It's refreshing to hear Patrice Cullors and BLM be so upfront about the quid pro quo they expect from the Biden administration for turning out black voters. The fact that she is so open about the fact that those black votes come with demands (or expectations), is refreshing. Given the failure of Biden and P-BO to address these grievances during the 8 year P-BO administration, and Kamala's history of throwing blacks in prison, I'm not sure what they expect. It'll also be interesting to see what the explicit or implicit threat is.
All in all, I say bravo to Patrisse and her brave followers for getting in early and publicly and demanding their quid pro quo so vocally.
70 comments:
LOL!
Just FYI: If you say, "You go, girl," you WILL sound racist and condescending as hell.
Listen to black people.
https://www.blackenterprise.com/27-things-white-people-never-ever-say-black-co-workers/
and...
https://www.michigandaily.com/section/mic/how-not-be-racist-chapter-2
You probably don't care, but just fyi.
Impressive, you actually provide a pertinent link, and it's to bitch about my sarcasm. I know your obsessed with finding and imputing racism to others, while simultaneously ignoring questions and failing to back up your claims with evidence, so this little bit of foolishness doesn't really account for anything.
I'll try to come up with another affirmation that isn't racist or sexist.
I'm not trying to find racism anywhere. You are ignoring concerns that black folks have and black folks are asking white allies to help other white folks learn. So I'm passing on what black people are saying about the kind of comments that you're making. Ignore them if you wish.
Just do so from a place of informed decision as opposed to ignorance.
Wow. Dan cones through again with some really incredible nonsense. It seems abundantly clear that Dan's self-loathing white guilt inhibits his BS detector, more likely compels him to shut it off in favor of regarding any BS said by any black person as absolutely beyond reproach. More rank cowardice and dishonesty. White people can't say. "You go, girl!"? Kiss my ass!
As to advocacy groups identifying a candidate most likely to represent their concerns and promoting that candidate and then holding them accountable to represent their concerns, that's how a Free Republic works. You know that, right?
Are you suggesting something nefarious? Because that's just free people acting. It's not like they're getting financial gain nor they bribing Biden.
Must y'all find evil in every little thing, even democracy? I get that you have a great loathing for black lives matter, because, communist! But this is a free republic still.
I'm not trying to find racism anywhere."
Yet, somehow you manage to without trying.
"You are ignoring concerns that black folks have and black folks are asking white allies to help other white folks learn."
By "black folks", I can only presume that you mean "some black folks", and by "white folks" I can only presume that you mean "some white" folks. Because many of the "black folks" I listen to have better things to do than to try to devise "speech codes" for others.
"As to advocacy groups identifying a candidate most likely to represent their concerns and promoting that candidate and then holding them accountable to represent their concerns, that's how a Free Republic works. You know that, right?"
I'll agree with the first part of your construct, not so much with your second. The way to hold elected officials accountable is at the ballot box, not with demands and threats. What's interesting is that if your assumption was correct (that "black folks" continually vote overwhelmingly DFL because the DFL is going to "represent their concerns"), then why is Patrisse preemptively demanding a meeting with Biden? It's almost like she's worried that the "black folks" aren't going to get their concerns represented and realizes that she's got to remind Joe.
"Are you suggesting something nefarious? Because that's just free people acting. It's not like they're getting financial gain nor they bribing Biden."
Not necessarily. Although I though that a quid pro quo was a bad thing when it came to politicians. Have you seen BLM's balance sheet? How much they've taken in (and how little they've put into the community or the families of their martyrs? I can't imagine that they're prepared to stop the money flowing in? How do you know for a fact that they have no possibility or desire for financial gain? maybe not bribing, but how about threatening? As many have pointed out, "No justice, no peace" is a threat. You don't think that Pat might suggest to Joe that if BLM doesn't get what it wants, that they'll be protesting in front of the White House? I love how you naively think that a quid pro co has to involve money. It's cute.
"Must y'all find evil in every little thing, even democracy?"
Must you find evil in every little thing I post?
Seriously, where have I used the term "evil"? Do you not realize that pointing out the circumstances of Pat's very public "challenge" to Biden, is one specific incident and (by definition" not "every little thing"?
Which raises the question of the public nature of this action. If Pat and Joe were on the same page, wouldn't this have been better handled in private? Was this public demand really necessary? It seems strange to me, but...
"I get that you have a great loathing for black lives matter, because, communist!"
Actually, I don't loath BLM, as much as I disagree with much that they stand for and with their tactics. The fact that they're self avowed Marxists is one aspect of their ethos that I disagree with is certainly relevant, But, please feel free to make shit up if you think it helps.
"But this is a free republic still."
Yes, it is for now. Which means that I have the freedom to disagree with the BLM organization without being demonized. Which means that I can raise legitimate (at least to me) questions about "elected" officials and those that make demands of those officials. Unless, you are suggesting that I be stopped.
FYI, make up your damn mind. Is the US a "democracy" or a "free republic" (representative republic is probably the correct term)? Are you aware that I've never accused Pat and her tribe of being "communist"? Or that they proudly wear the lable "Marxist" and it's accurate and appropriate to use that term? I know y'all are pretty intent on doing away with the federal nature of our government, and that the elimination of the Electoral College is a step toward democracy. If a move away from a federal system, and representative republic is your goal, be proud and admit it. If not be consistent and use accurate terms.
Art,
Out of respect for Dan's delicate sensibilities and his position as representative of "black folks", I felt it necessary for me to change the title as to prevent his panties from further being wadded. Of course, the drive to eliminate sarcasm, is concerning as well. I like the fact that he's equated my questioning about a possible quid pro quo as "evil", as if anything that wads his panties is "evil". It's a great example of the minimizing of the word "evil" into a term that applies to even the most minor annoyances.
For example. If you live in a place like Baltimore (or MSP), and the record murder rates don't fit with your "concerns", and the people in power don't "represent your concerns", the way to hold them accountable would be to vote against those in power. Certainly, it seems pointless to go to the very people who are presiding over these increases in crime (or who are responsible for legislation and enforcement that have incarcerated thousands of "black folks" for relatively minor offenses), in the hopes that they'll finally "represent their concerns" after decades.
But electing the same people over and over again, while expecting different results, is completely rational.
We get it, black people who don't agree with you are not rational. That's part of the problem, that you think this.
That you don't understand their positions and why they vote for Democrats and why they just cannot vote for republicans, that's part of the problem.
DO you know? Do you know why black people by and large don't feel they can vote for Republicans? I would love to see you try to answer that question.
Excellent comeback. Please feel free to put words in my mouth, and invent my positions out of whole cloth. That’s so much more effective than actually dealing with anything or countering any of the points made.
As for why, I have no idea what would convince people to vote for the exact same people who’ve brought them record high murders and failing urban areas. It’s not about party, you partisan hack, it’s about holding the ejected officials accountable for the conditions in these urban areas. If you want to argue for continually electing the same people who’ve presided over record highs in murder and crime as a rational choice, go right ahead.
What’s interesting is that you’re actually trying to suggest that it’s irrational to hold specific elected officials accountable and that reflexively voting for people because of ethnicity Is rational.
Craig... " I have no idea what would convince people to vote for the exact same people who’ve brought them record high murders and failing urban areas..."
I'm glad to see that you're self-aware enough to recognize that you're ignorant about why black people are voting for Democrats. That's a starting point. But usually, when someone is ignorant and totally does not know and has no idea why people are doing something, before they condemn them for doing what they're doing, they would learn why they're doing what they're doing. Speaking from a place of ignorance is never advisable.
So your homework is to go and listen to black people. Learn why Black people won't generally vote for Republicans. Before you say another ignorant comment coming from a place of admitted ignorance, learn. Educate yourself.
Craig... "What’s interesting is that you’re actually trying to suggest that it’s irrational to hold specific elected officials accountable..."
What's interesting is that you don't understand me or what I'm saying any better than you understand the motives of why black people what was an early vote for republicans. Don't assume you know something that you're ignorant about. I am, of course, not trying to suggest that. You can tell by the way I never said any thing like that. Learn toread for understanding. Not for political points.
"Do you know why black people by and large don't feel they can vote for Republicans? I would love to see you try to answer that question."
It's not a tough question. It's pretty much the same why all who don't vote Republican choose against them. The following are some clues and may be just one of them are some combination of varying degrees:
1. Stupidity
2. Ignorance
3. Covetousness
4. Victim mentality
5. Lack of responsibility for one's own life.
6. Immorality
7. Dishonesty
From here it gets somewhat repetitive and redundant. These seven points can be broken down into subheadings if necessary. Dan's reasons are largely points 1 and 7, but the rest are not totally absent.
There are many black voices that can explain it very well, and I've listed them in previous posts here and at my blog. They're black voices in which Dan has no interest and no honesty or integrity to hear and understand...most likely because of point #1.
Dan,
Ignorance doesn’t stop you, from making shit up. Please quote my words where I condemn anyone? I do listen to black people and hear a lot of them asking the same questions. You know, the black people you choose to ignore.
I know I’ve pointed out what an idiot you look like when you insist that I’m saying something I haven’t said, yet you keep doing it. Just because you do the same thing over and over doesn’t make it rational either.
I guess calling people ignorant is what passes for a serious response in your view.
Look, if people want to vote for the same people who’ve presided over rising crime, poor economic growth, and systematic racism for decades, that’s their choice. I’m not condemning them, just expecting them to acknowledge the responsibility they bear for the situation.
"Don't assume you know something that you're ignorant about."
That's funny.
Marshal says THESE are the reasons that 80-90% of black people don't vote GOP...
"The following are some clues and may be just one of them are some combination of varying degrees:
1. Stupidity
2. Ignorance
3. Covetousness
4. Victim mentality
5. Lack of responsibility for one's own life.
6. Immorality
7. Dishonesty"
That is, 80-90% of black people are either too stupid, ignorant, etc to, in his apparent opinion, do the right thing and agree with Marshal's preferred party.
You said, Craig, in the conversation about black people voting for Democrats... "But electing the same people over and over again, while expecting different results, is completely rational. " And you said that ironically, meaning you think that it is IRrational for black people to vote Democrat, in your opinion.
Am I mistaken in what you are saying?
That is, if 80-90% of black people think that voting Democrat (flawed though the party is) is WAY more preferred than voting GOP, then they are irrational, and, according to Marshal, stupid, covetous, etc.
Is that NOT what you two are saying?
The key words in your first sentence are "Marshal says". Those are his opinions and nothing more or less. You note this later.
You claim that this is a "in the conversation about black people voting for Democrats", yet I've done or said nothing that indicates that this is the direction I'm taking. My post is about Pat being up front about the quid pro quo she expects. Political party is irrelevant to that notion.
"But electing the same people over and over again, while expecting different results, is completely rational."
I have to note the demonstrable fact that the notion of ethnicity is nowhere to be found in what I actually said. What I said ("If you live in a place like Baltimore (or MSP)), is directed to the residents/voters of two specific cities. I'm quite certain that there are white, Latino, Asian, and other ethnicities who live and vote in both cities. You introduced the notion of this being exclusively about "black folks", not I.
If you can't even accurately relate the nature of the conversation, or what I've said, then clearly there is a degree of ignorance that you are dealing with and need to overcome.
" And you said that ironically, meaning you think that it is IRrational for black people to vote Democrat, in your opinion."
Except the part where I wasn't specifically referring to "black people", you made that part up.
"Am I mistaken in what you are saying?"
Yes.
"That is, if 80-90% of black people think that voting Democrat (flawed though the party is) is WAY more preferred than voting GOP, then they are irrational, and, according to Marshal, stupid, covetous, etc."
I was referring to the collective voters in two specific cities/metro areas, and wondering why they'd continue to vote for the same politicians (individually and party) who have brought them the current conditions of their cities. You decided to go off on a tangent, based on your biased assumptions, and not address what I actually said. That's not my problem.
"Is that NOT what you two are saying?"
I've pointed out why I'm not going to defend your invented version of what I actually said. I don;t speak for Art, and your an idiot to expect me to.
As for Art's list of opinions. While I am loath to apply sweeping generalizations to an entire group based on ethnicity, I suspect that there are individuals withing all ethnic groups who vote in certain ways for some combination of those reasons.
So then tell me, given the fact that 70 to 90% of black people don't vote for the GOP in most elections. Do you think they do so for good reasons, then? Do you think that you have no reason to suspect that they refuse to vote for the GOP for rational, well-considered, moral reasons?
Do you think that black people in major cities who by large margins vote for Democrats over and over are doing so for rational and good reasons? Can you tell me what they are? Or are you still claiming to be ignorant of those reasons?
Are you telling me that you're ignorant of the reasons why black people by large margins don't vote for republicans? If so, don't you think you ought to ask and listen and learn?
So, instead of dealing with the topic on hand, you choose to bull ahead with your own questions, on your topic, to move your agenda.
Clearly you’re assuming that 100% of the 70-90% vote for the DFL for a objectively rational reasons.
I’m not trying to make that sort of sweeping judgement.
I know it’s tempting to broad brush people into large monolithic groups and assign the same motives across the board, It’s not on the topic of this post, and not germane.
"So then tell me, given the fact that 70 to 90% of black people don't vote for the GOP in most elections. Do you think they do so for good reasons, then?"
Like most things, I suspect that some do and some don't. For example, I don't think that "If you don't vote for me than you're not black." is a good reason. But that's my opinion.
"Do you think that you have no reason to suspect that they refuse to vote for the GOP for rational, well-considered, moral reasons?"
Again, I suspect that most probably think their reasons are rational, but I suspect that some are more rational than others.
"Do you think that black people in major cities who by large margins vote for Democrats over and over are doing so for rational and good reasons?"
I don't know, that's why I keep asking the question. I don't think that voting for those who are in charge of, maintain, and haven't eradicated the "racist" systems that everyone seems so worked up about is particularly rational. But, that's my opinion. I can't speak for others, and therefore rarely do.
"Can you tell me what they are? Or are you still claiming to be ignorant of those reasons?"
I'd love to gain a better understanding of why people continue to vote for the same people who control the "racist" systems, I've never seen a good answer to that question. I'm not sure that "The other guys might be worse." really is a great answer at this point. You've got folks protesting and rioting over "systemic racism" while continuing to vote for the same people that control the "racist" systems. It's beyond me. But the fact that I don't understand all the nuance, doesn't mean that I can't wonder and ask questions.
"Are you telling me that you're ignorant of the reasons why black people by large margins don't vote for republicans?"
Are you telling me that asking the same question multiple times in the same comment, strikes you as sane and reasonable?
"If so, don't you think you ought to ask and listen and learn?"
I am listening. But haven't heard my question addressed. But you know that I'm "listening to black people", you just like the feeling of superiority you get to pretend otherwise.
There, now you have no grounds to bitch and whine.
"That is, 80-90% of black people are either too stupid, ignorant, etc to, in his apparent opinion, do the right thing and agree with Marshal's preferred party."
Clearly, Dan sees what he wants to see. My response to his original question regarding why so many black people reject the Republican party indicts, accurately, ALL who reject the Republican party...and some of those are members of my own family. Sure, Dan needs to believe there's a racist component. That's because Dan has a sick need to think the worst about those with whom he disagrees, because embrace grace. The real question, then, is why is there such a greater percentage of blacks who are so stupid, ignorant, covetous, etc., than whites? That's another discussion.
"Are you telling me that you're ignorant of the reasons why black people by large margins don't vote for republicans?"
I might be wrong, but a quick review of my comments proves I'm well aware of the reasons most blacks... as well as those of other races... reject the GOP. I'm also aware, Dan, you disagree, though you're not much for providing a better explanation. That's not to say you won't pretend there IS a good explanation. You just can't provide, and won't try.
More than ever before, voting Democrat is voting against one's own self-interest. There was a time when the main difference between left and right was the path taken to the same goal. That hasn't been the case for some time now, with all the pandering and bribing of the voters by Dems. Yet, still, with all that pandering and bribing, Dem policy hurts the very people to whom they've pondered and bribed the most. The pandered and bribed are then told their suffering was caused by the Republicans, and so they but the lie because the GOP isn't bribing them with anything but liberty and freedom and the respect of assuming they're capable of taking care of their own lives.
Marshal... a quick review of my comments proves I'm well aware of the reasons most blacks... as well as those of other races... reject the GOP. I
Marshal, so you've SPOKEN with people, LISTENED to what they had to say and what THEY TOLD YOU was "I'm voting against the GOP because I'm ignorant..." and "I'm voting against the GOP because I'm covetous..."?
Bullshit. They did not TELL you that. YOU are reading into their votes something that they would absolutely reject. Just like you all do with me: You're reading into their words and actions something that they would absolutely reject. You can not cite black voices offering those reasons, certainly not as a group. You just fear what you don't understand and make up false claims to make yourself not so cowardly or afraid.
You're deliberately erecting straw man lies to make you feel better, NOT to understand aright the reasoning of those you disagree with.
That you pull stupidly false "reasons" out of your ass to explain what you don't understand is NOT the same as you understanding.
Understand?
No, of course not.
Pride goeth before a fall, boys. Repent.
Marshal... "voting Democrat is voting against one's own self-interest"
The problem is, of course, you cannot make a compelling case that this is the only possible interpretation of things. Economists will tell you that the economy improved, the debt went down unemployment went down and things generally have improved under the last several Democrat administrations as compared to the last several GOP Administrations.
The data shows that the last several GOP administrations have been more corrupt, had more indictments, more convictions than the last several Democrat administrations. And by last several I mean in our lifetimes.
That you personally think the things are better for people under Republican leadership does not mean it is so. You recognize that reality, correct? Adults and experts and good people of good faith actually disagree with your hunches. We don't think the data supports your opinions. Moreover, we think many of GOP policies and positions are just ethically and practically wrong for us as a nation. It is wrong to harass immigrants the way we do. It is wrong to shut down refugees to the extent we do. Our drug war was wrong in harmful to the nation and especially to black folks. Women should have the right to decide how to handle health issues, including pregnancies. We do need Common Sense rules and regulations to protect our environment because, of course, the economy is a subset of the environment. We can't have a healthy economy if our environment is sick.
On point after point, we disagree with many if not most Republican policies because, in good faith we do not think they are helpful. Often times we think they are harmful.
Now there's one thing to disagree with this, but there's another thing to say we were ignorant or Covetous because we disagree with your stupid ass opinions. Understand?
Re: "voting against our interests..."
Just this last week, I got news from my mom's bank that her money was tied up due to criminal activity by Greg Lindberg who was doing criminal business in North Carolina and bribing Republican Representatives and seeking favorable treatment through less regulations and avoiding regulations. Decreasing regulations helps criminals like this. It hurts my mom. Don't tell me that we're voting against our interest. I am voting to protect my mom from criminals like this man and his Republican allies. To hell with your arrogance and ignorance.
For black people, for women, for the poor, for immigrants, for the environment and those who love our world and its people, this is personal. Your idiot Republican policies are causing harm and taking money from people like my mother. Shame on you for defending this or suggesting we don't know what we're talking about when you're the ignorant one. To hell with you.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article244912997.html
So, you’re arguing that it’s in the best interest of the citizens of places like Baltimore and MSP to continue to reflexively vote for the people who’ve presided over, “systemic racism” for decades, record numbers of murders, riots, sub par schools, and decaying infrastructure. That’s quite the bold stand.
FYI, read what I actually said before you respond and respond to that. Don’t respond to what you read in to my comments.
Here's another example of how you fail to understand what is an AR Pinterest as normal citizens. Trump another Rich folk like him promote and Advocate and abused bankruptcy laws specifically so they can avoid paying what they owe to people. They have used and abused the systems that they helped promote and create so that Trump can remain super wealthy human while refusing to pay the money he owes to regular employees. People like you and me.
You know what the Apostle James writes about such a wealthy oppressors you steal money from their labors, right? People vote Democrat because Republicans fight to protect and maintain the Privileges of the ultra-wealthy while denying Justice to regular folks into the poor.
Open your eyes. Use your head. You are being conned by a not especially intelligent con man.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/11/29/trump-went-broke-but-stayed-on-top/e1685555-1de7-400c-99a8-9cd9c0bca9fe/
Maybe if you were one of the people that he ripped off while he was staying wealthy, it would open your eyes. Regardless, don't assume that because we disagree with you that we don't understand the policies we fight for and the ones we fight against
Here's just one example of an idea that regular people should be able to unite around. Do you agree the bankruptcy laws should not be written in such a way that the billionaire could refuse to pay tens of thousands of dollars to an employee while claiming bankruptcy while remaining a billionaire? If you're a billionaire, pay your damn debts. Stop using the system to be a freeloader.
Could you agree to that, or would you defend the right of the wealthy to views the poor and middle class?
Craig.. "you’re arguing that it’s in the best interest of the citizens of places like Baltimore and MSP to continue to reflexively vote for the people who’ve presided over, “systemic racism” for decades, record numbers of murders, riots, sub par schools, and decaying infrastructure."
1. I'm not familiar with Baltimore's policies sufficiently that I can comment on their policies one way or the other. Does that make sense?
2. What I do know is that I'm operating under the assumption that the people of Baltimore are wise enough to make their own decisions and vote for the people they want to represent them and the policies they want.
3. I am familiar, however, with Louisville, the city where I live. And I am aware that our education is not what we would like it to be, nor is our police system what we would like for it to be. And we tend to have Democrat leaders, at least the mayor.
4. Yet, I know there are a lot of citizens of Louisville who are not pleased with our Democratic mayor. But I also know what the alternative was to our Democratic mayor. Republican leaders who would make things even worse with their oppressive police policies, their bad mental health, education, environmental, deregulation and drug policies.
5. That the Democrats, who have to work with conservatives and Republicans, have been less than what we want is not an indication that the Republicans would be better. That would be a stupid and unsupported claim.
Do you understand that?
For another example I'm familiar with, and Nicaragua the people had to overthrow an oppressive conservative leader who was supported by US policies and politicians. We ended up with problematic Sandinistan government.
Ortega was a very problematic and dangerous leader. But that is not to say that the oppressive conservative government which came before it was a better alternative. Clearly Ortega was better than what came before it. What we all want is something better than either.
And this is the problem. Because we are a mixed society with some conservatives and some moderates and some progressives, and because there aren't enough progressives to get a better city, one that we think would be better than what we have, we have to vote in such a way as to appease the moderates and conservatives. And thus we end up with a less than great city. But that is not to say that the conservatives would do better.
We liberals understand that. Black people understand that. Do you understand that?
Also: READ what I actually said before responding. I NEVER encourage people to vote "reflexively" with no thought. BUT, if you look at the policies advocated by the GOP and understand how they will cause harm to infrastructure, to education, to the poor, to immigrants, to black people, to women, to children, to the environment, THEN, if you recognize you can't vote GOP and the only other option in our flawed system is to vote Democrat, then that is reasonable.
You’re also assuming that a black family that has lived in the US for generations, a black immigrant family from Nigeria, a black immigrant family from Somalia, a black immigrant family from Ethiopia, and a black immigrant family from Cuba all have the exact same political interests.
You’re first comment is both incoherent and doesn’t address the actual question I asked.
The concise answer is that it’s wrong for people to exploit other people without regard to their political views.
This is why blacks keep voting Demokrat;
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/jason_whitlock_brilliantly_explains_how_white_liberals_keep_blacks_subordinate_and_dependent_on_democrats.html
"1. I'm not familiar with Baltimore's policies sufficiently that I can comment on their policies one way or the other. Does that make sense?"
Interesting that when it comes to your version of my position, ignorance is a huge negative, yet now you roll out ignorance as a defense. What's even stranger is that all you really need to look at are the results. Policy specifics probably don't matter when your streets are filled with trash, and rats run free. It seems that one can make inferences about specific policies based on the results and the party affiliation that get close enough for this discussion. But if you want to hide behind ignorance, go right ahead. The question is still valid. Given the results of those in power for the last several decades, does it make sense to vote for the people who brought you the results we see in the present day?
"2. What I do know is that I'm operating under the assumption that the people of Baltimore are wise enough to make their own decisions and vote for the people they want to represent them and the policies they want."
So, you're arguing that they want and intentionally voted for the current conditions in Baltimore. That they've chosen high murder rates, and trash in the streets. It's an interesting hunch. The question then becomes, how many years is it rational to vote for people who promise to fix these problems, but fail to do so?
"3. I am familiar, however, with Louisville, the city where I live. And I am aware that our education is not what we would like it to be, nor is our police system what we would like for it to be. And we tend to have Democrat leaders, at least the mayor."
I actually did some research on this, which you didn't respond to, as part of another thread. If one looks at the history of the Louisville city government over the past few decades, two things become clear. 1. The the DFL has held control of the city government for decades. 2. There are a significant number of individuals who have served for extended periods of time in city government. So, I think it's safe to conclude where the responsibility for Louisville's current condition lies. Is it safe to assume that these leaders have promised, but not delivered on, improvements? Keeping in mind what you've said regarding the Taylor shooting, would it be safe to conclude that the Louisville city government is rife with "systemic racism"?
It sounds like you're willing to accept failures in your education and police systems (at a minimum) as a cost of continued DFL control. I could be wrong, but it seems like to people who vote in those who control the systems, bear some degree of responsibility for the conditions of the systems, don't they?
"4. Yet, I know there are a lot of citizens of Louisville who are not pleased with our Democratic mayor. But I also know what the alternative was to our Democratic mayor. Republican leaders who would make things even worse with their oppressive police policies, their bad mental health, education, environmental, deregulation and drug policies."
So, you're willing to tolerate "systemic racism" and crappy schools and police, because of what you imagine people of a different political stripe might do. That sounds completely rational.
"5. That the Democrats, who have to work with conservatives and Republicans, have been less than what we want is not an indication that the Republicans would be better. That would be a stupid and unsupported claim."
I'll do the research again, but if I remember correctly the city government has been firmly in the control of Democrats, in many cases the same democrats, for decades. Who are these mystery "conservatives" who are thwarting your city government from creating a panacea? How do they have so much power over your elected officials?
What's interesting is that you've actually made the stupid and unsupported claim that things would be "even worse" if some mystery Republicans had a shot. Unfortunately, I've not made the claim you claim I've made. If for no other reason because I'm not stupid enough to believe that a third party candidate(s) couldn't win at the city level. Even so, you're still arguing in favor of the (crappy) status quo, out of fear of what someone else might do. But, that's what partisan blinders get you.
"Do you understand that?"
That you've made up my "claim" out of whole cloth, yes I do. I've been quite clear to focus only on this practice of electing the same folks for decades despite the decades of failure. Nice attempt to divert from the reality of the past and present, to a made up future.
"For another example I'm familiar with, and Nicaragua the people had to overthrow an oppressive conservative leader who was supported by US policies and politicians. We ended up with problematic Sandinistan government.
Ortega was a very problematic and dangerous leader. But that is not to say that the oppressive conservative government which came before it was a better alternative. Clearly Ortega was better than what came before it. What we all want is something better than either.
And this is the problem. Because we are a mixed society with some conservatives and some moderates and some progressives, and because there aren't enough progressives to get a better city, one that we think would be better than what we have, we have to vote in such a way as to appease the moderates and conservatives. And thus we end up with a less than great city. But that is not to say that the conservatives would do better."
Excellent example. Look at how Nicaragua has flourished over the past decades. I left your idiocy because of how absurd and tone deaf it is. I'm not going to waste any more time on it. Not to mention the fact that it's another apples to ground beef comparison.
"We liberals understand that. Black people understand that. Do you understand that?"
Understand what? Absolutely nothing I've been talking about is necessarily liberal/conservative. It's about voting for the same people (party) after decades of failure. I understand that you have to finesse the fact that the decades of failure: the high murder rates, the "systemic racism", the trash in the streets, the bad schools, and the lack of economic opportunity all happened under the control of the DFL. But, failure is failure regardless of party. You try to pass of the demand for a quid pro quo as "holding politicians accountable", yet make excuses for failing to hold politicians accountable by voting them out. Again, it's an admirable job of trying to steer things in a direction that you'd prefer, but you're aren't answering the questions or making a compelling real world case.
Glenn,
Dan's already ignored Whitlock and numerous other black voices, and he'll likely continue.
"Craig... "You’re also assuming that a black family that has lived in the US for generations, a black immigrant family..." Of course, this is stupidly false. I never said anything like this and no, it's not what I'm assuming. You can tell by the way I precisely NEVER said anything like that."
Got it. So when you refer to "black folks" (or whatever other terms you use to address blacks, you really mean some unidentified subset of "black folks" that will remain a mystery.), and the fact that they all vote the same way for the same reasons, you don't really mean all "black folks".
"Seriously, the GOP/Trumpservatives have GOT to give up these stupidly false claims and acting like they should be taken seriously. What has happened to rational, responsible, honest conservatives?"
OHHHHHHHHH, further and further off topic, excellent attempt, but I'm not wasting time with it. I'll leave it as another testament to your desperation.
"On those lines, Craig: Why are you not speaking out condemning the very dangerous lies and falsehoods that Trump has been making that undermine the ideals of a free nation? DO you recognize that when he said, "I won, if you count all the legal votes," that this was a stupidly false claim? That when he said, "They are trying to steal the election" without providing any proof or support for that claim - which he couldn't do because it was a stupidly false claim - that it WAS a stupidly false and dangerous claim? Why are you not denouncing these traitorous and idiotic lies?"
Your frequent excuse for your own silence is that you don't always address every single issue that comes up. If that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me.
In my case, I (as I frequently do) wish Trump would shut up and/or say different things. As for him exercising his legal right to investigate all of the allegations of voting irregularities, I am rarely on the side of denying someone their legal rights. Since it's an ongoing situation, I've chosen to wait to address it. In keeping with my history of waiting until we know more before I comment. You should try that sometime, and staying on topic.
"Bullshit. They did not TELL you that."
Dude. You're not dealing with "progressive" fake Christians here. Don't talk to me as if I am one. You're stupid and I don't expect that you would use that to explain your stupid positions. It's simply an accurate description by any honest person who reviews those positions you espouse. I can clearly see the consequences of Democratic control versus Republican policy. One has to be a flaming moron to vote Democrat, regardless of their color. I hold this fact-based position acknowledging that people I love vote Democrat. It saddens me that they're no more willing to discuss politics honestly as you, but there it is.
"You're deliberately erecting straw man lies to make you feel better, NOT to understand aright the reasoning of those you disagree with."
Well, I'll never understand "aright" any reasoning for rejecting Republicans from the likes of you. You never take the time. You never offer anything substantive. You've certainly failed with regard to Trump, defaulting instead to hyperbole and rhetoric not supported by any facts you've taken any time to provide. And BTW, you clearly don't understand what it means to "erect a straw man", as I haven't done that.
"That you pull stupidly false "reasons" out of your ass to explain what you don't understand is NOT the same as you understanding."
Good thing I haven't done that. So sad that you once again prefer assuming my reasoning rather than asking for elaboration. That's bearing false witness. Repent, prideful without reason fake Christian!
"Marshal... "voting Democrat is voting against one's own self-interest"
The problem is, of course, you cannot make a compelling case that this is the only possible interpretation of things."
Of course I can. What's more, it's more than interpretation. It's an accurate analysis of the facts.
"Economists will tell you that the economy improved, the debt went down unemployment went down and things generally have improved under the last several Democrat administrations as compared to the last several GOP Administrations."
I've dealt with this. Clearly you once again validate my claim that you either totally ignore that which I present to support my position, or you dismiss it outright. You have your economists, I have mine. Mine are right, yours are not. Mine address the things yours say, yours do not prove wrong anything mine say. And so it goes, over and over and over again.
"That you personally think the things are better for people under Republican leadership does not mean it is so."
I don't "personally think" things are better under Republican leadership. When the US Bureau of Labor Statistics gives a jobs report number...an unemployment rate number...and those numbers follow Republican policy, I'm stating fact.
"Didn't address the actual question you asked. "Craig.. "you’re arguing that it’s in the best interest of the citizens of places like Baltimore and MSP to continue to reflexively vote for the people who’ve presided over, “systemic racism” for decades, record numbers of murders, riots, sub par schools, and decaying infrastructure.""
"1. You didn't ask a question. You issued a statement. (Note, no question marks)."
Ahhhhhh, the semantic nitpicking gambit. If that's your opening salvo, then the rest must really suck. Of course, this ignores the fact that there are multiple unanswered questions.
"2. I DIRECTLY addressed the concern you raised, ("You're arguing that it's in the best interest of... citizens... baltimore... to continue...") by stating that I DO NOT KNOW BALTIMORE POLITICS. I tend not to comment on topics I have no data on."
Doubling down on the ignorance gambit. I knew your following points were going to suck, but this is really bad.
"3. I then INDIRECTLY (but pretty directly) dealt with the concern you raised by talking about MY city, which, like Baltimore, has had mostly Democratic leaders and which, like Baltimore, has had problems with policing and murder rates that were too high. In MY city, we vote for Democrats over GOP NOT because the Democrats are performing as we wish, but PRECISELY because the promises/policies the GOP advocates are worse options."
Ohhhhhhh, the repeating things I've already dealt with ploy. It's just getting worse.
"4. That IS a pretty direct response to your claim/not question."
OK. If an (in your words) "indirect" response, has somehow become a direct response is where you want to make a stand, that's cool. Of course, being willing to accept failure, because you're scare of any and all possible alternatives, doesn't seem rational to me. But, if you're cool with continuing the same folks who've brought you "systemic racism", inferior education, and other failures, that's your choice. Just acknowledge that you're making it.
"5. I then asked you if you recognized that saying "The Democrat leadership in these cities is imperfect" is not the same as saying, "So, I will vote for GOP leadership," when the policies the GOP advocate would have much worse outcomes for the poor, working class, black and white citizens who vote against GOP policies."
Wow, trying to sugar coat "systemic racism" and other failures as "imperfect" is quite the leap. I guess you're saying that the officers that shot Breanna Taylor, made some "imperfect" decisions and should get another couple decades on the force to keep trying. Two unproven assumptions. !. That the GOP is the only possible alternative. 2. That these (unspecified) GOP policies are all 100% guaranteed to be significantly worse than the status quo.
"It's NOT irrational to vote against policies you are opposed to (and for good reason) EVEN IF the policies that end up in place are not great, either (sometimes) or the results of those policies are not great. What are you failing to understand?"
I'm failing to understand why you are so intent on casting failure as "not great" and "imperfect". I'm trying to understand if things are "not great" and "imperfect" why there are protests and riots? I'm trying to understand why you're basing your entire argument on an unproven assumption.
"Are you saying, "The results of policies in Democrat led cities have been bad, therefore, you should vote for GOP policies..." EVEN IF there's no data to support those policies would have better results?"
Not necessarily. I'm saying that it makes no sense to vote for the same people who have brought decades of failure to various cities, regardless of party. I'm saying that voting for the same people for decades, isn't holding them accountable for their failures. I'm saying a lot more, but it doesn't matter because the likelihood of your responding to what I actually said (as opposed to your fantasy version of what I said) is slim.
"Voting for what you DON'T have just because what you have is imperfect is not a good plan."
Really? Voting for failure, "racist" systems, bad policing, and crappy schools is really better than voting of any alternative is what you'll tell "black folks" to keep them voting your way? It's interesting to hear your pass off "systemic racism" and those who control those "racist" systems as merely "imperfect". Why would you refer to failures of your side as "imperfect" and perceived failures of others as "evil"?
"I mean, in Democrat cities, we also don't have Nazis in charge."
What's it called, "Godwin's law"? Not NAZIs, just failures who continue to govern and perpetrate a "racist" system.
"Are you suggesting that, "Well, the Democrat leadership has had bad results, let's give Nazis a try..."? Because you do recognize that is insane, right?"
What's insane, is that you've chosen this bit of idiocy as your piece de resistance. Oh, let's bring in NAZIs as a way to divert attention from the failures in many of our urban areas.
"The data shows that the last several GOP administrations have been more corrupt, had more indictments, more convictions than the last several Democrat administrations. And by last several I mean in our lifetimes."
We've been over this as well. You like to refer to raw numbers and stop there when they seem to support your case. That's typical, but also dishonest. Most GOP indictments and convictions are for process issues rather than outright criminality. It's not a good angle to take when Dems aren't even tried or punished for that which is not even in question, such as tax dodging by people like Al Sharpton for one example. Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified materials is a direct breech of laws that don't require intent for conviction, and Comey...a Dem hack...recommends against trying her for it. This is commonplace.
" Moreover, we think many of GOP policies and positions are just ethically and practically wrong for us as a nation."
Yet you can never prove it or argue that it is so. You prove my point by reasserting you claims that you've never fully defended in the past. Indeed, you do what you claim I'm doing...pretending your beliefs equate to reality. For example, our immigration policy is not wrong because you believe it is. Indeed, it's not even wrong because some who try to cross our borders illegally suffer by doing so in one way or another. Here, you blame us for their suffering when we're not at all responsible for it simply because we have laws we expect must be obeyed.
"Now there's one thing to disagree with this, but there's another thing to say we were ignorant or Covetous because we disagree with your stupid ass opinions. Understand?"
I understand your intention to continue lying about why I regard Democrat voters in the way I do. It hasn't anything to do with simply disagreeing. It's because you people have no factual, honest basis for rejecting conservative policy. Whenever you decide to actually present such a basis, I'll be here for you.
Much more later...
Regarding the Lindberg case, you pretend this is emblematic of Republican behavior, while ignoring the fact that the Republican Lindberg was attempting to bribe, with the help of Republican Party Chairman Robin Hayes, immediately contacted the FBI and wore a wire. What's more, I've found nothing that refers to the very regulations Lindberg was trying to have altered or eliminated, or whether or not they were necessary, beneficial or did any good at all. It's the manner in which he went about trying to get them altered that was his crime. Also, though he attempted to bribe Republicans, it is clearly an example of their character that the attempts failed. Attempting to bribe has no bearing on the bribed unless the bribed takes the bribe. What's more, merely donating to Republicans doesn't make the Republicans receiving the donations in any way tainted by the character of those donating, no matter how much you sick fake Christian progressives need it to be.
"Decreasing regulations helps criminals like this."
No. It doesn't. Criminals don't care about laws and regulations. That's what makes them criminals, and the fact that they act despite laws and regulations that put them at risk of arrest and incarceration clearly shows that regulations and laws aren't relevant to their behaviors. What's more, there's still the question of whether or not a law or regulation has merit, is reasonable or is needed in the first place.
By the way....bankruptcy law provides for payment to creditors of those in financial straights. They don't allow for debtors to get out of paying. If they simply haven't the money, they can't be squeezed for what they don't have, and future earnings goes toward those awaiting payment. In Trump's case, his bankruptcy resulted in a restructuring that allowed debts to be paid, and if I'm not mistaken, they eventually were. Bankruptcy isn't a good thing for people like Trump or for anyone else who goes claims it. You're an idiot.
" I'm saying that it makes no sense to vote for the same people who have brought decades of failure to various cities, regardless of party."
You DO realize we live within a 2 party system?
You DO realize that progressive types HAVE run Green Party and other third party candidates and because we are a mix of conservative, moderate and liberal, we haven't been able to get elected?
So, given that progressive types can't get elected easily in a mixed philosophy two party system, our options are to vote for the party that will do MORE harm (GOP) or LESS harm and where we can sometimes influence in our direction?
What do you suggest?
I, for one, would like to see changes that make multiple parties more possible, but we're not there right now.
Godwin's law. That you don't understand what I was saying does not mean that you're correct in your assessment.
I didn't say you all were Nazis. I used an extreme example to establish a principle.
Setting aside your Godwin nonsense, do you understand the PRINCIPLE I'm talking about and do you think the PRINCIPLE is mistaken?
Dan,
Any further attempt to drive the topic towards the election, will not be responded to. I’ll assume it’s simply an attempt to avoid other topics and deal with it as such.
I think you invoking the NAZI’s was childish, idiotic, and pointlessly provocative. The fact that your playing bullshit games seems to support that.
Do you realize that we don’t live in a mandated 2 party system and that your acknowledgment of third parties makes your first question look stupid?
Do you also realize that I addressed this earlier, by pointing out that third party candidates seem to do better in local elections than national. Strangely, your willingness to settle for failure instead of putting effort into a third party doesn’t speak particularly highly of your standards.
If you’re willing to settle for decades of failure and racist systems, while trying to brush it off as “imperfect”, then I suggest you accept what you have and your responsibility for voting for the extended period of failure. Clearly you don’t have enough balls to do anything wise but make excuses for decades of failure.
"You DO realize that progressive types HAVE run Green Party and other third party candidates and because we are a mix of conservative, moderate and liberal, we haven't been able to get elected?"
No conservative would run with you people. But then, you don't understand what a conservative is, so...
"So, given that progressive types can't get elected easily in a mixed philosophy two party system, our options are to vote for the party that will do MORE harm (GOP) or LESS harm and where we can sometimes influence in our direction?
What do you suggest?"
I suggest you take the time to learn what conservatism is (in either politics OR religion) in order to understand what asserting the GOP will do more harm than good proves the validity of my claim that you're stupid. I do appreciate the help, though.
"I, for one, would like to see changes that make multiple parties more possible, but we're not there right now."
OOH! The spirit of the holidays! More help! We've had multiple parties for quite some time. You mentioned one of them...the laughable Green Party...and referenced other third party possibilities. Thus, it's stupid to say we're not there now. Furthermore, it's stupid to suggest we'd be better off with MORE parties which makes us MORE divided. Imagine when you lose to a party candidate who garnered only 37% of the population because the remaining 63% was divided among five other parties. And you want us to believe you're capable of determining that the GOP would be worse for Louisville than the Dems who have made it the cesspool you pretend you want improved?
Democrats offer nothing but more of the same misery they've inflicted for so long. And their record of pandering to their favored special interests is why this Cullors woman is so bold in threatening Biden & Co if they don't come through with whatever racist crap she has in mind. I'll say it again: if your favored candidate didn't run on promises you wish he'd made, then to demand that he make them after he's elected is inane and is one more validation of leftist stupidity. That's not to say this racist can't lobby for considerations should the moron Biden win. She has that right. But to pretend she can get militant if she doesn't get her way, especially if Biden hadn't promised her racist group a damned thing is delusional and dangerous.
Dan and Art,
In absolutely zero way shape or form or comments, links, or any other discussion of Donald Trump and previous bankruptcies appropriate for a thread about the failure of local government. If you want to have that conversation, I will gladly open up a thread for that.If the answer is no, then I will delete them as they have absolutely no relevance to this thread.
Last time. Let me give a specific example. I don't know what in the hell you're failing to understand but try to read slowly look the words and understand what I'm saying.
In our last election for mayor, we had a Democrat who would have plenty of people of color in his administration and who would listen to police protesters and those concerned about systemic racism in the police force and seem to be at least reasonable.
His opponent was Pro police, Thin Blue Line, cop protector all the way.
Now the moderate Democrat who won, is very much a moderate Democrat. That is, he's not given to being especially critical of the police department. Yet, given a choice between a pro cop candidate whose administration would be way more white and way less Progressive, between that Conservative candidate and a moderate Democrat, who do you think mainstream black people are going to vote for? Who do you think moderates and progressives are going to vote for? If you think that Progressive types and a majority of black people in Louisville are happy with our democratic mayor and Leadership, then you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Our police system does have systemic racism embedded in it. There's no doubt of it. Listen to Black voices and learn.
And yet, we're in the reality of not having the ability to convince the third of conservatives and some of the moderates to vote for a more Progressive friendly candidate. And so, we will always vote for the less awful candidate.
The direct action organization that my church and other churches, black and white, belong to have a long-standing difficult relationship with our Democrat mayor. He won't even meet with us anymore. Progressive types and moderate Progressive types are not happy with him. He's not being as responsive as he should be given our numbers. And yet, we're not going to vote for the conservative who is even more hostile to our concerns. What about that do you not understand?
Because I can't explain it any better. Forget listening to me, just listen to Black voices. All black voices, not just the minority that agrees with you.
I will tell you this, if you want to join with us and show us how to push through more Progressive policies that are helpful black people, immigrants, women, lgbtq, immigrants and Progressives, you're welcome to lead the way.
But if you're asking us to join with The Thin Blue Line people who are hostile towards black lives matter, that's not going to happen. Why would we do that?
I’m not asking you to do anything, other than answer the questions you’re asked. If you think I am then you’re not paying attention, If you think I care about the choices you have for mayor after decades of failure, then you’re not paying attention.
You get the (failing) government you vote for, I’m not sure why that’s so hard for you to understand.
Your complaint seems to be that you had two DFL candidates for mayor and that you decided they both sucked. So, you decided to vote for a DFL candidate who you felt sucked instead of even considering anyone else. Sounds like you made your choice to back a crappy candidate who’s going to continue decades of failure.
Your complaint seems to be that you had two DFL candidates for mayor and that you decided they both sucked.
We had one Green candidate, one Democrat candidate and a Republican candidate. The Green candidate couldn't win, didn't have the votes. The GOP candidate advocated policies that would make Louisville worse. That left us with the Democrat candidate.
The best candidate (as far as progressives were concerned) was the Green party candidate, they had the best policies. But they were not going to be elected. Louisville is too conservative to go that way.
So, the second best candidate was the Democrat. He could be talked to. He wasn't advocating openly detrimental policies.
The worst candidate was the GOP candidate. Just because the Democrat candidate was flawed and siding too much with the traditional police force (which is WAY more conservative than Louisville at large) doesn't mean that we would be better off with the conservative/GOP candidate, who was a Thin Blue Line/police advocate.
And that's just one topic/area of concern.
So no, that was not my complaint. Understand now?
The point remains, just because the Democrat candidate was/is flawed, doesn't mean we'd want any even worse candidate in the GOP candidate.
Understand?
NOR does it mean we support the bad decisions the Democrat mayor has made.
Understand?
It's really quite simple if you read for understanding.
My vote is, delete nothing that isn't totally foul and derogatory, as we've seen posted by Dan and his navel lint. I'll be better at sticking to the point of the post, though allowing repeated lies to stand without response can be tough.
"Our police system does have systemic racism embedded in it. There's no doubt of it. Listen to Black voices and learn."
Our electoral system is does have systemic flaws that allow for fraud. There's no doubt of it. Listen to those disenfranchised voices and learn.
With my statement you demand absolute and undisputed proof. With yours, we're to simply accept. KMA, fake.
Blacks who vote Democrat are voting totally against their best interests, just as is true of anyone who votes Dem. The growing number of blacks and other minorities who are voting Republican is testament to that truth. The fact that nothing improves for blacks and other minorities in Dem controlled cities and states is testament to that truth.
Self interest voting:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/obama_defames_millions_of_americans_as_racists_in_new_memoir.html
Ok, you had 3 candidates that sucked, and you voted for the one who’s going to perpetuate the same failed policies you’ve had for decades. But you keep voting for failure, because you’re afraid of what someone might possibly do.
We're to assume that Dan is correct in stating the GOP candidate was the worst of the three. Given the sorry state of Louisville, and what party's been running it for so long, that's hard to believe. If the "progressives", blacks and other minorities are NOT voting against their own best interests, then it would seem reasonable that the Green Party candidate would win handily, given how bad the Democrats have been running the place, and how bad Dan says the GOP candidate would be, simply because he has more respect for the police. Thus, Dan contradicts himself in suggesting Dem voters are thoughtful in their voting. Seems quite the contrary.
Also, apparently Louisville is both conservative, but not that conservative, but no one sees the Republican as worth a vote? Again, Dan neither understands "conservative" nor what's in the best interests of his city.
You're daft and you have a penchant for not understanding comments, Craig. Good luck.
Annnnnnd Dan with the “You can’t ever understand me” dismount as he rides off into the sunset with a plethora of unanswered questions in his wake.
I do so love it when he does this and uses a dive into the minutia of the specific, as a way to avoid dealing with broader topics that he doesn’t like. He has absolutely no problem speaking for “black people as a whole, but can’t speak to conditions in any city but his own. The notion that the voters bear some responsibility for decades of bad governance because they elect the same people repeatedly, is clearly one that he’s uncomfortable engaging with.
The notion that any option except the DFL is automatically worse is simply absurd and one more example of an unproven claim in a long line of unproven claims.
Not surprised to see this most current exit with one of the same predictable excuses, unanswered questions, unproven assumptions, and unsupported claims.
Who knew that Louisville’s mayor had such dictatorial power?
For all his typical games, obfuscation, avoidance and double-standards in discourse, I still don't mind trying to engage with Dan. It just has to be done with the understanding one will never actually be dealing with an honest person seeking understanding and common ground. It's just an exercise...mostly in futility.
If he comments, I’ll respond. I just feel compelled to point out his double standards and hypocrisy.
Have you seen the Rassmussen story regarding Biden underperforming Hillary in most urban areas except in swing states? I just saw the headline and will hunt it down tomorrow. It is interesting that we’ve seen more votes than registered voters reported in multiple places and that not many seem concerned.
I've seen similar, but I thought I saw them showing it in swing states. I don't recall exactly, so I won't try to insist. Yet, until they chose to stop counting, curiously at about the same time, those swing states were found going for Trump.
As to more votes than voters, I saw something that suggested that's due to using older voter info that doesn't account for population increase. I haven't liked more deeply into that specific claim. At the same time, some speak of the degree of increase being suspicious. In any case this is what comes from not taking voter roll purging seriously.
My wife and I moved two minutes south after selling stately Marshal At Manor this past spring. We re-registered as we are now in a new precinct. Not sure if they still have us listed in the old precinct, but when we leave the state in 2022, we'll make certain if we haven't done so before hand.
https://www.outkick.com/whitlock-black-pride-religion-ordained-by-white-liberals-taking-black-people-and-america-straight-to-hell/
Post a Comment