pete, is it possible to criticize a black person, and not be a racist?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn’t even come close to saying it. You got caught lying red handed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim, why do Trumplicans always project?
Former Trump aide, RNC operative, and “pro-life” activist Ruben Verastigui has just been sentenced to 12+ years in prison for child porn. He posted about how the sexual abuse of babies is his “absolute favorite.” There are allegedly more Republican staffers to come.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

dun dun dun!!!

Anthony Weiner, Harvey Weinstein, Eric Swalwell, Bill Clinton, Tex Kennedy, Eliot Spitzer, Andrew Cuomo, more republican perverts.

if that guy was sentenced by Jackson, she’d probably have given him community service.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But the child molesters are of your ilk.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A great day for the USA. A typical day for Republicans. They never miss an opportunity to take the low road.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Authoritarian, omniscient Pete F says the Republicans take the low road. Pete seems to know everything. And he keeps telling us.

Republicans are all about protecting kids, except for when it comes to poverty, healthcare, education, environment and vaccines.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.wmal.com/2022/04/07/gove...tance-program/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when Thurgood Marshall was confirmed in 1967 to become the first black man on the Supreme Court, 16 of 22 senators from the 11 states of the old Confederacy voted no or didn't vote

when Ketanji Brown Jackson was confirmed today to become the first black woman, 18 of 22 voted no
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For the second time...is it possible to oppose the nomination of a black person, without being a racist?

Almost seems like you're afraid to answer that question, sort of, for some reason...

Authoritarian Pete spreads propaganda.

How did they vote for Thomas?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was DIFFERENT, it’s OK when democrats do it.

Only racist when republicans do it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once agin Jim making false equivalences


Thomas vote


Voting yes were 11 Democrats and 41 Republicans. Voting no were 46 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

Yep exactly the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So 46 democrats voted against the black guy, sounds pretty racist to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When did the Democratic South become Republican?

So 47 democrats voted against the black nominee then, the exact same number as the 47 republicans who opposed Jackson this week. Sounds to me like the democrats were as racist then, than the GOP is now.

So unless the vote totals are identical. it's a "false equivalence". If one event took place on a Monday and the other on a Tuesday, you'll say "false equivalence". You find some meaningless detail that's different, then say they aren't comparable.

Lindsay Graham voted for both of Obama's nominees. Last time I checked, he voted to conform every single Biden federal judge nominee, until Jackson. So he's not a racist, not someone who refuses to ever support a democrat nominee. He voted for Sotomayor and Kagan. But maybe there was a reason why he drew the line with Jackson.

You keep shrieking racism and false equivalence.

Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican? EVER?

When it decided to become less racist.

That’s obviously why there’s so few Republicans of color
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is the South as racist now as it was from 1920 to 1970?

You keep shrieking racism ? Really How so love to see it . that's what your brain hears when ever republicans are called out on their Comments.. you Have a great ability to not see insinuation in Conservatives.. But here OMG you See insinuation where non exist Like "Bidens said he will use chemical weapons "



The late Republican senator Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in his 2000 autobiography “Passion for Truth”: Bush announced that Thomas was the “best qualified” nominee he could find for the high court and that “the fact he was black and a minority had nothing to do with this.” Immediately I said publicly that Thomas was not the best-qualified nominee available and that race was a factor — and properly so. I did not object to Thomas’s nomination because I thought he was entitled to a hearing and because on the record, with his degrees from Holy Cross and Yale Law School plus his tenure on the court of appeals, he appeared at least marginally qualified.

What we had hoped to learn was more about Clarence Thomas the jurist. The American Bar Assn. rated him “qualified” but withheld its highest rating, “well qualified.” On that score, Thomas’ sometimes lucid, sometimes stumbling testimony at the hearings did nothing to invalidate the ABA’s estimation of his legal prowess. Thomas did not distinguish himself as a legal mind.


Thomas did flatly reject Robert H. Bork’s belief that the Constitution must be interpreted only as its 18th-Century authors originally intended. “The world didn’t stop with the framers,” Thomas said. The meaning of the Constitution “is not frozen in time” but instead “moves with our history and our tradition.” yey now he's an Justice Thomas, originalist

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...988-story.html



After Hill’s testimony, Thomas told the committee that he would not answer any further questions, angrily calling the hearing “a high-tech lynching.”

Bar Association Splits on Fitness Of Thomas for the Supreme Court

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/28/u...eme-court.html


Have you ever, and i mean ONCE, in all your posts, ever criticized a democrat or praised a republican?

Still waiting on a reason PS if I Did praise a Republican you more like would call them a rino anyway :kewl:

oh my god, you’re bothered that race was a factor in nominating Clarence Thomas. But not bothered with this nominee, when Biden said explicitly race was a factor.

No irony or hypocrisy there, no sir!

everything is ok when democrats do
it!!’

are you denying race was a factor here? when biden said two years ago, that he’d only consider a black person?

How can you keep a straight face.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dietrich specifically mentioned Austin, who is Black, and claimed the measure was in fact a plot “to remove conservative, freedom-loving Americans from the roles.”

He added, “These so-called ‘leaders’ are so vile and racist, there’s no way to describe them other than in terms their own people understand. They are nothing more than dirty, stinking ni***rs.

“We are being forced into a corner by these enemies of the People. If it is a civil war they want, they will get it in spades. Perhaps the best way to pull us back from the brink is a good public lynching.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hunter is prob. kicking himself for not starting an investment fund so the Saudi's could have given him $2B to invest.

No experience, no problem.

are you expecting trump supports to Have ethics ?

Jarred was an unelected or congressional approved appointment ! He was The POTUS son in law . but yet six months after leaving the White House his firm gets $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, which is led by MBS

but but hunter Like Ive said republicans are dishonest to the bone

Just curious how you'd know that what Jared did was unethical, but what Hunter did was OK?

Can you admit they should both be investigated?

What grounds are there to investigate either?

Both look like influence peddling.

Before he was married to Ivanka, Kushner helped run a multi-billion dollar real estate company. If the Saudis gave him money to invest in real estate, that's not obviously fishy, though it could certainly be suspicious.

Hunter was a hot mess loser that all of a sudden was getting millions of dollars thrown his way, by an amazing coincidence, in Ukraine, where his dad was Obama's point man.

Come on...if there was nothing there, why did the media and big tech bury the story before the election. If the GOP takes the house, which is at least 99.8% likely, we will learn what Hunter did, they'll do a brutal investigation.

Jarod (who actually worked for the admin.) got double the amount to invest than the much more experienced Munchin and a higher fee = 1% fee vs 1.25% I believe. Jarod's RE company had some financial problems and has no experience in the private equity area. The due diligence review gave the fund an unsatisfactory rating and said they could only invest 1/2 the $ until they had a qualified investment team. The Saudi investment fund did not want to invest w/Jarod but was overruled by the Prince Mohammed.

Jared helped run a multi billion dollar real estate investment company before marrying into the family, before working for the administration. His father was convicted of fraud, is that what you're referring to? Were there problems when Jared took over?

Hunter was booted from the navy for snorting coke.

Jarod was born into a wealthy and crooked father, and married a girl with a wealthy and crooked father.

Who knows. But if the GOP takes the house, Hunters laptop will get looked into. They're not going to let that go.

Jarod's investment results are mixed. certainly no where near Munchins.

guy don’t have to do convince me that the investment use elated to his having served in the white house.

every recent president made hundreds of millions after leaving office.

it all stinks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wha?

obama…north of 100m

https://amp.scmp.com/magazines/style...ly-worth-us135
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clinton… north of 100m

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3612129...net-worth/amp/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently attaining wealth is good except when you’re a teacher or a president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device