https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/civil-rights-icon-cesar-chavez-abused-girls-women-according-explosive-rcna264114
So, Cesar Chavez has been lionized and virtually deified for decades, schools, streets, and buildings have been named after him. I guess it'll be interesting to see how the ASPL handles these revelations. It is refreshing to see serious consideration being given to removing Chavez name from events and other things.
60 comments:
You see, unlike conservatives, IF there is credible evidence of a person being a bad person, we recognize that as a problem. THIS seems like credible evidence. No, there will be no criminal conviction, but still, Chavez looks guilty as hell and should NOT receive the honors he has in the past for the good things he's done.
Now, your turn.
Seriously: If and when the various places DO remove Chavez name from their schools and whatnot, will you THEN think that you should no longer support your personal favorite pervert/deviant/potential pedophile?
The thing is: SOMETIMES, there may not be sufficient evidence to convict someone BUT sufficient evidence to say, "Damn, this is almost certainly a bad person and while we can't/won't convict them, that doesn't mean we need to honor them with statues or public office."
This was the case for B Clinton for me and many of us, it's the case for me with Chavez (and I suspect many others) and it's the case with this current president.
In the past, the mere accusations were enough for GOP types to condemn B Clinton, but you all collectively give a pass to your personal presidential pervert because he is on the "right" partisan side.
Smells of hypocrisy, good man.
If nothing else, you can't say the same for me.
I guess we'll see if you really speak for the entire ASPL or not, won't we.
I guess we'll see if you really speak for the entire ASPL or not, won't we.
Regardless, I'm speaking for myself, just as I did when I refused to vote for Clinton. REGARDLESS of what the rest of liberal-dom, did, I wouldn't vote for B Clinton and I find it likely that the Chavez charges are true.
Now, speak for yourself and not the GOP: GIVEN the knowns we have about the man you voted for, do you think it's TOO likely that he's engaged in at least some varieties of sexual assault and/or defense of pedophiles and/or actual pedophilia/child-rape? And that you can no longer stand by him, given that likelihood?
Or is it the case that you are convinced by the TWO women who have, without proof beyond their testimony, charged Chavez with sexual assault/rape, but you are NOT convinced by the 20+ women/girls who have charged your president with sexual assault/rape/sexual misconduct/pedophilia?
And if so, WHY are you willing to vote for a man with so many allegations against him (including a finding in a civil case against him) but condemn Chavez with two charges against him?
Good questions to deal with in your soul.
When you keep spreading these "pedophile" claims (presumably about Trump) I simply can't take you seriously. There is literally zero credible evidence that Trump is a "pedophile", you continuing to engage in this slander simply makes you look desperate and pathetic. Unfortunately, "pervert" is not anywhere close to a crime, and if it was the list would be much longer than just Trump.
What an interesting notion. That someone should be "punished" even though there is not enough evidence to convict them. Hell, in Trump's case there isn't even enough evidence to charge him, even to consider charging him.
With Clinton, y'all excused his literal sexual harassment in the literal Oval Office, y'all didn't say a thing as Hillary went scorched earth on the "bimbos" and ignored the actual, contemporaneous accusations of rape against Clinton. Y'all elected Kennedy, tried to elect Ted, Clinton twice, tried to elect Hillary once, and now you don't want the standards y'all applied to your candidates to work both ways. Y'all made the distinction between personal and official and claimed that personal failings didn't count. Y'all made the rules, now you want to change them. Am I disappointed that the GOP has lowered it's standards to those of the DFL, yeah. Do I realize that it was probably necessary, also yeah.
Given how many examples of your hypocrisy I've pointed out this is hilarious.
Of course, once more, you've missed the point of the post which is also hilarious. Laughing at you is always enjoyable.
If only you were as vocal about the current wrongdoing on your side of the political spectrum as you are retroactively, and about Trump, I might actually believe you.
But you're not.
A quick check on this, lo, these few days after the report, and here's what I'm seeing:
"California Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas issued a statement calling the allegations "devastating" and pledged to stand with survivors, according to this Politico article."
"The United Farm Workers (UFW) expressed deep concern over allegations involving the abuse of young women or minors, stating they are working to establish a confidential, independent channel for those harmed"
"These are heartbreaking, horrific accounts of abuse. I stand with the survivors, commend them for their bravery in sharing their stories, and condemn the abhorrent actions they described. The survivors deserve to be heard. They deserve to be supported. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect," Sen. Alex Padilla wrote in a statement.
"Portland leaders are talking about renaming César E. Chávez Boulevard in view of allegations that the civil rights and labor leader abused multiple women and young girls throughout his career.
City Councilor Candace Avalos wrote on social media Wednesday morning that she had begun inquiring into the process of renaming César E. Chavez Boulevard to Dolores Huerta Boulevard in honor of the labor leader and feminist activist who co-founded the United Farm Workers union with Chávez. "
"Lubbock Democratic Party calls for renaming of Cesar E. Chavez Drive in response to sexual misconduct allegations"
"Prominent California Democrats, including Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, released statements expressing horror at the allegations and offering support to the survivors."
Whoops. It appears that the Democrats/progressives ARE condemning Chavez based on these testimonies (of THREE women, not two, sorry I missed one). I can find no one defending him/his memory.
So, if it's the case that not only THIS liberal (me) will not defend Chavez, but that many/most liberals do not want to see his name honored because of the testimony of these three women, will you THEN start to see that the 20+ women testifying against your Felon + his own words + his connections to Epstein and even allegations that he raped a 13 year old... that ALL of that speaks to a man not worthy of a vote or of defending? That you might be shamed by the liberals response to sexual assault and believing women being a higher moral standard than your own?
Let me guess: No.
Craig:
There is literally zero credible evidence that Trump is a "pedophile"
That minor was allegedly introduced to Trump around 1983, when she was 13 years old.
“[REDACTED] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump, who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit,” a DOJ file on the alleged incident states. “In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out.”
https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-sex-assault-child
A testimony IS evidence. Do you believe these three women testifying against Chavez but NOT this 13 year old or the 20+ other women? PLUS the testimony of his OWN words? PLUS his connections to Epstein and the way he's fought having all the files released?
If so, why? Could your partisan bias be undoing you?
So when you refer to yourself as "we", is that because you have some sort of multiple personality disorder or is it just arrogance and hubris?
If there was credible evidence that Trump engaged in illegal sexual activity, he'd have been tried and convicted years ago. Biden was in office for 4 years and couldn't find anything credible enough to charge him. As Trump literally turned Epstein in, and is the president who's actually released the files, this charge is absurd and slanderous. Under what legal theory is the "likelihood" of something grounds to "punish", charge, or restrict someone? Innocent until proven guilty, right?
I'm not convinced about anything regarding Chavez. The fact that the MSM and some on the left are acting as if it is very serious is what I'm reacting to.
I must have missed something, I was unaware that Trump has been "charged" with "sexual misconduct/pedophilia". What jurisdiction have these charges been filed in? What are the court cases?
I find it funny as hell that we have, simultaneously, leftists arguing passionately that pedophilia is merely one more "sexual orientation" and should thus be normalized, while many of the same folx are arguing that Trump is a "pedophile".
I was forced to vote for the lesser of two evils, and I haven't condemned Chavez. That is, by my count, two strikes against you.
My soul belongs to YHWH, I trust in Him completely.
If only you were as vocal about the current wrongdoing on your side of the political spectrum as you are retroactively, and about Trump
Name ANY progressive currently with 20+ rape/sexual misconduct charges against them that I have NOT condemned.
Don't make stupidly false claims. It's easy to see when you're making false claims when you're called on it and just undermines your credibility.
The reality is that, when there were a handful of credible allegations against B Clinton, I did not vote for him.
With three credible allegations against Chavez, I am not standing by him.
And yet, with 20+ credible allegations against your president
PLUS his own rapey-words testifying against him
PLUS him boasting about sexual assault and using his power and privileges to get away with ogling teenaged girls which literally happened
PLUS his long relationship with a convicted pedophile
PLUS his fighting against the release of the Epstein files
PLUS his long and ongoing misogynistic words against women
... with ALL of that PLUS the latest charge of him raping and beating a 13 year old, you still stand by him.
We see. Your hypocrisy is revealed to all. Do you see it yet in yourself?
More Democrats speaking out against Chavez:
https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/03/cesar-chavez-california-democrats/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/california-moves-to-rename-cesar-chavez-day-over-sexual-abuse-allegations
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/19/us/cesar-chavez-allegations-name-honors
Look at that. Within TWO days of this news being released, progressives are pulling back their support of Chavez' memory.
And yet, years later, your president still holds general support from the whole maga wing of the GOP, in spite of many more allegations even after years. Even after the latest 13 year old rape allegations. There wasn't even a hiccup from your side about this.
The hypocrisy looms large and is now undeniable to all but the "true believers" in a very bad man.
If this was credible Trump would have been charged. It was dismissed as not credible at the time, and remains not credible. The very fact that Trump released this information indicates how credible this claim is.
A testimony may be evidence, as long as it's credible and backed up by other evidence. P-BO had access to this evidence for 8 years, Biden for 4, yet no charges were filed. But why let reality get in the way.
As noted earlier. I've literally never said ANYTHING about BELIEVING the claims against Chavez. You could have figured this out for yourself, had to actually read what I've written.
If "connections to Epstein" is such a smoking gun, why only focus on Trump? Why not Clinton and all the other DFL donors and power brokers with much closer Epstein ties? Trump severed ties with Epstein, is on record as reporting Epstein to law enforcement, and has literally released more of the files than anyone else.
Why did Trump release the files, good question. Why did I vote for the lesser of two evils, because it was exactly that.
Coming from someone who's partisan bias shows in your lack of interest in any of the rest of those connected to Epstein, I fail to see your point.
The problem with your claims about Clinton and how you acted when he was running is a complete and total lack of proof. Your tales may be True, may not be True, but there is no way to know. I suspect that you didn't vote for him, but that you also stayed silent about his actions. But, if you have proof of you going after Clinton as vociferously as you go after Trump, I'll be happy to take a look and adjust my conclusions accordingly.
I get it, you either didn't read the post or didn't understand the post.
It's great that some leftist are saying things. Actions speak louder than words.
I'm done with your unproven claims.
When the street signs come down, the murals get painted over, and the names come off of the schools and buildings, then you can brag.
Objectively prove your claims. I want jurisdictions where these charges have been filed. Testimony under oath by the alleged victims. Proof, not rumors and unfounded allegations.
I want to see the evidence that Epstein was convicted of "pedophilia".
What "charge"? Do you not understand that the term "charge" has a specific legal meaning? Where was this "charge" filed? What is the corroborating evidence? Why did P-BO and Biden ignore this accusation? How do we know about this allegation?
Do you believe these charges against Chavez should be taken seriously? That having three women testifying against him is damning?
Craig...
"When the street signs come down, the murals get painted over..."
And when you maga types FINALLY condemn your pervert's various atrocities, I'll believe you give a damn about rape victims and the victims of pedophiles. Until then, you're just using and abusing victims of sexual assault for your own partisan thrills.
If "connections to Epstein" is such a smoking gun, why only focus on Trump? Why not Clinton and all the other DFL donors and power brokers with much closer Epstein ties?
The Clintons HAVE testified. Let your pervert testify. Hold them ALL accountable for anything they've done, Democrat or GOP.
We're being consistent.
Join us.
There is much more evidence that Clinton was significantly involved with Epstein’s illegal activities than Trump, but you’re not nearly as vehement about Clinton as you are Trump. We’ve known about Clinton’s connections with Epstein for years, and you’ve said nothing.
By all means lecture me about hypocrisy.
Nice job changing the subject. It’s all performative BS without action.
I’ve criticized Trump for years.
It’s really irrelevant what I believe. The more I see the more questions I have. The problem with this attempt to change the subject it’s that I haven’t addressed the accusations. This post isn’t about the allegations, it’s about whether the ASPL will engage in performative hand wringing or whether they’ll actually do anything.
Your commitment to making this about anything but the topic of the post is impressive.
I’m sure that you are diligently researching the information I’ve asked for because I know how important it is to you to have specific, accurate information.
I HAVE said something about Clinton. I've consistently said, IF he's guilty, convict him. Beyond that, I never voted for Clinton just on the possibility that he sexually assaulted women. I supported him being removed from office over the Lewinsky debacle.
Hold anyone and everyone implicated in the Epstein files accountable. Which is what ALL progressives are consistently saying.
The only reason the Felon/pervert comes up more is that HIS side keeps defending him.
You've had over TEN years to raise concerns about the 20+ women who've made credible charges against him. You have not made one single post raising that as a concern.
But two days into the Chavez allegations and you have a post.
Your partisan hypocrisy is showing AND you're helping show how the progressives are NOT being hypocritical., in light of your collective bad examples.
Look, you were caught in a vile hypocrisy. You called the Democrats/liberals on a sexual misdeed thing and we showed that we are against it. And yet, you voted for your openly perverted, almost certainly sexual assailant THREE times, even when you heard his own rapey testimony and even knowing that more than 20 women have credibly accused him of sexual misconduct.
IF he were a Democrat, he would NOT be our president. Those allegations and his misconduct alone (set aside all the incredible corruption and authoritarian tendencies) would have prevented us from voting for him.
You all did. And you are now caught in your hypocrisy.
But here's the good news: It's not TOO late. You can always repent, man. You can say, "I and we on our side goofed. We goofed bad. He made clear what a deviant and actual pervert and corrupt conman he was and we turned a blind eye to it because, we thought, 'but THEY are worse...'" And yet, we're showing you we're not in your collective league of turning a blind eye to rapey behavior and other indecencies.
You can relent, admit your error and repent.
For your sake, for your family's sake, for the sake of women and children, turn from your defense of the indefensible.
The problem with this attempt to change the subject it’s that I haven’t addressed the accusations.
You RAISED the allegations on your post. Something you NEVER did for your pervert felon (beyond raising the charges to defend him!!) You raised it hoping that you could "catch" them Democrats in hypocrisy, and yet, that effort failed and, in the process, exposed your own hypocrisy.
Do you think that, if he were alive and running for office with these three credible rape accusations against him, Chavez would win? No, we've made it clear that would not happen.
And yet... you were caught in hypocrisy. Give up. Just admit it, repent and move on dear man.
Craig:
Unfortunately, "pervert" is not anywhere close to a crime
That depends on what perversion was done. If a man committed the perversion of sticking his penis into a 13 year old's mouth and punches her, THAT perversion is a crime.
If a man has a known pedophile friend ("he likes 'em young! heh-heh!") and tries to conceal evidence about him and his ring of pedophiles THAT perversion is a crime.
If a man commits the perversion of raping or sexual assaulting a woman (even if he thinks he's privileged and "they'll let you do it because you're rich! heh-heh!") THAT perversion is a crime.
Don't be obtuse. Of course, some perversions - actual perversions, not merely having an orientation that you personally may not approve of - are crimes.
There is literally zero credible evidence that Trump is a "pedophile", you continuing to engage in this slander simply makes you look desperate and pathetic.
You are mistaken, "There is insufficient evidence to convict this person" with "zero credible evidence."
Don't be obtuse in the defense of actual perverted crimes.
Craig, asking more questions while ignoring questions put to him - perhaps because he is finally realizing he was caught up in hypocrisy and he's just further unmasking his own defense of sexual abuse while trying (and failing) to play "gotcha" with the moral progressives...
What "charge"? Do you not understand that the term "charge" has a specific legal meaning?
Do you not understand that charge also has an English language meaning?
Where was this "charge" filed?
What is the corroborating evidence?
A grown woman's credible testimony when she has nothing to gain but embarrassment and the abuse that conservative people would heap on her by questioning her testimony. She KNOWS that the rich and powerful - like your actual pervert - enjoy a privilege that makes it nearly impossible to hold them accountable. And yet, her testimony IS evidence, in spite of those who defend the sexual misconduct of the rich and powerful.
How do we know about this allegation?
It was in the Epstein files that EVENTUALLY came out in spite of your president and his DOJ's efforts to block it from coming out.
Why did P-BO and Biden ignore this accusation?
I don't know all the details of the timeline of this story. Epstein was first arrested during the Bush administration (2008). I see this bit of news from during the Bush years: "Under a secret arrangement, the U.S. attorney's office agrees not to prosecute Epstein for federal crimes."
I don't know the details of that GOP agreement that they made secret or why he was released early during the Obama administration (perhaps because they didn't know the secret details made secret by the Bush administration?)
For whatever reason, that story seemed to die for over ten years UNTIL, at the end of the Trump I administration - after MUCH campaigning by Epstein's victims, Epstein was convicted again in 2019.
I don't know what Obama or Biden knew about the Epstein case or the Epstein files. Do you? Or are you content with making vague innuendos?
Then there was this: "Starting in 2019, but before Epstein’s arrest that year on federal sex trafficking charges, some Democratic lawmakers including Representative Lois Frankel and Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, both of South Florida, launched a years-long quest to release Epstein records.
The Democrats called for former US Attorney Alex Acosta, who served as labour secretary during Trump’s first term, to testify about Epstein’s plea deal."
Beyond that, we know that Biden has said (rightly) that there was a strong line between the Biden administration and the Justice Department. They did not believe in ordering the DOJ around, like an authoritarian might do. Given that, it's reasonable to think they didn't know the contents of the EF.
Actions, not words. It's not a difficult concept for anyone but you. The ASPL has a recent history of weeping and wailing about things until the initial outrage passes and nothing really happens. I'm patiently waiting to see how this plays out.
No. No.
Given your complete lack of even attempting to prove your various claims, I'll try this. Please point to the specific state or federal statutes which make "pervert" a crime? But you've done an excellent job of moving the goal posts from your original claim.
This is an important and vital question for you to answer. No further comments will be allowed until you answer the following question.
Is pedophilia a "perversion"?
Again, one old accusation that has been investigated and found to be unreliable is exactly zero credible evidence.
This notion that only Trump should be somehow punished or criminally charged because he was once associated with someone who committed crimes is both absurd and against every principle of jurisprudence. The fact that Trump has not been even charged with these alleged crimes (especially during the Biden administration where they were manipulating the laws to charge him) speaks volumes about the lack of actual evidence. We have a judicial system that requires evidence, not merely accusations.
You make these claims about me, yet show no proof of the Truth of your claims. How hard would it have been to copy/paste one of these questions you allege that I haven't answered. While this is not a legal forum, the fact that your standard seems to be that only an unproven allegation is needed to prove that someone is guilty is at least consistent. Irrational and stupid, but consistent.
No answer, just a semantic excuse.
So there is no actual evidence. Merely a statement which neither the Biden nor P-BO justice department found credible enough for a prosecution and that wasn't even enough for NY to trump up some more charges.
So, the "Epstein files" which were released to the public by Trump are the source of this allegation, (which was investigated and found not credible enough to even charge) which somehow proves that Trump didn't release the "Epstein files". What a bizarre, convoluted, and crazy conspiracy theory. Trump is so horrible at protecting himself that he released this alleged smoking gun accusation instead of redacting it.
So, you "don't know" why these files weren't released during 12 years of DFL control of the WH, but your sure that it was some secret conspiracy theory.
I'm asking logical questions. Biden and P-BO had access to these files for 12 years, and they chose to do nothing. The question would seem to be why they chose not to even charge Trump with this evidence just sitting there?
Your conspiracy theories are impressive, convoluted and lacking proof, but impressive. Your conspiracy theory seems even stranger in light of the fact that the Biden DOJ was directly involved in the NYC charges against Trump, the GA charges against Trump, and the lawsuit against Trump. So they played around bankrolling and supporting a criminal case that required that laws be changed and manipulated to turn one misdemeanor into multiple felonies, a corrupt prosecutor who engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, and a civil suit that required changing the law to even bring (which was promptly changed back), when they had evidence of Trump engaged in sex with a minor. That makes total sense. To the best of my knowledge the statute of limitations has not expired for these alleged crime. Why has not one of the blue states not charged Trump?
But for someone who's making all of these big claims, your ignorance doesn't seem to support your claims. Maybe do a little research outside of your partisan silo.
I do admire your monomaniacal commitment to anything but the actual content of the post and to making things up and pretending that I've said or believe your straw men.
Craig:
Biden and P-BO had access to these files for 12 years, and they chose to do nothing.
No. The DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE under those administrations had those files since the secret agreement arranged by the Bush Department of Justice. And, unlike with authoritarian-leaning presidents, the DOJ is a distinct office, separate from and not beholden to provide all information to the White House.
Just because your president chooses to actively intervene and direct "his" DOJ does not mean all presidents do that.
As to the content of this post: You found a case where a Democrat hero has been credibly accused of sexual assault. YOU said, "I guess it'll be interesting to see how the [Left] handles these revelations."
As it turns out, I and clearly many others are bothered by these credible charges because OF COURSE, we are. We are morally reasoning adults. You didn't even need to wonder how "interesting it would be" to see how we handle them. Certainly, in the past, too many in power on both sides would ignore such problems/crimes coming from their candidates. Currently, though, at least since the Me Too movement (and many of us long before that!), we can reliably know what progressive types will do. And, given MAGA, we know what you all will do - just what you've been doing and turning a blind eye to credible charges. At any rate, wondering what the Democrats will do is PRECISELY the question you're raising in your post.
Did you mean to say something other than what you actually said?
And so, with all that said, what will be interesting to see is, WHEN the Democrats remove Chavez' name from honored places, will the GOP be shamed into doing the same for their deviants. Already, you all remain silent when he names stuff after himself, enriching him and his family at the cost of the American people by his "branding" and then selling of stuff with his name.
So, really, we know what the GOP will do. Sadly. I pray that you all may change, though, join the other more faithful conservatives who have denounced this corrupt pervert as unfit for office. Save your souls.
Oh my goodness. Let the conspiracy theories run free.
The DOJ is part of the executive branch of the federal government, the AG is appointed by POTUS. It's literally not a separate branch of government and is legally subordinate to POTUS.
What "secret agreement", provide specifics. Do you realize how crazy you sound with this conspiracy theory that there was a "secret agreement" made by Bush (which somehow you know about) and that the P-BO and Biden DOJs just blindly kept this "secret agreement" even though there was proof of Trump sexually assaulting a minor available to them.
As DOJ is subject to and under the executive branch, and POTUS is the executive of the executive branch, P-BO and Biden absolutely had access to this information.
"As to the content of this post: You found a case where a Democrat hero has been credibly accused of sexual assault. YOU said, "I guess it'll be interesting to see how the [Left] handles these revelations." "
Finally, you make an accurate statement. Good job. It will be interesting.
So far, we've seen lots of words being spoken. It's a good start. But actions speak louder than words, and it'll be interesting to see if there are actions and what those actions will be. That you turn this into a preening, self congratulatory screed about yourself, isn't surprising.
"And, given MAGA, we know what you all will do - just what you've been doing and turning a blind eye to credible charges."
By all means, prove this claim. Actual objective proof please.
"At any rate, wondering what the Democrats will do is PRECISELY the question you're raising in your post."
Yes it is. So far there has been a lot of performative words. I'm waiting to see actions. As you note that this post is "PRECISELY" DO (not just say). Yet your monomaniacal obsession has gone far beyond what you acknowledge the topic of the post to be. Yet you continue to blather on about off topic conspiracy theories.
"Did you mean to say something other than what you actually said?
No. I absolutely meant that it will be interesting to watch what happens and to see if the deeds match the words.
IF the ASPL follows through, it will be noted. crap while he's in off
In general, I find the notion of POTUS naming anything after themselves (except a presidential library) (speaking of which, the P-BO library is ugly as hell) ridiculous. Naming things after people is the job of others. I've been critical of Trump branding crap when hes in office. However, it's not illegal and free enterprise is still a thing so...
The off topic crap is hilarious. You could have simply agreed that it will be interesting to see what happens and left this on a note of agreement, you chose otherwise.
Are you saying that any and every public figure who engaged in "perversion" should have their name erased from public buildings and streets?
This is an important and vital question for you to answer. No further comments will be allowed until you answer the following question.
Is pedophilia a "perversion"?
Are you saying that any and every public figure who engaged in "perversion" should have their name erased from public buildings and streets?
You now have two questions that must be answered clearly, specifically, and directly before any more comments
"Calling someone a convicted rapist and a pedophile is not opinion, it’s reckless, malicious and intentional slander. Those who do so know exactly what they are doing, and knows people will hear it repeated as if it were fact.
Trump should sue such people for everything they have. Not to silence criticism, but to draw a hard line between free speech and defamatory lies.
The left has normalized calling political opponents monsters and criminals with zero evidence, then acting shocked when the country is tearing itself apart.
Dan isn’t brave or moral. He’s a loud, disgusting, and useful fool proving once again that the leftist outrage machine has no bottom."
Who knew that Chavez was so against illegal immigration,
https://www.kut.org/texasstandard/2022-10-17/cesar-chavez-complicated-legacy-united-farm-workers-immigration
"Nearly three decades after his death in 1993, Chávez’s legacy has been solidified – but it’s also been simplified.
And in this simplification, one really interesting aspect of his life is usually overlooked: On the issue of immigration, Cesar Chávez was a hawk – a hawk with convictions and rhetoric so strong that they would put him far outside of the political mainstream today.
In the mid-70s, Chávez launched what he called the Illegals Campaign, an effort to raise awareness about illegal immigration and report undocumented workers to federal authorities.
”The idea was – much like we’ve heard today – ‘Well, the Border Patrol isn’t doing a good job at keeping people from crossing illegally. So we’re going to have to go out and do it ourselves,’ “ Pawel said.
The most intense aspects of this informal effort, however, did not take place in the form of secret phone calls to the government; they took place right along the border. In an effort led by César’s cousin Manuel Chávez, reports began to emerge of Mexican immigrants being threatened, beaten and robbed as they tried to cross over into the United States.
At one point, the patrol operation was so large, it employed 300 people and cost the UFW $80,000 a week.
To Chávez, the civil rights era leader who swore nonviolence, any influx of foreign labor represented a threat to the farmworkers’ movement. The people who crossed the border illegally were in search of a better life. But they were also scabs, willing to do the jobs that American farmworkers were organizing to improve.
A sign for West Cesar Chavez Street in Austin.
Gabriel Cristóver Pérez
/
KUT News
A sign for West Cesar Chavez Street in Austin.
“All of a sudden yesterday morning, they brought in 220 wetbacks – these are the illegals from Mexico,” Chávez said in an interview with KQED in the ‘70s. “There’s no way to defend against that kind of strikebreaking.”"
Glenn,
You should know how Dan reacts to slander. He regularly accuses me or Art or you of slander and is quick to proof text scripture to cover himself.
Seriously, Dan is attempting to phrase his attacks in ways that he believes would render him safe from accusations of slander, and his desperate clinging to a claim that has been investigated and dismissed by prosecutors is what he's hiding behind. He needs this, he thrives on it, he can't abide the possibility that he could be wrong on this.
Loud, disgusting and useful could also describe Trump...
Craig...
Is pedophilia a "perversion"?
Pedophilia is a psychological disorder wherein an adult is sexually attracted to children. The desire is not a perversion.
Acting on it is. Whether that's acting on it by rape or by abusing one's power to watch girls undress.
Do you disagree?
Are you saying that any and every public figure who engaged in "perversion" should have their name erased from public buildings and streets?
Probably. Maybe sometimes it's appropriate if the crimes are far enough removed from current history - Jeffersons rape of enslaved children, for instance, but generally, yes.
What is your line for wanting names removed, if any?
I don't know about anyone else, but my personal favorite pervert/deviant/potential pedophile is Dan. His idiocy keeps me entertained.
Glenn...
Calling someone a convicted rapist and a pedophile is not opinion, it’s reckless, malicious and intentional slander.
I haven't done this. But many conservatives certainly have done that towards Biden and Clinton. Will you condemn them?
Unlike with Trump and those Dan regards as "credible" accusers simply because it's Donald Trump they're accusing, those victims of Bill Clinton were constantly out publicly trying to acquire justice for his sexual assaults. Dan's kind simply ignored or rejected them, or backed Hillary's vile charge of "bimbo eruptions". We still remember their names, like Juanita Broaddrick, , Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. Other than E. Jean Carroll, who couldn't prove her accusations against Trump or remember any details at all, or Ivanna Trump, who later recanted, or "Stormy Daniels", who's a whore who took money from Michael Cohen (a liar) to keep quiet but didn't, I don't know the names of any women who accused Trump of sexual assault who can legitimately be called "credible" simply because they made an accusation.
It takes a real pervert/deviant/potential pedophile like Dan to ignore others in order to press his obsession with convincing others Trump is as bad as Dan needs him to be in his grace embracing way.
And it's helpful to remember that false rape allegations are far too common. I was not keen on supporting a serial adulterer and womanizer for president, but given the alternative I was, as was Craig, forced to do so in order to keep from office a far worse person. Now, Trump has proven himself as not only president, but the president we needed and need now. His performance is such that it is sad for the nation that a socialist ass like FDR forced term limits on the presidency (though, given his age, it's possible I might not have considered him for a third term---depending on other's vying for the GOP nomination). But there's nothing which suggests he ever raped anyone and thus as a Christian and American who abides the "innocent until proven guilty" principle cherished by both, I expect anyone to insists on similarly identifying to wait for evidence as well before accepting as truth such serious accusations, especially those who so constantly fart out "embrace grace".
Let's see what happens with regard to Chavez.
I haven't been paying much attention to this case, but I do wonder how widely known were his sexual abuses. When first seeing this story, MLK Jr came to mind, and we see how Dan wets himself at any mention of MLK's sexual abuses, orgies and infidelity, which were certainly well known to those of his immediate circle. Yes, Dan's selective in his outrage. There was a tighter lid on his behaviors than there were on Clinton's or even JFK's and other Dems, but where the word was out, Dan acts as if he was anywhere near as vocal in his displeasure with any of it than he is now regarding Trump. Given Trump's ties to Democrats (like the Clintons) back in the day, I wonder how vociferous would be Dan's hatred for Trump had he run and won under Dan's banner.
Back to Chavez, I think the left is distancing themselves for self-preservation. Someone...usually many someones...always knows about the sinful acts of public figures and does nothing while it's happening, until the general public finds out, then everyone's screaming bloody murder. This is especially typical of the left as it is so common for their own to act so badly.
Yes.
Way to take a firm principled stand there. Good job.
After watching the frenzy of renaming military bases, tearing down statues in the US, and similar things in the UK, I am generally not a fan of cancelling people. Are their instances where it might be appropriate, probably. But, in general, I'm of the "Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it" school. History is what it is, and judging historical figures based on 21st century standards is insane. But it's generally not conservatives howling about cancelling people.
FWIW, I'd have no problem removing Trump's name from the Kennedy Center. It didn't make sense when he made the change and I won't shed tears if it comes down.
Regardless of the semantic games you play that you think keep you safe, you are making unproven, claims about specific actions. If you can't offer objective proof, maybe you should stop making the claims.
The simple fact is that, as you noted, there were many women who came forth with credible allegations against Clinton who were slandered as bimbos and trailer trash. If Dan has some actual evidence that he believed Clinton's accusers at the time of the accusations, I'm here for it.
The simple reality is that Carrol wasn't credible, and had she not been able to get NY to manipulate the law or had to stand up to the higher burden of proof of a criminal trial, nothing would have happened.
Yes, the Duke lacrosse case wast just in the news recently. Multiple lives ruined by the false allegations of one woman.
The reality of Trump's sexual past is what it is, like it or not. Yet with all of the hullabaloo, there hasn't been one actual criminal case brought against him. So now there is a desperate need to find something, no matter how unsubstantiated, to smear him. He's got 2 years left, let it go unless you actually get objective proof.
Waiting to see what happens, what a novel idea. It's almost like you paid attention to the actual post instead of going off on a tangent of false accusations.
I really haven't either, beyond the performative screeching from the usual suspects. The sexual abuses of MLK have certainly been kept quiet over the years. The sexual escapades of DFL icons as far back as FDR are well known, yet no one is calling for the Roosevelt of Kennedy names to be removed from anything.
I've seen some speculation that this is about finding a way to remove Chavez from the spotlight of a big anniversary of the UFW coming up. Given Chavez' outspoken stance against illegal aliens, I've seen it theorized that some folx don't want those views brought out in the current climate.
Who knows, it seems a little unlikely to me, but I have no idea. What I do know is that it is the ASPL that is quick to cancel people based on accusations and rumor. See Dan's response here.
Hey, where is the LEFT's complaining about the womanizing J.F.K.???
Here’s what is potentially the most interesting aspect of this story.
After all of the performative condemnation of Chavez, it would be absolutely hilarious to find out that the ASPL jumped on this story and overreacted because the NYT engaged in shitty “journalism”.
If this ends up being True, the whiplash from Dan and his ilk will be glorious to watch.
https://x.com/zigmanfreud/status/2034804961738178850?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
“The @nytimes is being lavished with praise by the virtue-signaling brigade, but there are very basic problems with their Cesar Chavez story…
-The “evidence” doesn’t come close to the threshold for such a devastating claim, especially against a man who has been dead for 33 yrs
-We don’t know for sure that the 2 children who are now claimed to be his, via 2 “rapey” encounters, are biologically his, partly because his accuser had 4 kids with his BROTHER, which the NYTimes somehow left out of the story (along with the fact that she had at least 11 children with at least 4 men)
-We somehow don’t even know the names of the two kids that were allegedly fathered by Cesar
-The NYTimes ignored the numerous very positive recent public statements by Dolores Huerta about Cesar, including a YouTube video created during the #MeToo panic where she praised him for his protection of women against sexual harassment
-The NYTimes insidiously conflates the 60 year old Huerta claims with the two allegations of child sex abuse, even though they have nothing to do with each other. They are using Huerta to prop up the stories on which the real scandal rests, which, on their own, despite claims from the NYTimes, have absolutely no real corroboration
-Not only do the two claims of child sex abuse have no real corroboration (a love struck letter TO him from a 13 year old girl, which he never destroyed, and which makes no references to inappropriate contact, does NOT, on its own, count), they have at least one major factual/timeline issue
-One of the VERY few details in the two claims of child sex abuse from the early 1970s includes the key use of a “yoga mat,” but yoga mats were not even a thing until at least 10 years, and possibly 20 years, later
-There is absolutely no consideration of the many possible motives for those involved, especially Huerta, to shade, or even fabricate, the truth, even if their memories of over half a century ago haven’t been naturally clouded by old age
-There was no context provided for just how incredibly crazy Huerta’s full story would be if her current version, told at the age of 96, is actually true
Typical of how much journalism has recently died/decayed, the NYTimes piece, which is being widely lauded, is actually an abomination (regardless of whether Chavez was actually an abuser) that should be condemned by anyone who cares about journalistic standards, basic fairness, and the truth.“
Speaking if actual vulgar, damning slander..
I do wonder how widely known were his sexual abuses. When first seeing this story, MLK Jr came to mind, and we see how Dan wets himself at any mention of MLK's sexual abuses, orgies and infidelity
While it appears to be true that Dr King had affairs, the more salacious claims by Marshal and racists for the last 50 years emerged as unsubstantiated slanderous claims from a racist FBI trying to bring down a good man.
Or Roosevelt or Teddy K or Ellison, or Franken, or…
They couldn’t deny Clinton after he was schtupping Lewinsky in the oval, but they also only slapped him lightly on the wrist. After Lewinsky the other accusations were validated and they still did nothing.
Well Dan is now condoning MLK being an adulterer, so that tells us how far Dan will go to protect those on his side of things.
Slander for the, but not for me seems to be Dan’s creedo.
The E. Jean Carroll case was an actual criminal case, which failed to prove any criminal activity on the part of Trump.
"Credible" allegations because Dan says they are. But what makes them so, exactly? Simply because someone made them? Shouldn't evidence or witness testimony be involved in determining the credibility of an otherwise slanderous allegation? For Dan, not if it's Trump, because "embrace grace".
Dan does the typical grace embracing thing by responding with charges of racism, because of course only a racist could reveal tales of orgies and sexual abuse by a black man. That Ralph David Abernathy! What a racist!
https://metropolitandigital.com/the-conversation/3192-i-m-an-mlk-scholar-%E2%80%93-and-i-ll-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light
What's most clear here is how Dan has no trouble assuming as true the most vile accusations against Trump he can conjure, while at the same time defending MLK Jr, for whom evidence of actual sexual immorality of one degree or another is documented. All that remains to be revealed are the actual recordings from his many orgies, and then what will Dan say to mitigate the sins of MLK and continue to promote Trump as worse? We shall see, perhaps. Most likely, we'll have to force it out of him.
Craig...
Dan is now condoning MLK being an adulterer, so that tells us how far Dan will go to protect those on his side of things.
1. Look at my word. I never condoned an adulterer. Not once.
2. Further, I have never knowingly voted for a serial adulterer... one who was so blatant about it.
You all have.
3. I DO recognize a chasm of difference between adultery between two consenting adults on the one hand, and rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and child abuse and child rape.
4. I've certainly never knowingly voted for anyone who looked remotely guilty of such.
You all have.
Your "gotcha" attempt only backfires on you and exposes your own hypocrisy and knowing support of overtly evil folks.
But to be clear, no, I don't think engaging in consensual affair is a deal- breaker for running for office, although it does speak to moral problems.
On the other hand, if someone has credible charges against them for things like rape, child abuse and sexual assault, THAT should be a deal breaker. It is for me. It hasn't been for you all.
Just to be clear on who is and isn't condoning bad or evil behavior.
As noted earlier, “credible accusations” destroyed a bunch of Duke lacrosse players, as well as many other examples of “credible accusations” being shown to be false. Likewise we’ve seen examples of “credible accusation” where the accuser has been attacked by proxies for the accused.
Clearly, “credible accusations” are not sufficient in and of themselves, and after “credible accusations” have been investigated and dismissed or not been actually resulted in charges, they should not be considered “credible”.
1. To be fair, I probably should have said that you’re making excuses for, not condoning.
2. So. You literally just said that adultety is not disqualifying. Make up your mind.
3. Do you recognize the gap between real and imaginary?
4. Neither have I. I guess “looked remotely guilty” is the new standard. How absurd.
If you say so.
Post a Comment