even the VP pick called Biden a racist 

Liar..... No she didn't.  Busted again.  Not even word salad this time.

You use to be good at debating CK.  I can only think you've lost your edge because you're trying to defend the  the indefensible in Trump. 

In one, out the other? Without the impediment of gray matter?

LOL!

The reason that people give you a hard time is because you make an excuse for every single bigoted and idiotic thing Trump does. 

Nah, the people here that give me a hard time are real bigots.   They can't accept the idea that someone doesn't goosestep in exact unison with their preferred narratives, so they get triggered, possibly TDS ridden and act out against the folks who have the temerity to have a different opinion than they do.

That said, this thread isn't about me John.   If you really want to have a discussion about the pro's and con's of being Sparty On vs John Russell i'll be glad to participate but otherwise keep me out of this discussion

Thx

I thought that you and yours decried any and all ratings by SPLC.

Are you saying their assessment is wrong in this case?  Got links to prove it?

"The Tea Party yesterday = The Trump Party today"

"Only they are a lot more nastier and meaner"

Those teabaggers certainly are.  

"Blaming judges because they are Mexican, Going after Gold Star parents, failing to condemn white supremacist's while they campaign for him, the central park five.... it goes on and on."

I don't know if this is racist, but accepting QANons' support is really out there.  

They're considered domestic terrorists.  tRump said there are some fine folks in the QANon crowd.  

They're whackjobs, crazy as ****houserats, bat****crazy, nuttier than a fruitcake.  

No she didn't.  Busted again. 

From a transcript of the debate:

So, on the issue of race, I couldn’t agree more that this is an issue that is still not being talked about truthfully and honestly. I—there is not a black man I know, be he a relative, a friend or a coworker who has not been the subject of some form of profiling or discrimination. Growing up, my sister and I had to deal with the neighbor who told us her parents couldn’t play with us because she—because we were black. And I will say also that—that in this campaign, we’ve also heard—and I’m going to now direct this to Vice President Biden. I do not believe you are a racist and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.

Now why do you think she found it necessary to stress that she doesn't believe him to be a racist other than to sugar coat what she is actually doing--calling him a racist because of all the things he's done to hurt the Black community ??? Which she then goes on to call him out for and which the entire country agrees are racist policies aimed at the Black communities. I know, I know...it is so hard to see the Racial Jungle with all those trees in the way.

Those teabaggers certainly are.  

ssshhhhh!!!! We're not allowed to use that word!

Now why do you think she found it necessary to stress that she doesn't believe him to be a racist other than to sugar coat what she is actually doing--calling him a racist because of all the things he's done to hurt the Black community ??? Which she then goes on to call him out for and which the entire country agrees are racist policies aimed at the Black communities. I know, I know...it is so hard to see the Racial Jungle with all those trees in the way.

Isn't it rather odd that we are supposedly racist ourselves because we support a racist Trump (either implied or explicitly told), but no one is racist for supporting a racist Biden?

And if they are both racist--either by actions or support of those who are racist--should perhaps the scope of that racism and its effects on its victims be under examination?

should perhaps the scope of that racism and its effects on its victims be under examination?

Now that wouldn't do at all...comparing millions imprisoned to millions put to work to determine who is more Racist. Perish the thought!

Now that wouldn't do at all...comparing millions imprisoned to millions put to work to determine who is more Racist. Perish the thought!

I was thinking more along the lines of comparing denying some housing to a few folks (admittingly bad) to institutional policies and law effecting every member of a race in some way (undeniably worse).

Yes!

So you're heralding a man who failed in his obligations and duties. Why? 

Seriously CK, do you think that you're making a cogent argument by misrepresenting what Jones said?

Why not quote Jones and let his own words speak for themselves and let everyone see how you twisted them?

Why not quote Jones and let his own words speak for themselves and let everyone see how you twisted them?

ROFLMAO!!!   (emphasis added)  You really need to try harder...

"I'm a man of color, and I'm a lifelong Democrat too. You may be wondering, 'Why is a lifelong Democrat speaking at the Republican National Convention?' And that's a fair question, and here's your answer: The Democratic Party does not want Black people to leave their mental plantation ," said Georgia state Representative Vernon Jones during the convention.

their mental plantation

You realize he is calling people stupid...

49 seconds in to the video when he is discussing "those in power", exactly whom do you think he is referencing ???

Wow. Are you actually trying to claim that Obama's eulogy supports your bullshit? 

You post two different articles, NEITHER of which have video or audio and then try to pretend that you're making an argument.

Weak sauce CK. 

You post two different articles, NEITHER of which have video or audio and then try to pretend that you're making an argument.

You need to adjust your browser settings because they work just fine. Do you need help with that?

Are you saying their assessment is wrong in this case? 

No, I'm saying I find it hypocritical for you to rely on a source that you and yours demonize. 

Oh I get it, when she says one thing, you interpret it to mean the opposite and expect everyone to follow your 'logic'.

You realize he is calling people stupid...

Considering that Blacks voting Democratic are actually voting against themselves , I would say that is stupid too

Of course we can throw in a little peer pressure too...

Here is a little more inconvenient truth for you to digest...

I'm saying I find it hypocritical for you to rely on a source that you and yours demonize. 

So you are saying that the NBPP is indeed a Racist organization and that they are supporting Trump?

So now you are going to use a right wing tabloid from the UK...

If you actually think donald is going to win the Black popular vote, I would say you believe in conspiracy theories.

Since there are some who are too stupid to see what she did there, or are blithely ignoring it to justify their support of someone whose actions alone prove him waaaay more racist than Trump, i find it necessary to point it out in no uncertain terms.  Want some more proof of Biden's racism???

Needless to say the mental contortions at the end of that linked video are hilarious, and yet oddly familiar...

No way in hell is Joe Biden racist much less more racist than tRump.

That's nuts.  

If you actually think donald is going to win the Black popular vote,

Where did I say that??? Nowhere. So quit trying to put words in my mouth Ender.

No way in hell is Joe Biden racist much less more racist than tRump.

Their policies that affect the Black community say different.

That's nuts. 

Really?  Let's see your proof.

If you are not implying that, then why post what you did?

You are the one posting tabloid articles that says Black people are going to turn republican...

You are the one posting tabloid articles that says Black people are going to turn republican...

Quote from the article supporting your assertion please. I must have missed that portion.

Really? The title of the article is about Democrats losing the Black vote to trump.

Then goes on to somehow say that Black voters are disenfranchised with the party.

The title of the article is about Democrats losing the Black vote to trump.

And tell me, how much has his support in the Black vote gone up since he was elected? Does this mean that the Black vote will turn Republican?  Hardly; so again, cite your claim from the article, or admit you were misstating the articles claims.

So your tabloid article from another country claiming Black voters are disenfranchised with the party, is not stating it accurately?

If they leave the party, where would they go?

I can insinuate all day long. Does that mean my intent is not true or clear?

You need to adjust your browser settings because they work just fine. Do you need help with that?

Let's see how my settings work:

You said: 

As to him giving a "   wink and a nudge  " to someone denigrating someone else  who has been calling him a "racist, sexist, nativist"

Which includes a link whose headline reads:

Obama calls Trump ‘racist, nativist and sexist’ at private campaign event, report says

While that article DOES have a video of Obama's eulogy, it does NOT have a video of a 'private campaign event'.

That article also alleges to quote Obama yet those quotes do NOT show Obama CALLING Trump anything. Members need not take my word for it, they can go READ it for themselves. 

The headline to your second link is:

Obama rips Trump and says he tries to ‘tap into fears and use them in racist, sexist ways’

I invite everyone to note the distinct difference in those two headlines. 

Now while the headline to your second link is more accurate about what your first link quotes Obama as saying, it STILL does not have an video of a 'private campaign event'.

Should they choose to, everyone can go to the timeline you cited for the Obama eulogy [first link]  and hear for themselves that Obama DID NOT call Trump a "racist, sexist, nativist'. In fact, Obama did not use ANY of those terms nor did he mention Trump. 

In short, the claims in you post are bullshit. 

So do you still think I need to adjust my browser settings?  

Since there are some who are too stupid to see what she did there, or are blithely ignoring it to justify their support of someone whose actions alone prove him waaaay more racist than Trump, i find it necessary to point it out in no uncertain terms. 

Except your 'terms' are galactically uncertain and fabricated.

So you are saying that the NBPP is indeed a Racist organization and that they are supporting Trump?

You JUST quoted what I said. Why try to put your own unworthy words in my mouth? 

Not all Trump supporter are racist, but all racists support Trump......

Do you remember this comment made by FLYNAVY that started our discourse?  You jumped in to the conversation and now you have been left hanging in the wind by your own words....and those of your fellow compatriot that you sought to defend!

Except your 'terms' are galactically uncertain and fabricated.

Your lack of comprehension of the subtleties of PC speech are your own problem, not mine. It does tend to explain how easily some people can be  are confused by their discourse though.

it does NOT have a video of a 'private campaign event'.

Guess what the video is from??? A PRIVATE FUNDRAISER...DOH!!!

In short, the claims in you post are bullshit. 

Suuure...to anyone  who prides themselves as being a  Democrat blowhard!

So do you still think I need to adjust my browser settings? 

Nah, you've already shown it isn't any technical difficulty causing the problem...

f they leave the party, where would they go?

Hopefully to (I)ndependent so that BOTH Party's couldn't "count" on their vote--they would actually have to earn it!

Do you remember this comment made by FLYNAVY that started our discourse?  

Why yes CK, YES I do. It was:

Traitor is a term to be used only used in war.

Since when?

one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

My question was:

one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty

So whose trust did Jones betray or what obligation or duty was he false to? Please be specific. 

That was the beginning of our conversation. 

 You jumped in to the conversation and now you have been left hanging in the wind by your own words....

How so CK? 

and those of your fellow compatriot that you sought to defend!

I didn't seek to defend anyone.

YOU chose the definition of traitor that YOU felt suited your agenda yet you still couldn't support it.  You couldn't show that Jones betray anyone's trust and you sure as hell couldn't explain why you heralded a man who you claim failed to meet his obligation and duty. 

Looks to me like you're the one left hanging. 

Your lack of comprehension of the subtleties of PC speech are your own problem, not mine. It does tend to explain how easily some people can be  are confused by their discourse though.

No CK. I merely read the statement and interpreted it without self serving vitriol. 

Guess what the video is from??? A PRIVATE FUNDRAISER...DOH!!!

What video CK? Post a fucking link. 

Suuure...to anyone  who prides themselves as being a  Democrat blowhard!

Nope, for anyone who reads with comprehension. 

Nah, you've already shown it isn't any technical difficulty causing the problem...

Nah, I've shown that I'm not the one with the problem. 

OH.... So she DIDN'T call him a racist..... even though you said she did.  So you now admit to the lie...????  No of course not..... but it would be nice if you took responsibility for what you write.

On another note, its a pity, so many out there it seems only want to see monkeys in those racial jungle trees as described.  White privilege is an ugly thing don't you think? 

No, all you have to do is show that he meets the definition YOU chose. You haven't and your can't. 

The SPLC is a terrorist inspiring hate group run by racists and misogynistic men who launder contributions abroad.  They falsely label legitimate conservative and Christian groups as so called hate over policy disagreements.  It’s the SPLC that is a hate group.  

They are not a hate group.  They identify hate groups.  Largely right-wing.  

Forward the memo to CK Xx.

You couldn't show that Jones betray anyone's trust

So the Democrats wanted him to endorse Trump instead of Biden?  Gotcha. Wanna buy a bridge in the Arizona desert too?

and you sure as hell couldn't explain why you heralded a man who you claim failed to meet his obligation and duty.

Uhm, because he left the Democrat Plantation!  I guess you missed that! I have no problem giving someone who betrayed the trust of those who are fucking him by ditching them. Do you? Or maybe you believe someone should stay in an abusive relationship just because their partner trusts them not to leave???

Except your 'terms' are galactically uncertain and fabricated.

So Biden didn't brag about his signature anti-crime bill that ended up putting more Blacks behind bars than anyone else had managed to do since??? Riiight......

but it would be nice if you took responsibility for what you write.

I stand behind everything I write and do not try to move the goal posts to fit my agenda like some people do here.

White privilege is an ugly thing don't you think?

Wouldn't know because I'm still trying to get that term defined. Care to tell us exactly what it is?

You haven't and your can't.

I have, and you just didn't comprehend...

So the Democrats wanted him to endorse Trump instead of Biden?  Gotcha. 

Still can't prove a betrayal I see. 

Wanna buy a bridge in the Arizona desert too?

Nah, it looks fine at Lake Havasu City. 

Uhm, because he left the Democrat Plantation!  I guess you missed that! I have no problem giving someone who betrayed the trust of those who are fucking him by ditching them. Do you? Or maybe you believe someone should stay in an abusive relationship just because their partner trusts them not to leave???

He DID?

Got a link showing that he 'left the Democrat Plantation' CK?

His Website says he's still a Democrat.

Looks like he indeed DID decide to ' stay in an abusive relationship'. 

Still waiting for your 'certain terms' CK. 

Are you under some illusion that your comments are too deep for me to comprehend CK?

That's pretty fucking funny since the shallowness of the shit you post here is epic. 

Got a link showing that he 'left the Democrat Plantation' CK?

Sure!

“Turn the lights off, I have left the plantation,” Jones said.

Hmmm I wonder why:

Looks like he indeed DID decide to ' stay in an abusive relationship'. 

Could it be:

“I don’t plan to leave the Democratic Party because somebody’s got to be in there to hold them accountable — hold them accountable to how they are treating black people [and] root out the bigotry,” he said.

That's pretty fucking funny since the shallowness of the shit you post here is epic. 

You never fail to disappoint! Here is an idea...stay away!

Still waiting for your 'certain terms' CK.

No you're not. You are trying to figure out a way to get me to give you another way to violate the CoC and get away with it again. Guess what?  I'm not playing your game. DO NOT ADDRESS ME AGAIN--EVER. Stay the fuck off of my seeds and articles. Your presence is no longer wanted or welcomed.

This thread has gone off the rails. You both better stop with the personal comments. Only warning.

Sure!

The NEXT day he retracted his resignation. 

twitter

Fail. 

If I were Pelosi, I'd make him stand in the hall the next time the Democrats have a meeting. 

Buzz, Vernon Jones is not a member of the US Congress. He is a one term back bench member of the lower house of the Florida legislature. He is basically a nobody going nowhere who is only a Republican for pay...

Good thing.  How much do you think he was paid for his endorsement speech?

Vernon Jones is not a member of the US Congress.

Which automatically raises his standing in society.

Actually, he is all of that but in Georgia, not Florida. 

The president made mention of his predecessor, Barack Obama, and a man in the crowd yelled, quite audibly, that Obama was a "MONKEY," to which Trump, grinning, said "Let's be nice!" to a chorus of laughs. Warmed by the yuks, his smile widened and he added, "Only in North Carolina." Which is not, strictly speaking, true. Though it might be slightly less false when Donald Trump is in North Carolina.

This was yesterday, in the speech where Trump accepted the Republican nomination. 

One of his fans, an attendee at his acceptance speech, made a grossly racial slur about a political rival, and the president of the United States made a joke about it. 

Remember when a woman at one his town halls said Obama was "an Arab" she could not trust and John McCain told the woman that no, Obama was a good man, a family man.  

That was then. Now we have a Trump making a joke when one of his audience makes a racial slur against Obama. The difference is glaring, but the truth is some Trumpsters think McCain was a chump. 

Pretty ugly times.

Yeah, unless you agree with the ugliness and think its funny because it supports this narrative or that which one tends to agree with right?

[deleted - do not drive traffic away from one seed to another this way.]

Once again, the hypocrisy on display here with some holier than thou liberals is exponential and make no mistake, it is FUBAR.

[Deleted]

Sparty.... I don't agree with the ugliness.  Making fun of people with handicaps, going after the heritage of a Gold Star Family, Etc. Etc. Etc.

What you call holier than thou....... is just simple human decency.

Talk is cheap and you've got zero room to talk.   

And regardless of how many posts that get censored, you know exactly what i'm talking about.

[ deleted - do not drive traffic away from one seed to another this way. ]

SP, I think it is worth leaving in as evidence submitted to make the point. I don't mind it being there.

Racism in my book in any shape fashion or form is ugly Sparty, and that's the topic here.  Whatever word salad you put together doesn't change the facts that Trump is a racist and a vote for Trump either willingly ignores or supports that racism.  

Talk is cheap and you've got zero room to talk.   

You're making less sense than usual....

Lol ..... thanks for the laugh Navy

McCain was a chump. 

No but here is a picture of him

images.app.goo.gl

A State Representative who happens to claim to be a Democrat, from one of the deepest Red States, is Republicans response to the numerous Republicans including Republican governors, former governors, former Republican Secretary of State and former Trump officials who spoke at the DNC and support Biden along with the 70 senior officials who served under Republican administrations who signed a letter calling Trump “unfit to lead” while outlining their support for Biden. But Republicans got a lone Democrat State representative to regurgitate their lies and sad divisive talking points.

/ golf clap... "Way to go guys!"

What's even funnier is that some Republicans think their parade of lies is "winning". Hilarious.

Thank you for not disappointing me. Now would you like to know his reasons for endorsing Trump as stated in an interview in July? Tell me his assessment is factually wrong and I will wait patiently for your presentation of facts proving him so.

Some of the best race card players in the world were and are the Democrats.

From owning slaves to founding KKK to supporting BLM violence, they have a legacy to be ashamed of

From owning slaves to founding KKK to supporting BLM violence, they have a legacy to be ashamed of

And they were, back in the 1960's, which is why they changed their policy as a party, wrote, passed and signed into law the civil rights act and voting rights act that required all the Southern ex-confederate States that had long histories of denying the vote to black Americans to get pre-clearance for any voting laws. This obviously angered the Southern conservative Democrats who had worked so hard at denying black Americans their equal representation.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would much rather support someone like former Senator Robert Byrd who at one time was a hard core racist who not only had a change of heart but became a strong advocate for civil rights who the NAACP said "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" than to support the party who tries to avoid mentioning race or racial inequality and keeps claiming they never did anything racist but also stay silent when it comes to fixing systemic inequities or even denies any exist at all.

The parties changed over the last 60 years, this is undeniable. Those former Conservative Democrats or "Dixiecrats" didn't move and most didn't change their personal philosophies, prejudices and conservative ideology. Those Southern Democrats who wrapped themselves in the confederate flag, erected confederate monuments and proclaimed themselves "Rebels" didn't vanish from the south. They were the majority in the South back then and still are today, they just started voting for the party that best represented their racist conservative values. It took 30 years for the shift from Dixie blue to Dixie red, but by 1994 it was a done deal. The last vestiges of the Southern Democrat in the House and Senate flipped and changed parties in the mid-1990's.

Today, we have those same folk wrapping themselves in the confederate flag, defending the confederate monuments their ancestors erected, denying systemic racism even exists, crafting disenfranchising voting laws that target black Americans with "surgical precision", defending the killings of unarmed black men by labeling them all "thugs" while also trying to shift any blame for their racist past onto their opponents. Perhaps we should rename them "Dixpublicans" as that seems to be most fitting on several levels.

Thanks for your comment but did you hear that  swoosh? It was like a pterodactyl flying over the heads of those that will continue to insist that the Democratic Party has not changed in the last 60 years.

Hey DP, I don't why you bother to type this all out yet again. It's a pointless exercise trying to debate anyone that uses the same false talking points. I'd rather just remind them they are defending a President that's good with people chanting, "Jews will not replace us!", "White Power!" and "He's a monkey!" 

I babysat Moses

That "swoosh" that just went of over their heads was more like a category 5 hurricane than a simple "swoosh" .....

That's pretty much what DP said.....but once again you skimmed his comment instead of reading it thoroughly. The Northern Democrats along with the Republican Party got the Civil Rights Act passed....and Johnson, a Southern Democrat I might add....signed it into law

It is like they sick their fingers in their ears.

Butt, butt, seventy five years ago.....

Blah, blah, blah .... still waiting for real proof that says a "LARGE" chunk of conservatives feel that way but feel free to keep blowing your dog whistles until such a time that someone can actually prove it.   In the meantime keep tooting your partisan horns.

Good luck and i won't hold my breath for real, unbiased proof on this one.   Not for one second ....

those that will continue to insist that the Democratic Party has not changed in the last 60 years.

Uhm, don't believe the hype...

And how many racist Dixiecrats did Nixon win for the GOP? Turns out, virtually none. Among the racist Dixiecrats, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina was the sole senator to defect to the Republicans — and he did this long before Nixon’s time. Only one Dixiecrat congressman, Albert Watson of South Carolina , switched to the GOP. The rest, more than 200 Dixiecrat senators, congressmen, governors and high elected officials, all stayed in the Democratic Party.

The progressive notion of a Dixiecrat switch is a myth. Yet it is myth that continues to be promoted, using dubious case examples. Though the late Sens. Jesse Helms of North Carolina and John Tower of Texas and former Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott all switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP, none of these men was a Dixiecrat.  

The South, as a whole, became Republican during the 1980s and 1990s. This had nothing to do with Nixon; it was because of Ronald Reagan and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s “ Contract with America .” The conservative appeal to patriotism, anti-communism, free markets, pro-life and Christianity had far more to do with the South’s movement into the GOP camp than anything related to race.

It was like a pterodactyl flying over the heads of those that will continue to insist that the Democratic Party has not changed in the last 60 years.

I just find it amazing that some can, with a straight face, proclaim that those Southern conservative Democrats from pre-1964 and their descendants who wrapped themselves in the confederate flag, supported confederate monuments, supported segregation, tried to prevent blacks from voting and tried to shred the voting rights act are totally different than the Southern conservative Republicans today who wrap themselves in the confederate flag, support confederate monuments, support re-segregating schools, craft voter ID laws with the specific intention of keeping blacks from voting and literally fought till they shredded the voting rights act.

thedailybeast

nymag

whyy

reuters

Do Republicans really believe the rest of Americans are so stupid they'll believe this bullshit narrative? No wonder they ridicule higher education, they can't have their base learning actual American history or they risk losing their control.

That's why I pretty much ignore the idiocy that they display on a daily basis regarding this issue

An opinion piece?

It was the REPUBLICANS that got the CRA passed.

What a laugh.

Democrats authored the civil rights act, brought it up for a vote and then passed it with a Democrat majority and then a Democrat President signed it into law. Whoever you're learning your US history from is lying to you, but I'm not surprised. Republicans seem to love the poorly educated.

1964 Civil Rights Act vote by party and region:

The House of Representatives:

• Southern Democrats: 8–87   (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

The Senate:

• Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)

So 199 Democrat Senators and Congressmen voted FOR the civil rights act vs 175 Republicans voting for it. Notice not a single Southern Republican voted for it. Sure, there were only 11 Southern Republicans, but there were nearly that many (9) Southern Democrats who actually supported the civil rights act. 

So, the facts prove you wrong. Perhaps you should do a smidgen of homework before just believing some bullshit right wing talking points from Alex Jones or Glen Beck.

The question that I ask is, if the democratic party is so racist today why do the majority of minorities vote democratic, this includes, blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, Asians, Pacific Islanders, and if you want to count religious minorities you can include Jews and Muslims. 

I guess it's the unlimited ''free stuff'' that we get. When you find my free stuff please send it to me. I haven't seen it in 80 years. 

Perhaps you forgot a few facts as usual....

By party [ edit ]

The record of the roll call vote  kept by the  House Clerk  on final passage of the bill

The original House version: ^[24]

• Democratic Party: 152–96   (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34   (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate: ^[25]

• Democratic Party: 44–23   (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version: ^[24]

• Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House: ^[24]

• Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)

en.wikipedia

Democrats authored the civil rights act,

It was authored by Congress, 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

 Perhaps you should do a smidgen of homework

You should listen to your own advice.

they are defending a President that's good with people chanting, "Jews will not replace us!", "White Power!" and "He's a monkey!" 

pretty good summary

I have a question for you Sunshine. How many southern Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?  

That figure would be ZERO. There is an article that was in a British newspapaer or magazine, if I remember correctly, during the 1990's that lays out quite exactly how the parties and regions voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Somewhat similar to what you and DP posted just now.  I have posted that magazine article about a dozen times on NT, when every now and then some ignorant person tries to say that Democrats opposed the bill. 

SOUTHERNERS OPPOSED THE BILL. 

A higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans voted aye for the Civil Rights Act from both the north and the south. This is not a guess, it is not a hoax, it is the fact. 

When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator ( John Tower  of Texas) led by  Richard Russell  (D-GA) launched a  filibuster  to prevent its passage. ^[18]  Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about  social equality  and  intermingling and amalgamation of the races  in our (Southern) states." ^[19]

United States President  Lyndon B. Johnson  signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Among the guests behind him is  Martin Luther King Jr.

Strong opposition to the bill also came from Senator  Strom Thurmond  (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the  Reconstruction  proposals and actions of the  radical Republican  Congress." ^[20]

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators  Hubert Humphrey  (D-MN),  Mike Mansfield  (D-MT),  Everett Dirksen  (R-IL), and  Thomas Kuchel  (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation. ^[21]

en.wikipedia

Without Republican support the bill would not have been passed as XD commented.  And as you see in the facts a much larger percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats

Some simple research on your part.

What people who make your argument fail to realize or understand is that in 1964 Democrats were a majority of members of Congress from the south. That ENTIRELY explains why you think Republicans were responsible for the passage. Frankly, if there had been more Republicans in the south it might have failed as zero southern republicans voted for the bill. 

Today, the map is different than it was in 1964. Trump is expected to sweep most of the southern states. The north, where the vast majority of support for the Civil Rights Act came from in 1964, is expected to largely vote for Biden. 

I'm kind of at a loss as to why Republican backers bring up the Civil Rights vote in Congress. A knowledgeable look at it doesnt help them. 

What people who make your argument fail

You are attempting to make a foolish argument not me.  I only presented what the facts are.

LOL. Well, you presented partial facts that obscure the true situation of the vote on the Civil Rights Act.  If you are happy with that god bless ya. 

LOL. Well, you presented partial facts that obscure the true situation of the vote on the Civil Rights Act.  If you are happy with that god bless ya.

You are free to discredit the facts.  The vote is the vote, without the Republican vote the Democrats would not have been able to pass a bill.  Whatever you may want to conjure, it doesn't change the facts.  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than Democrats.

Unlike DP, I and XD provided a link to facts.  You can use the link if you wish.

It was authored by Congress

“Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act,” President Kennedy said, “to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law."

Eight days later, on June 19, 1963, Emmanuel Celler, a New York Democrat, introduced H.R. 7152—what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964—to the House of Representatives. But the political fight over the bill's passage was just beginning.

Kennedy knew that he would need support from both sides of the aisle to ensure the bill's passage, and wasted no time recruiting allies to his purpose. One such ally was William McCulloch, a Republican congressman from a conservative district in rural Ohio who would become one of the civil rights movement’s most ardent supporters. During President Kennedy’s administration, McCulloch worked with the Democrat-led White House to ensure Republican support of the Civil Rights Act in Congress."

smithsonianmag

So a Democrat President requested the Democrat majority craft the civil rights act, then recruited a few Republicans to work with them on crafting the bill so that Northern Republicans would vote for it along with Northern Democrats. Then a Democrat introduced the bill to congress, the majority of Democrats voted for it and a Democrat President signed it into law. How exactly is this supposed to be somehow credited to Republicans passing the bill? Just because they didn't side with the Southern Democrat minority and supported Northern Democrats in passing the bill they expect to get all the credit while lying about the majority of Democrats claiming they somehow didn't support it? It's a hilarious theory they have, and one only poorly educated dumb shits would believe, so I'm not all that surprised such a sad narrative is still being thrown around among them.

An opinion piece?

Facts are facts. Interpretation of those facts are always opinions.

SOUTHERNERS OPPOSED THE BILL. 

Well, to be specific white Southern conservatives opposed the bill, just like white Southern conservatives opposed the voting rights act which they finally got their conservative Supreme Court majority to overturn in their favor, where they no longer have to get their discriminatory voting laws checked by the courts before they can be enacted. As soon as the white Southern conservatives killed the voting rights act they were immediately back at crafting voting laws that targeted black Americans with "surgical precision" the courts have found. They are the same southern conservatives and their descendants who fought both the civil rights act and voting rights act 60 years ago, they are now Dixpublicans.

I dont need a link. I have read the relevant article a dozen times, before every time I had to post it on NT. 

Kennedy knew that he would need support from both sides of the aisle to ensure the bill's passage, and wasted no time recruiting allies to his purpose. 

Well of course he did, Democrats where busy fillibustering it. 

Believe what you wish, without the majority of the Repubulican vote in both houses the CRA would never have passed. 

That Democrat president who said I will have those n word voting for the next two hundred years would not have been able to sign the bill.

You do know that only Congress passes bills.

As Ender asked...an opinion piece?

Look, CK, if you want to refute my comment, please provide factual sources not opinion pieces. I thought you knew better than that

yeah, it is just freaking terrible that some now-red states in the South don't have to jump through hoops to comply with laws designed to prevent the kind of laws Democrats passed.

I babysat Moses

Too funnyTG!  Were we neighbors  back then???

Possibly. Were you the one that built a pyramid for his kids in the backyard?

The piece presents the facts as well as expresses an opinion of the facts. Which facts are in doubt?  The actual lack of Party switching taking place? As noted, only one did and that was Strom Thurmond.

Uhm, don't believe the hype

Then you link an opinion piece by D'Souza.

Facts are facts...but when someone twists the facts for their own purposes they become distorted

When you find my free stuff please send it to me.

Well, it isn't exactly free...

1) Quit working

2) Have  bunch of kids

3) Kick the daddy out of the house

I dont need a link.

I am sure you have no use for one.

Then you link an opinion piece by D'Souza.

Why not counter one opinion with another? Do you have any facts to contest what D'Souza says???

Yep...

Democratic defectors, known as the “Dixiecrats,” started a switch to the Republican party in a movement that was later fueled by a so-called "Southern strategy." history

Posted before, will probably have to be posted again.

Amazing to me what people want to willingly deny, even though the truth is there.

The dixiecrats started the move as early as 1948...

Especially an opinion piece from a man that is a known conspiracy theorist, was forced to resign from a Christian college for his supposed sexual escapades and plead guilty to campaign finance fraud... 

In other words...a loon

Exactly. A loon donald pardoned and now he is trying to rewrite history.

Y'all beat me to the punch about that whackjob D'Souza.

The dixiecrats started the move as early as 1948...

Thank you for showing exactly how wrong you are with that comment because if this was all about "racist" Southerners, it wouldn't have taken over 40 years to happen...

Everything takes time. Nothing happens overnight.

Read the article. Not all left or changed right away.

By the way, pointing to any switch being a myth by only using the metric of reps that changed is in itself a false analogy as I am talking about the whole, as in the voting public.

Also using the presidential elections only as a metric is also a misnomer as it conveniently dismisses any state or rep elections.

Not all left or changed right away.

That's progress. Last time you tried to touch this topic you defended a fake LBJ quote about how the Civil Right Act supposedly immediately turned the south conservative for a generation.  

The south has gradually become more Republican as the Democrats became more radically leftist. That's true. What's also indisputable is became less racist and more prosperous , it became more Republican. 

You mention the Dixiecrats as some sort of conservative movement, but it wasn't. It contained  liberals who remained liberals in good standing and ended up supporting LBJ's big society. Racism isn't what divided southern conservative from southern liberals. Democrats were more than happy to keep racist southern liberals in the fold for decades after the Civil Rights Act. 

The gradual movement towards the the Republican Party (at least liberal here finally recognize that it was gradual and not caused by the Civil Rights Act) coincided with the Democrats embrace of radical leftism.  It wasn't until the mid 90s that Republicans were able to win many state legislatures and a majority of congressional delegates. In the 70's the Democrats became the party of abortion, acid and amnesty while Republicans focused on middle class prosperity, opposing abortion and supporting the military.  Those are the issues the Democrats lost the south on.  And the party has only continued its furious march to the left since then.  A moderate like the 90s version of   Bill Clinton, who did well in the South, could never be a Democrat today.

What's more, and this should be common sense, if the movement towards the Republican party was a reaction  based on race, then it would have began in the most racist areas of the deep south. Yet the evidence shows the movement towards the Republican party came on the peripheral states  of the deep south, and in the cities and suburbs. It was in  the isolated, rural  areas of the deep south that the racist democrats maintained their grip on power the longest. Again, this is all backed by actual analysis of voting trends, although  objective data is apparently  worthless to those who cling bitterly to the false narrative that reinforce their racialist worldview.  

  It's no wonder why so many modern progressives refuse to acknowledge the reality of why the south gradually changed parties as the Democrats became more radical. They are raced obsessed and, like Nazis, see only simplistic   racial explanations for everything.  They literally are incapable of thinking outside the race obsessed box their minds are stuck in. So a faulty narrative that falls apart under the most cursory of scrutiny gets treated like divine scripture because it reinforces their simplistic worldview, which they reinforce by  mindlessly reciting to each other so they don't have to think. 

What a load...

Trying to blame it on abortion does not fly.

The ones not facing reality are the ones trying to rewrite history.

Trying to blame it on abortion does not fly.

I'm not "blaming" it on anything.  I know progressives only see the world in racial terms, but, as I pointed out, the world and the parties reaction to it, did not remain static since 1948.  Fixating on race, (again, I understand that's what progressives do) and pretending  the Democrats positions  have remained exactly the same since 1948 (or any other year) is idiocy. The democrats lost the south as they became radicalized. The proof is actually in the data. 

The proof is in the pudding. As the south became less racist, it became more Republican. 

First off, I hope you realize that even if what you said was true, you are basically backing up what I have been saying.

The conservative Democrats switched to where their so called conservative values would be more embraced.

And no matter what your opinion is, I live in the deep south and I know a lot of people's racist tendencies and I know where their votes lie.

Without Republican support the bill would not have been passed as XD commented.

Would it have passed without Democrat support? You know, Democrat President asking the Democrat majority in congress to craft the bill, Democrat majority in house voting for the bill, Democrat majority in the Senate voting for the bill and then a Democrat President signing it into law... Apparently to you that's all the little stuff and the minority Republican party who voted with the majority of Democrats should be seen as the party who passed the bill.

The conservative Democrats switched to where their so called conservative values would be more e

no kidding. Conservatives tend to vote for Conservative party.  as the Democratic Party turned to radicalism and became hostile to moderates in the 70s, it lost conservatives in the south and elsewhere.  

As the old guard racist liberals died off, republican fortunes 
Improved. Your mistake is believing racism is a conservative value. That’s simply ignorant.

as I pointed out, some  of the racist signers   of the southern manifesto Remained liberals in good standing, supporting LBJs great society decades later. Death removed them from the Democratic Party.  Racism and liberalism went hand in hand in the Jim Crow  south and Racist liberals remained Democrats in good standing for decades after the civil rights acts.  

So now all racists are Liberals?

I suppose you can back this up.

Why not counter one opinion with another?

I thought the point was to avoid believing hype. Guess not...

Do you have any facts to contest what D'Souza says???

The best way to contest D'Souza is to ignore him. 

So now all racists are Liberals

Nice strawman. 

When you find my free stuff please send it to me.

Well, it isn't exactly free...

1) Quit working

2) Have  bunch of kids

3) Kick the daddy out of the house

So do you think that people actually go about this as a plan?

And who would these people be? Only the women apparently. 

Kind of a sweeping generalization of the facts I would say.

So now you are stating that the Republicans are not racist bigots or whatever name calling rant you dream up?  The fact that about 80% of the Republicans voted in favor of passage while the Democrats could only convince about 60% of their caucus to give blacks civil rights is quite evident who the racist are. 

Well, it isn't exactly free...

1) Quit working

2) Have  bunch of kids

3) Kick the daddy out of the house

Well done, that is the perfect example of Trailer Park Trash. 

"Well, it isn't exactly free...

1) Quit working

2) Have  bunch of kids

3) Kick the daddy out of the house"

Where is this happening?

Kavika is right, that is the definition of trailer park trash, mostly white folks.

I'm sure you meant it differently, a dog whistle perhaps?

I'm sure you meant it differently, a dog whistle perhaps?

That's a racist statement since requirements are based on economic and familial situations, not skin color--which I specifically did not mention since I am well aware of  what race compromises the largest recipient..,,by numbers, but not by race percentages .

FAIL!  Try again...

Kind of a sweeping generalization of the facts I would say.

Uhm, NO! Facts are just that ...facts!

Welfare Demographics

• More women (22 percent) participated in a food assistance program than men (12 percent) at some point in their lives. [Source: Pew Research Center ]
• 39 percent of children under the age of 18 participated in some form of government assistance program in 2012. [Source: United States Census Bureau ]
• On average 50 percent of female lead households participated in a form of government assistance programs. [Source: United States Census Bureau ]

What facts have you provided?

That one source is from 2012.  

What does that have to do with 'free stuff'?

Well done, that is the perfect example of Trailer Park Trash.

Section 8 Housing recipients in general actually. Unless you think of our inner city slums as "Trailer Park Trash" that is...

But as long as you are allowed to use Racial slurs like that, maybe Perrie will allow you to refer to those inner city slum dwellers by the " N " word while you're casting aspersions based on incomes and race...

Section 8 housing isn't limited to black folks like you are implying.  

That one source is from 2012.

Feel free to post updated statistics that counter the argument made.

Feel free to post updated statistics to counter the argument made.  

Section 8 housing isn't limited to black folks like you are implying.

Where did i state or imply that? Matter of fact, I've already acknowledged that the majority of people on Welfare are WHITE!

Try again with the faux outrage...

Not exactly. You posted:

1) Quit working:

That is not true. I know as a fact that many people work and still get some government assistance. More women because they can't work the hours that men do because they have kids. How do I know this? Since I ran the food program for my school, and that is considered gov. assistance. 

2) Have bunch of kids:

I'm sorry, but where is the fact for that? I don't see a number per household.

3) Kick the daddy out of the house:

How do you know that daddy just didn't up and leave? Where is the fact for that?

Also, from your own link, it says that most get from the gov. healthcare and some housing assistance and food. 35% leave in 2 years or less and 35% leave in 4 years or less. That says that these are not lifestyle choices as you implied, but circumstantial.  

1)

Worst Effects on the Poor

Unfortunately, these distortionary effects hit poor and near-poor households the hardest. As Gene Steuerle of the Urban Institute has documented , phase-outs of programs like cash welfare, food stamps, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and Obamacare subsidies mean households making roughly $10,000-$40,000 can lose almost as much in government benefits as they gain in added income by working additional hours.

The new NBER study further quantifies this phenomenon. It finds that, both over the current year and over their lifetimes, individuals in the lowest income quintile (the bottom 20 percent) face higher marginal tax rates than those in the next three income quintiles (from the 20th percentile of income through the 80th percentile). Essentially, when taking the phase-out of government benefits into account, the poor face more disincentives to work than the middle class.

2)

Most states generally vary maximum benefits by family size, paying bigger benefits for larger families. Only Idaho and Wisconsin pay the same maximum benefit regardless of family size.

As a side note, if you do fail to qualify for "extended" coverage in one State, you can move to another and reapply under their program.

3)

Conclusions from Surveys

Our surveys show that the incentives of TANF-eligible women with children to cohabit or marry are affected by TANF program rules.  The way in which incentives are affected depends on the financial resources of the male with whom the woman might cohabit or marry and on the males relationship to the children.  The relevant TANF rules that affect these incentives are those governing eligibility, how the basic grant is structured, how blended families are treated, how unrelated cohabitors are treated, and work rules.

Concerning eligibility, our main finding is that if a male has financial resources, TANF provides the greatest disincentive to form and/or maintain a biological family, and the least disincentive, if not an incentive, to form an unrelated cohabitor family.

Feel free to post contradictory evidence proving any and or all authors information out of date or wrong in general as these are subjects that most people/government agencies/media try to avoid discussing, so current information is a bit harder to find

Thanks.

CK

Section 8 Housing recipients in general actually. Unless you think of our inner city slums as "Trailer Park Trash" that is...

Actually I don't, it was your reference that was derogatory. But you know that.

But as long as you are allowed to use Racial slurs like that, maybe Perrie will allow you to refer to  those inner city slum dwellers by the " N " word while you're casting aspersions based on incomes and race.  

It was you that used the disparaging language/reference towards black people so it's far more likely that you would use the ''N'' word than I would.

I would like to see the link to that information. I will post my rebuttal after that.

I would like to understand how a working mother would make more money working more hours, when that money would just be spent on someone or daycare to watch her kids...

That is part of the problem. They have to wait till the kids are at least school age or have assistance from a grandparent. 

Click on the numbers preceding the quoted text for links to the articles/publications in question.

Actually I don't, it was your reference that was derogatory. But you know that.

To what exactly did you take offense? I stated a generic scenario which by everyone's agreement applies predominately to white people, so I really am curious exactly how you took offense to what was given and proven to be the true steps to getting the "free stuff" you are requesting!

To what exactly did you take offense? I stated a generic scenario which by everyone's agreement applies predominately to white people, so I really am curious exactly how you took offense to what was given and proven to be the true steps to getting the "free stuff" you are requesting!

I didn't take offense. Everyone's agreement that applies to predominately white people...LMAO, who is everybody? 

Actually my question was why are the majority of minorities democrat's if the democratic party is so racist. 

Actually my question was why are the majority of minorities democrat's if the democratic party is so racist.

Good Lord woman lol, that should be in a whole thread of its own on this board because there are many reasons being promoted even though by all rights it should be the opposite that should be true by all accounts of economists...

Good Lord woman lol, that should be in a whole thread of its own on this board because there are many reasons being promoted even though by all rights it should be the opposite that should be true by all accounts of economists...

Perhaps you have a problem with your eyesight but if you look at my avatar and my name it should be obvious to you that I'm a male American Indian, 99.44 % pure Indian. You know one of those minorities you're babbling on about. 

Good Lord woman lol,

Ahem........sorry, but..........    

It's that .56%

OK so first thing is that this came from "The Federalist" which has a long history of disliking federal assistance programs, so let's just say, that there is going to be a bias. 

Number 1 is not wrong when it talks about working v not working by both Urban Institute and the NBER. But their conclusion was not to end the programs, but to change the tax code and make it more advantageous to work and thus give less program money. taxpolicycenter    In fact, the snap program was found to have a huge benefit in the communities that have them and that it ended up a net win: 

Providing access to food stamps for pregnant women and families with children under age five is associated with substantial subsequent gains in productivity, economic self-sufficiency, neighborhood quality, and physical health for those children when they reach adulthood. This is the central finding of  Martha J. Bailey ,  Hilary W. Hoynes ,  Maya Rossin-Slater , and  Reed Walker 's new study,  Is the Social Safety Net a Long-Term Investment? Large-Scale Evidence from the Food Stamps Program   (NBER Working Paper  26942 ), which offers a comprehensive analysis of the long-term consequences of program access.

nber

Number2:

Most states generally vary maximum benefits by family size, paying bigger benefits for larger families. Only Idaho and Wisconsin pay the same maximum benefit regardless of family size.

That is not from a study, but from a site called "The single Mother guide" (.com). The actual facts speak for themselves from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

First of all, please note that the number of children in families receiving assistance is only .3 more than those who don't. That is virtually the same, so the idea that the poor are having more children to suck out more benefits is wrong. Furthermore, I checked and I could not find a single source to back up that families move to get more assistance. In fact, the NBER, implied that families tend to stay in place making the snap programs worthwhile. 

3. Our surveys show that the incentives of TANF-eligible women with children to cohabit or marry are affected by TANF program rules. 

That is The Federalist surveys, which is hardly not biased. The one thing that works against many people is the marriage tax and not federal and state programs. 

Couples in which spouses have similar incomes are more likely to incur marriage penalties than couples in which one spouse earns most of the income, because combining incomes in joint filing can push both spouses into higher tax brackets. taxpolicycenter

With poor families, this is usually the case, since they tend to take min or close to min wage jobs, which fits into this demographics. 

The rest of that is telling us what we all already know. That it is better to keep families together than not. 

Just like the soap.

That's beyond ignorant.

Actually my question was why are the majority of minorities democrat's if the democratic party is so racist. 

As you can see by the deflection they don't want to say what they think on this matter because it will expose them. His response of "by all rights it should be the opposite" betrays their belief which is that they think minorities are stupid and apparently easily tricked into voting against their own interests. It doesn't matter to them that the Democrats are diverse and the people we elect more often reflect what the people in our communities look like because they are from those communities. They grew up there and understand the issues that their minority communities face and know that just electing another white male, which is often the only candidates put forward by Republicans, likely won't solve the complex systemic problems they often face.

But in Republicans minds, that's reverse racism and sexism, not voting for them because they are white male Christians and don't reflect the community they think they should be given control over. Sure, for the last two hundred years we had effectively white male Christian affirmative action where they were the only ones either party put forward for elected positions, but Republicans apparently think that just saying "There is no more racism, anyone eligible can be a candidate" then continuing to select almost all white male Christians is somehow the picture of equality. They have essentially said "We will only base our selections on qualifications, not race. It's just a coincidence that based on our party make up and candidates we support that apparently none of the minorities are qualified, so the best selection, once again, is another white male Christian".

Often those folk believe that just not saying anything about race, not saying anything about gender or inequity is what will really solve things and make it go away. Just vote for their conservative white male candidate and stop examining or exposing the systemic inequities and pretend that they don't exist, just like pretending Covid doesn't exist, and it will just miraculously "go away". What I think many of them really want is for the conversation about inequity to "go away" because they like things as they are, they prefer having a perceived privileged space in society, where their skin color or faith puts them on the pedestal as "real Americans" which is different for anyone who doesn't look like them or pray like them.

trying to rewrite history

As opposed to what, erasing history? Just wondering. Seriously just curious.

A moderate like the 90s version of   Bill Clinton, who did well in the South, could never be a Democrat today.

Agreed. 

While yes, it's a sweeping generalization... I've actually witnessed people having a bunch of babies and couples purposely filing for divorce to obtain more state / government aid or never getting married, and for the most part living together but one of them maintaining a different mailing / listing address for the same reason. 

It's not necessarily just women; men will help with the plot / plan. I don't defend it, I don't condone it, but I have actually witnessed it.

Imo it is the same thing. Rewriting history is basically erasing the truth.

Is this schmuck the one who Trump claimed he owned in 2016?

LOL. No that was "my African American" . I dont think that guy was a politician. 

He actually renounced Trump after he had seen Trump in office for awhile. 

Ahhh, okay.

It's a bit of a stretch for Vernon to identify himself as a Democrat when he claims to have voted twice for Bush and donated to Republican candidates. 

This is probably the best definition of his politics . A moderate conservative libertarian.

This is not the equivalent of  an Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defecting to the Trump camp.

Nor does it match Biden's support from Kasich  - an actual conservative Republican who shares no policy goals with the Democrats other than removing Trump from office.

The Tea Party yesterday = The Trump Party today

colorlines

So, both sides now.  This was not unexpected.   What effect if will have is negligible.  He won't convert other Democrats.

What effect if will have is negligible

im not sure the point is this guy will change anyone's minds - people will do that themselves.

vernon jones is just another example of the ever shrinking democrat party.

twitter

#walkaway 

twitter

I can't open twitter, but I have no reason to disbelieve your comment.  I'm sure both sides are experiencing departures.  After all, even I changed my mind entirely - but then my feet aren't buried in concrete.  I suppose that all evens out in the long run. 

However, on second thought, so many lies are being told, so many laws being ignored, and it's become impossible to determine what is only propaganda and what isn't, that it would not surprise me if many Trump supporters wouldn't post tweets, etc. saying that they were Democrats but decided that Trump was the better bet this time around - in order to influence those who never had an ol' granpappy who advised them not to believe anything they read or hear, and only half of what they see with their own eyes.  The RNC using a foreign riot video, one from Spain, implying it was in a Democratic city is a perfect example of what ol' granpappy said to believe only HALF of what you see with your own eyes. 

but I have no reason to disbelieve your comment.

I was hoping you could hear the comments of democrats who are leaving the democrat party. 

communist censorship sucks....  which is one reason today's left can not win this election.

ya see, most americans do not support socialist, communist, or marxist bs.

  todays left has gone way to far left. not a few, but millions are leaving the democrats.

if many Trump supporters wouldn't post tweets, etc. saying that they were Democrats

   go with your fantasy version.   it makes me laugh

and like you,  I hope the left never figures it out also....   LOL