Progressives (Liberals)

@hightor,

It is amazing to me—but it shouldn’t be—for you to say that Biden did not say ‘you ain’t black’ and suggested to shoot people in the leg—and then have the nerve to show that he did say both of those things.

Edit—went to the trouble to include ellipses to imply more context. What he said was damning in context both times.

You aren’t honest.

1 Reply

@hightor,

Voting no longer works in this country, hence widespread riots and protesting.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Voting works fine, make voting easier. More polls, rational easy registration, end gerrymandering .......

1 Reply

Since the question been kind of raised about how much the federal government can do with reforming police officers, I thought, I would google it since I have no idea. I've been wondering since I read Obama's speech where he talked about how little the federal government can do with reforming police officers which is what we are currently talking about with the recent death of George Floyd.

What Role Might the Federal Government Play in
Law Enforcement Reform?

Quote:

Limits of Congressional Authority
The federalized system of government in the United States
limits the influence Congress can have over state and local
law enforcement policies.

The U.S. Constitution established a federal government of
limited powers. A general police power is not among them.
That authority is largely reserved for the states. The
Constitution, however, does vest Congress with legislative
powers under the Spending, Commerce, Territorial, and
Necessary and Proper Clauses, as well as under the
enforcement sections of the Civil War Amendments.

Congress has exercised this authority in the past to enact
legislation that relates to law enforcement matters. Yet even
here, its authority is not boundless.

Congress may spend for the general welfare and thereby
encourage states to take or refrain from various activities. In
doing so, however, the encouraged state action must relate
to the purpose for which federal funds are spent. Moreover,
state action may be encouraged, not commandeered or
compelled. Commandeering and compulsion are also
beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause, which
otherwise empowers Congress to regulate the flow,
instrumentalities, and substantial impacts of interstate and
foreign commerce. Congress may enact model legislation
for federal enclaves, but its reach there is geographically
limited. The Necessary and Proper Clause permits
implementing legislation, but only to the extent this
legislation reasonably relates to powers that the
Constitution elsewhere grants
to the federal government.

Finally, each of the Civil War Amendments—the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments—
conveys the power to enforce its provisions by appropriate
legislation, but that power is cabined by the terms of the
amendment and by judicial interpretation of its breadth.

It goes to talk about the tools that are available to promote law enforcement reform.

Like Obama said in his speech, while to we do want the federal government to be understanding and do what they are able to do, we should be paying more attention to our local officials are in our states and who is in positions of prosecutors and so forth.

(sorry for the way the way the paragraph is, it was typed in columns and I didn't know how to get it into regular format)

0 Replies

@Lash,

Oh please, people are rioting because another police officer killed another unarmed, unresisting black man. Not because they are protesting their votes were taken away.

The only way to fix the system is by electing officials in local states who are emphatic and informed on the racial injustice and willing to work towards the goal of fixing it. It is more a state issue than a Presidential one, though of course it helps when you don't have one instigating violence and causing more dividing in the country like our present one does.

You must get up every morning and think to yourself, "how can I turn this into my talking points of bashing democrats." I no longer care what your motives are and what your end game is, frankly it is just tiresome.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

Voting does not work when thousands are turned away because multiple polling places are closed without warning, lines are blocks long and it takes hours to vote. Voting does not work when voters are dropped from the rolls without prior knowledge and denied their right to vote.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Huhu... And who do you trust, then?

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Oh please, the officer had no fear as he slowly murdered an unarmed handcuffed man on camera because the Crime Bill and three strikes law and the de-humanizing rhetoric about black people in this country has effectively made it open season on black Americans.

And if the people who vote in this country would *get what they’re voting for*—some of which are an *end to racism* and racial equality—numbskull—protesting extrajudicial murder of blacks by cop wouldn’t be such a lightening rod issue.

Voter suppression and congressional corruption are indeed pieces of the current cultural upheaval.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Critical analysis of history, previous behavior, cause and effect.

2 Replies

@Lash,

Any other historical-critical methodologies e.g. source criticism as well?

1 Reply

@Lash,

That may be why you fail. The past does not fully determine the future. Change is always possible.

But in order to husher in any significant change, you need allies. You need to be able to trust others, and they need to be able to trust you. Nothing is ever possible alone.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

I think I do what I think most people do—take in info, seek to verify, check bias.
I don’t trust anybody outright. Does anybody, though?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

The past is definitely instructive.

1 Reply

@Lash,

If voting doesn't work, why are they working so hard to take it away from us?

If voting doesn't work, why do you work so hard to suppress it?

If voting doesn't work, how in the **** will you bring the "Greens" into power?

Why do you continue to speak from your ass?

I gave a list of five different things that individually and together would increase the power of voting and the best you can suggest is a 5% Green vote in an election system you also claim is rigged.

Don't you see how that disconnect makes everything you say rather sketchy???

1 Reply

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

OK; I admit, I am curious. What you do you mean? I disagree with you probably 99% of the time, but to my mind at least, when it comes to tech/internet things, you usually know something about it. So, in connection to the post you were responding to, what does that mean?

Look at the link.

Note the: fbclid=IwAR0asTLErhqlUa7UgDl3HKExKHeBlLI9hmyFkAwJCEvHaGcBVmSIez0qwHw

Facebook is going to log a record connecting everyone who clicks that link to each other and to the Facebook account that produced the link.

Pretty soon Facebook will start recommending everyone here to each other as potential friends using their real names.

Links work just fine without the fbclid=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in them.

Quite often links work just fine if you chop off everything after the question mark. But now and then they do need something after the question mark, so it is good to test a truncated link to make sure it works before posting it.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Unfortunately Walter, here in the US pure disagreement requites no facts or explanation of logic. Simple denial is considered effective disputation.

0 Replies

@Lash,

Quote:

The past is definitely instructive.

Could you be any more general?

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash, you quoted Biden as saying “You’re not black...” with the ellipsis at the end of the statement as if it were addressed specifically to the interviewer with more to follow. As the full quote reveals, that is not what he said:

Quote:

You got more questions but I'll tell you if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black.

See? It was a generalized statement, like saying to a Boston resident, "If you don't love the Sox, you ain't from Boston."

In the second example, you said he was recommending shooting protesters in the legs — he wasn't. He was clearly referring to someone attacking a police officer.

Quote:

Instead of standing there and teaching a cop when there's an unarmed person comin' at 'em with a knife or something to shoot 'em in the leg instead of the heart is a very different thing.

Note the bolded phrase.

Lash wrote:

You aren’t honest.

I provided the entire quote with context. You didn't. You are the one attempting deception in this case. I indicated my lack of enthusiasm about both statements.

1 Reply

@hightor,

The context on both of those idiotic statements from that notorious racist is widely known.

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

The fact that ‘they’ are taking it from us is what *makes* it not work.

Good god, pull it together.

1 Reply

Progressives (Liberals)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know