nancy pelosi inside closed hair salon without a mask

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Trump wants all funding supporting studies or training to address racial issues stopped, apparently if you say we aren’t racist and our country isn’t seeing racial issues it isn’t happening. Boy if there was ever any question about whether Trump is a racist, he certainly has put that debate to rest.

Yes because he saw it on Fox new Tucker Carlson with some nobody who said Trump should remove it and he did.. the supposed leader of the free word doing what fox news tells him to do...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Trump wants all funding supporting studies or training to address racial issues stopped, apparently if you say we aren’t racist and our country isn’t seeing racial issues it isn’t happening. Boy if there was ever any question about whether Trump is a racist, he certainly has put that debate to rest.

he got black unemployment to its lowest ever, championed criminal justice reform which disproportionately helps blacks, advocates for school
choice which disproportionately helps blacks, created economic opportunity zones in urban areas which disproportionately helps blacks, and increased funding for black colleges which disproportionately helps blacks.

but he’s a racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he got black unemployment to its lowest ever, championed criminal justice reform which disproportionately helps blacks, advocates for school
choice which disproportionately helps blacks, created economic opportunity zones in urban areas which disproportionately helps blacks, and increased funding for black colleges which disproportionately helps blacks.

but he’s a racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He is a racist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

He is a racist
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what a compelling argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Tweety thinks teaching people to end racism is divisive. That's the very definition of racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tweety thinks teaching people to end racism is divisive. That's the very definition of racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worst, he says it’s un American.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

he got black unemployment to its lowest ever, championed criminal justice reform which disproportionately helps blacks, advocates for school
choice which disproportionately helps blacks, created economic opportunity zones in urban areas which disproportionately helps blacks, and increased funding for black colleges which disproportionately helps blacks.

but he’s a racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn’t do anything for black unemployment specifically, it was low because the unemployment rate was low. Signing bipartisan legislation and then claiming you alone have solved the problem isn’t exactly championing the issues. The justice department is already trying to undermine prison reforms even.

His track record is pretty clear on where he stands.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

what a compelling argument.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I figured I would keep it short and to the point so that the average trump supporter could somewhat grasp, if not completely understand my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Tweety thinks teaching people to end racism is divisive. That's the very definition of racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This imposing words on someone that he did not say is what you do, and why you can't be taken seriously by a logical thinker. Stopping the indoctrination of critical race theory does not stop teaching to end racism. Critical race theory is too controversial to impose on all employees. Even more important, it is one of the many Post Modern notions that teach us to abandon our classical liberal roots, our US Constitution, and the whole legal structure of this country.

Here are critiques of it per Wikipedia:

Some legal scholars have criticized CRT on a number of grounds, such as CRT scholars' reliance on narrative and storytelling, or CRT's critique of objectivity. Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has "label[ed] critical race theorists and postmodernists the 'lunatic core' of 'radical legal egalitarianism.'"[37] He wrote:[37]

What is most arresting about critical race theory is that…it turns its back on the Western tradition of rational inquiry, forswearing analysis for narrative. Rather than marshal logical arguments and empirical data, critical race theorists tell stories – fictional, science-fictional, quasi-fictional, autobiographical, anecdotal – designed to expose the pervasive and debilitating racism of America today. By repudiating reasoned argumentation, the storytellers reinforce stereotypes about the intellectual capacities of nonwhites.

Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that critical race theorists have constructed a philosophy which makes a valid exchange of ideas between the various disciplines unattainable:[38]

The radical multiculturalists' views raise insuperable barriers to mutual understanding. Consider the "Space Traders" story. How does one have a meaningful dialogue with Derrick Bell? Because his thesis is utterly untestable, one quickly reaches a dead end after either accepting or rejecting his assertion that white Americans would cheerfully sell all blacks to the aliens. The story is also a poke in the eye of American Jews, particularly those who risked life and limb by actively participating in the civil rights protests of the 1960s. Bell clearly implies that this was done out of tawdry self-interest. Perhaps most galling is Bell's insensitivity in making the symbol of Jewish hypocrisy the little girl who perished in the Holocaust – as close to a saint as Jews have. A Jewish professor who invoked the name of Rosa Parks so derisively would be bitterly condemned –and rightly so.

Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry have argued that critical race theory, along with critical feminism and critical legal studies, has anti-Semitic and anti-Asian implications, has worked to undermine notions of democratic community, and has impeded dialogue.[39]

Jeffrey J. Pyle wrote in the Boston College Law Review:[40]

Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis in principle, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled government, and they have lost patience with false promises.

Peter Wood considers CRT a "grievance ideology" and an "absurdity". He sees the central tenet of "white racism in the American legal system" to be shown false because of items such as the 14th Amendment, the Voting Rights Acts, and Brown v. Board of Education.[41] Critics including George Will saw resonances between critical race theory's use of storytelling and insistence that race poses challenges to objective judgments in the US and the acquittal of O. J. Simpson.[42][43]

In September 2020, the White House Office of Management and Budget took steps to cancel funding for training in critical race theory among federal agencies on the basis that it constituted "divisive, un-American propaganda".[44][45]

[spence]

Could you also let us know which federal programs are based on critical race theory...thanks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Could you also let us know which federal programs are based on critical race theory...thanks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They shouldn't be. That's why the theory shouldn't be foisted on federal employees.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They shouldn't be. That's why the theory shouldn't be foisted on federal employees.

In other words, it’s likely not and this is just another desperate stunt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Trump has done great things for the LGBTQ community. Unemployment for those members has never been so low.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Could you also let us know which federal programs are based on critical race theory...thanks.

In other words, it’s likely not and this is just another desperate stunt.

The federal program of teaching critical race theory to employees of various departments is, ipso facto, based in critical race theory. Training federal employees in, or teaching them, a theory that is counter to, and would destroy, our constitutional foundation and its root rule of law should not be happening. It is logical to stop it, and not a stunt.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

I figured I would keep it short and to the point so that the average trump supporter could somewhat grasp, if not completely understand my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, or course, if someone (a Trump supporter), doesn't understand or grasp your point that Trump is a racist, then simply repeating that he is a racist will help him to understand or grasp your point . . . right.

But what you say does help us to understand why some of the lefties on the forum just keep saying stuff without argumentation. Simply repeating it is good enough. Sort of like the if you tell a lie often enough it will be believed thing.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yes, Simply repeating it is good enough. Sort of like the if you tell a lie often enough it will be believed thing.

Isnt this what Republicans and Trump do with great enthusiasm?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Isnt this what Republicans and Trump do with great enthusiasm?

It's what you lefties on this forum do with great enthusiasm.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It's what you lefties on this forum do with great enthusiasm.

Trump on McCain today: “John McCain liked wars.”
Your hero the demagogue enjoys the roars of the crowd but can’t help knowing, deep down, that he isn’t held in genuine esteem. And he can’t help envying the one who is. So he slanders him and tries to tear him down.
Great guy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Trump on McCain today: “John McCain liked wars.”
Your hero the demagogue enjoys the roars of the crowd but can’t help knowing, deep down, that he isn’t held in genuine esteem. And he can’t help envying the one who is. So he slanders him and tries to tear him down.
Great guy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, a lot of people hold Trump in genuine esteem. Again you lie.

[Pete F.]

Keep believing
Don't look now but the wheels are coming off the wagon out the back of which the snake-oil is sold
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Qpete continues his disinformation campaign...he's worse than the russians

[Pete F.]

I wonder how Republican donors feel when they hear the campaign is short on case and those funds were used by the grifter to cover legal bills, paying Tweety's children, their wives and girlfriends, buying enough of his kids book to make it a bestseller and payments to his properties? A pretty good reason to stop giving.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I wonder how Republican donors feel when they hear the campaign is short on case and those funds were used by the grifter to cover legal bills, paying Tweety's children, their wives and girlfriends, buying enough of his kids book to make it a bestseller and payments to his properties? A pretty good reason to stop giving.

We will be very scared.

[Pete F.]

When you're more offended by a ball player taking a knee during the national anthem than by the Commander in Chief calling soldiers "losers" and "suckers" it's time for some serious reflection on your values.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When you're more offended by a ball player taking a knee during the national anthem than by the Commander in Chief calling soldiers "losers" and "suckers" it's time for some serious reflection on your values.

Personally, if you're speaking to or about me, I take no offense at the kneeling. The tradition of respect is to stand. But if you prefer to kneel, I don't care.

And rather than disparaging politicians for displaying flags when they speak, I think that the display is more respectful than burning the flag or protesting you're grievances during its anthem.

But I take no offense by it. It's not about me. I don't feel personally insulted. Even if it were supposed to be an insult directed at me, I rarely, very rarely, feel insulted. It's a useless emotion that leads to unnecessary animosity. Except for a very few people, I don't emotionally concern myself with what anybody thinks about me. If it's important enough, I may talk it out. Then let it go.

What upsets me is not the kneeling, but the destructive results, physical, psychological, philosophical, legal, and constitutional, created by the agenda that drives the kneeling.

I don't actually know that Trump called soldiers (all soldiers) "losers" or "suckers." Nor the total context in which he was supposed to have said it. I know that he has reportedly been accused of that. By unnamed sources. The "reported, accused, unnamed" makes that all very iffy. And its been denied and refuted by several named, on the record, people.

[Pete F.]

The grifter strikes again

The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in a defamation suit brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims Trump raped her two decades ago.

The move could further delay a suit in which Carroll is demanding potentially damaging evidence from Trump during the final weeks before the presidential election, including a deposition and a DNA sample to compare to a dress she claims she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack. It could also leave taxpayers on the hook for any damages awarded in the case.

His campaign has already paid his private attorney 850K and now they need money, is Barr volunteers the DOJ to take over his defense, unbelievable.
Grifters gotta grift
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The grifter strikes again

The U.S. Justice Department is seeking to take over the defense of President Donald Trump in a defamation suit brought by advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, who claims Trump raped her two decades ago.

The move could further delay a suit in which Carroll is demanding potentially damaging evidence from Trump during the final weeks before the presidential election, including a deposition and a DNA sample to compare to a dress she claims she was wearing at the time of the alleged attack. It could also leave taxpayers on the hook for any damages awarded in the case.

His campaign has already paid his private attorney 850K and now they need money, is Barr volunteers the DOJ to take over his defense, unbelievable.
Grifters gotta grift
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Once again you manage to bring in all manner of anti-Trump stuff not related to the subject of the thread. I guess it's because you can't start your own threads anymore. You're a sneaky dude. In some basic ways you're a lot like Trump. Even worse.

[Pete F.]

Great deflection

I read the complaint against Trump. The defamation occurred in April 2016 prior to Trump taking office. The judge should dismiss this farcical motion by Bill Barr and sanction him for filing a frivolous motion and wasting Court time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Great deflection

Yeah, I did good.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Once again you manage to bring in all manner of anti-Trump stuff not related to the subject of the thread. I guess it's because you can't start your own threads anymore. You're a sneaky dude. In some basic ways you're a lot like Trump. Even worse.

Really that’s the first time you noticed this thread, like almost every thread ever started in this forum for years, strayed from the initial theme? Hey since I know you love promoting Trump doing a bang up job, like falsely “promising” a vaccine ahead of the election, only to have the CEO’s of all pharmaceutical companies signing a letter saying hold the phone that isn’t so. Astra Zeneca has already had to pause its trial due some adverse reactions. So is he doing a good job by that statement or as anyone with a brain can deduce, using it for purely political gains. By doing so he also might put concern about how safe a vaccine is when one finally comes out. The list of personal interest only comments he has made as it relates to this Covid crisis is a long embarrassing one, which I’m certain you can break out some blue to dispute.