• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presumption of Innocence? No that's only for white men.

Another dumb question based upon a false premise.

The FACT is that Stop and Frisk has had a negligible effect on crime rates in the places that have use it the longest (like NYC). And that reality, which is backed up by numerous studies, has been further validated as crime rates in NYC have continued to drop (or flatlined, depending on the category of crime) since the policy was ended in NYC.

https://www.scribd.com/document/326...s-Effect-on-Crime-in-New-York-City#from_embed

Does Stop and Frisk deter crime? Evidence from the Aftermath of Floyd v City of New York

Berkley eh? SJW don't like Stop and Frisk. What's next?

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...p-and-frisk-has-lowered-crime-in-other-cities
 
That was 1964. Back then the Republican party was still made up of northern liberals like it was under Lincoln. Richard Nixon changed all that. Go read a book.

As for Gore, he became more liberal later on in life, and as a result, started losing ground to Republican challengers who were more conservative and more racist.

Wonka... Probable rapist.

Explain.
 
Brown skinned Republican here, no we don't.
So sorry to hear that you're racist against your own kind. Very sad.

you don't actually believe in the presumption of innocence?

I'm not the one supporting stop and frisk. That would be Republicans. Presumption of innocence means you can't be searched without a warrant or probable cause. It doesn't mean you have to be allowed on the supreme court.
 
The democrats are the party of the KKK and while 80% of republicans voted to pass the civil rights act of 1964, only 61% of the democrats voted to pass it. Al Gore Sr. voted against it, among others. Maybe it is you who doesn't know your history. Sorry, can't change it.

Geez...How old are you? If older than about 30, you have no excuse for such a shallow grasp of history. No excuse.

EVERYONE understands that the Democratic Party was.....WAS.....the party of the KKK (and white supremacists, in general) up to, and through, the era of the Civil Rights Movement.

MOST PEOPLE also understand that, beginning with FDR in the 40's, there began a slow evolution between the two parties, that became turbo-charged after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '68, and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Nixon exploited cultural and racial resentment among many conservative Southern (and Western) Democrats with his "Southern Strategy" (the brainchild of the infamous GOP political guru Kevin Phillips),which was greatly effective. Reagan then used the exact same strategy, orchestrated by Phillps' protege' Lee Atwater, which all-but completed the exodus of Southern/conservative whites from the Democratic Party entirely. Of course, Atwater later expressed remorse/regret and issued a deathbed apologize for what he did to stoke racial divide in the American poltical landscape. And, thus, MOST PEOPLE understand that today.....TODAY.....the GOP is the party of the KKK (and the white nationalist/supremacist movement in America).

But, apparently, "most people" doesn't include you (and many right wingers like you). You, after all, are someone who traffics in OUTRAGEOUS, fringe EXTREME right wing conspiracy theories (like Q-Anon and "Dr. Ford is a secret CIA agent working to sabatoge the Kavananugh nomination"), remember?
 
It means that someone is probably a rapist. Meaning he was credibly accused of it by multiple people.

He has been accused of rape by ONE accuser. One that CANNOT be considered credible.

The fact you continue this slur speaks to your honesty or rather lack of honesty.
 
So sorry to hear that you're racist against your own kind. Very sad.

I'm not the one supporting stop and frisk. That would be Republicans. Presumption of innocence means you can't be searched without a warrant or probable cause. It doesn't mean you have to be allowed on the supreme court.

Ignorant assumption made in the first paragraph.
 
No that’s not correct. Slavery and Jim Crow are not small government ideals so a party representing both is a contradiction.
This is a misguided analysis. Slavery and Jim Crow were ABSOLUTELY "States' Rights" issues, in the eyes of the conservatives who defended them. The "small government" part would have been their argument that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with those policies as conducted by the states that practiced them.


Also the Dixiecrats were an essential bloc for the New Deal which is why FDR did not desegregate the military to improve wartime effectiveness and opposes anti lynching bills

This is true. But it's also irrelevant, unless you are of the believe that someone here has argued that Democrats have never been in favor of slavery or segregation. And if that's the case, they you are arguing a Strawman.

Also Donald Trump is not a white supremacist

Says whom? You? That might be your personal opinion, but it's still silly. Trump has a history of racial bias and discrimination dating back to the 1970's when he was sued for refusing to lease to black tenants at his federal housing projects. His history is well-documented and it SCREAMS "white supremacist". Hell, his own daddy was arrested in the 1920's at a Klan riot against Catholics. To argue that Trump has no history of bigotry and racism is just silly. Sorry.
 
This is a misguided analysis. Slavery and Jim Crow were ABSOLUTELY "States' Rights" issues, in the eyes of the conservatives who defended them. The "small government" part would have been their argument that the Federal Government had no right to interfere with those policies as conducted by the states that practiced them.




This is true. But it's also irrelevant, unless you are of the believe that someone here has argued that Democrats have never been in favor of slavery or segregation. And if that's the case, they you are arguing a Strawman.



Says whom? You? That might be your personal opinion, but it's still silly. Trump has a history of racial bias and discrimination dating back to the 1970's when he was sued for refusing to lease to black tenants at his federal housing projects. His history is well-documented and it SCREAMS "white supremacist". Hell, his own daddy was arrested in the 1920's at a Klan riot against Catholics. To argue that Trump has no history of bigotry and racism is just silly. Sorry.

No Jim Crow is not a small government ideal. It is a “state’s rights” thing yes, but not small government since it requires the government interfering in the free market. Segregation was legally mandated in the south, it was imposed specifically to counter poor-white/Black voting coalitions from electing republicans by seperating the groups. True small government is no interference in the free market


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Geez...How old are you? If older than about 30, you have no excuse for such a shallow grasp of history. No excuse.

EVERYONE understands that the Democratic Party was.....WAS.....the party of the KKK (and white supremacists, in general) up to, and through, the era of the Civil Rights Movement.

MOST PEOPLE also understand that, beginning with FDR in the 40's, there began a slow evolution between the two parties, that became turbo-charged after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Acts of '64 and '68, and the Voting Rights Act of '65. Nixon exploited cultural and racial resentment among many conservative Southern (and Western) Democrats with his "Southern Strategy" (the brainchild of the infamous GOP political guru Kevin Phillips),which was greatly effective. Reagan then used the exact same strategy, orchestrated by Phillps' protege' Lee Atwater, which all-but completed the exodus of Southern/conservative whites from the Democratic Party entirely. Of course, Atwater later expressed remorse/regret and issued a deathbed apologize for what he did to stoke racial divide in the American poltical landscape. And, thus, MOST PEOPLE understand that today.....TODAY.....the GOP is the party of the KKK (and the white nationalist/supremacist movement in America).

But, apparently, "most people" doesn't include you (and many right wingers like you). You, after all, are someone who traffics in OUTRAGEOUS, fringe EXTREME right wing conspiracy theories (like Q-Anon and "Dr. Ford is a secret CIA agent working to sabatoge the Kavananugh nomination"), remember?

Sorry the truth hurts you and you have to respond with lies, insults, judgements, assumptions, etc. The difference between you and I is that I recognize and don't mind that you think and believe differently than I do. You may now go back to your natural position, head buried in sand. :cheers:
 
He has been accused of rape by ONE accuser. One that CANNOT be considered credible.

The fact you continue this slur speaks to your honesty or rather lack of honesty.

It can only be one of two things, willfully ignorant or willfully deceptive.
 
He has been accused of rape by ONE accuser. One that CANNOT be considered credible.

The fact you continue this slur speaks to your honesty or rather lack of honesty.

Hold on, now. You don't get to post b.s. arguments in one sentence, and then accuse someone else of "lack of honesty" in the very next.

First, Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault (and more) by more than one.

Secondly, that "one accuser" (i.e. Dr. Ford) you mentioned was extremely credible. It is Kavanaugh who lacks credibility. He lied, under oath, repeatedly in his testimony. And he showed himself to be a hostile, rightwing partisan warrior who completely lacks the necessary temperament for the job promotion he was seeking. That's partly why most Americans disapproved of his appointment, and believed Dr. Ford's testimony.
 
https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-...practices/president-trump-stop-and-frisk-both

So after just spending a month playing up the innocent until proven guilty card trying to claim we should let a probable rapist onto the supreme court because we couldn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a rapist Trump now wants to implement stop and frisk in Chicago giving the police the ability to randomly violate the privacy rights of people walking down the street any time they get a "hunch" about a person(aka whenever they see a brown person).

So what's the bull**** lie going to be this time conservatives? Apparently, Republicans think that white men have a right to be on the supreme court, but for black men walking down the street in Chicago is just a privilege that can be taken away for any reason.

Should the police be questioning old Laplander women while investigating the black on black holocaust in Chicago?


race card stop it.jpg
 
Brett Kavanaugh is not a rapist, probate or otherwise, you argument is thus unsound

You say that like nobody ever accused him of trying to rape them. I don't think you care either way.
 
Wasn't it the democrats who are the party of the KKK? Robert Byrd ring a bell? What is your ideas to fix the crime in Chitcago?

Yes, the Democrats were the party of the KKK. Three or four generations ago. We could initiate a whole separate thread on how radically life has changed since the 1940's and '50's. But there's no question which party the KKK/white supremacists now support.
 
Sorry the truth hurts you and you have to respond with lies, insults, judgements, assumptions, etc. The difference between you and I is that I recognize and don't mind that you think and believe differently than I do. You may now go back to your natural position, head buried in sand. :cheers:

LOL, no, the difference between us is that when I say you are lying (or ignorant of the facts), I can back it up substantively. When you say it, you can't. And the reason you can't is that you're smart enough to recognize that you're wrong, but not mature enough to admit it (or just hush up).

That's the mark of a blind ideologue.

But you are not unusual among your people. The simple and unfortunate reality is that my opinions are formed by facts, while your opinions are formed by fake news and ideology-based feelings.
 
Where this topic applies to Chicago, I agree...its a bad idea. Sadly...the leftists that run Chicago are devoid of ideas that would make a difference. They whine about how bad it is and blame everyone but those committing the crimes. So...REALISTICALLY? People would be well within their rights to just tell Chicago to **** off and die if they dont want to be a part of the solution and dont want help. And its rather telling when discussions begin on how to help PREVENT the bloodshed in a violent city, the FIRST ****ing thing leftists do is start shrieking about proposed solutions and 'rights'.
 
Que puedo mas hacer....? Trump is well practiced in....

havecakeeatittoo.jpg



[/QUOTE

If It's my cake I'll eat it when I want. The correct words are 'you can't eat your cake and have it too'.
 
LOL, no, the difference between us is that when I say you are lying (or ignorant of the facts), I can back it up substantively. When you say it, you can't. And the reason you can't is that you're smart enough to recognize that you're wrong, but not mature enough to admit it (or just hush up).

That's the mark of a blind ideologue.

But you are not unusual among your people. The simple and unfortunate reality is that my opinions are formed by facts, while your opinions are formed by fake news and ideology-based feelings.

You can insult me and try to characterize me all you want but the thing is that you haven't a clue as to who I am. You look foolish making the comments you do, projecting your shortcomings onto me....it's the liberal way. You and I are on separate levels of thinking.....you need to catch up!
 
Last edited:
Should the police be questioning old Laplander women while investigating the black on black holocaust in Chicago?


View attachment 67241948

Maybe they should investigate random republicans for financial crimes. There has been a rich on poor haulocaust that they've orchestrated.

The police shouldn't be using hunches to excuse violating the rights of citizens. It's only the race card because it's already racial.
 
Yes, the Democrats were the party of the KKK. Three or four generations ago. We could initiate a whole separate thread on how radically life has changed since the 1940's and '50's. But there's no question which party the KKK/white supremacists now support.

They haven't changed much, they still hate blacks and do nothing to better their lives.
 
Where this topic applies to Chicago, I agree...its a bad idea. Sadly...the leftists that run Chicago are devoid of ideas that would make a difference. They whine about how bad it is and blame everyone but those committing the crimes. So...REALISTICALLY? People would be well within their rights to just tell Chicago to **** off and die if they dont want to be a part of the solution and dont want help. And its rather telling when discussions begin on how to help PREVENT the bloodshed in a violent city, the FIRST ****ing thing leftists do is start shrieking about proposed solutions and 'rights'.

So I take it you support Chicago's gun control measures then, after all 'rights' aren't important to you?
 
You say that like nobody ever accused him of trying to rape them. I don't think you care either way.

A woman with no corroborating evidence who committed perjury accused him. I don’t think anything more needs to be said about that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Maybe they should investigate random republicans for financial crimes. There has been a rich on poor haulocaust that they've orchestrated.

The police shouldn't be using hunches to excuse violating the rights of citizens. It's only the race card because it's already racial.

Oh really? Which Republican financial crimes from decades ago murdered a black person in Chicago or anywhere else ?

And, I assume we should IGNORE the blatant financial crimes of Rangel, Gietner , Sharpton Sanders, etal, right?


Black people are WHO ARE KILLING BLACK PEOPLE, overwhelmingly.


Sorry you cannot face that reality.

I remember when the PC left drones tried to declare that investigating young, male muslims for possible terror activity more than other demographics (OBVIOUS COMMON SENSE) was "racial profiling". What glaring IDIOCY.


The OP premise is another example of the same kind of intellectual failure, based on "feelings" , instead of the COLD, HARD FACTS of the issue.
 
Last edited:
No Jim Crow is not a small government ideal. It is a “state’s rights” thing yes, but not small government since it requires the government interfering in the free market.

You're being silly. No one cares about your opinions when the issue is a matter of historical FACT. No one needs to read your nonsense, above, when we have HISTORICAL records from governors, legislators and Senators of the soon-to-be Confederate States of America to look at. They made their positions CRYSTAL CLEAR. It was all about States' Rights. Absolutely NO ONE made that ridiculous "free market" argument. That's just some 21st conservative historical revisionism nonsense.

Segregation was legally mandated in the , it was imposed specifically to counter poor-white/Black voting coalitions from electing republicans by seperating the groups. True small government is no interference in the free market

:lamo What kind of bat-crap crazy, revisionist nonsense is this, huh?

Segregation was about race...White Supremacy, to be exact. It was about rolling back Reconstruction and restoring the Antibellum South. Those 'poor whites" throughout the South after the Civil War were the same "poor whites" who fought in Gray uniforms against the Union Blues. They were NOT voting for Republicans who conquered them. Ever! Where do you people come up with this stuff? Segregation was about race and the "Southern way of life", and nothing else.

You right wing conservatives really love to rewrite history. Do you normally get away with this argument among your conservative friends? Surely, you'll rethink it before trying it again. lol
 
Back
Top Bottom