T
Theo520
Guest
Please don’t twist reality to defend biden. Just admit he misspoke/flipflopped when responding to Wallace’s simple question. Yes, it was Wallace and not Trump who asked the question
- Status
D
Donkey
Guest
https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/cath...8bc3b4b50dbd9bafd830634297079f52985d206a.jpeg
Driver’s seat, ooh
Driver’s seat, yeah
Driver’s seat, ooh
Driver’s seat, yeah
Yeah
Driver’s seat
The news is blue (the news is blue)
Has its own way to get to you (ooh)
Driver’s seat, ooh
Driver’s seat, yeah
Driver’s seat, ooh
Driver’s seat, yeah
Yeah
Driver’s seat
The news is blue (the news is blue)
Has its own way to get to you (ooh)
Last edited:
M
Maximian
Guest
Haha.
What times we live in. There was a time when both sides would have at least spoken with elegance and courtesy.
What times we live in. There was a time when both sides would have at least spoken with elegance and courtesy.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
T
TK421
Guest
Now you have me curious. I need to Youtube it.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Did you read between the lines? Trump would not condemn white supremacy in general. He demanded the name of a group.
That way he could quibble and make exceptions (as some do here). Why can’t he just condemn racism? Would it cause him to lose supporters?
I hope those ‘surging number of minority supporters’ were watching or listening.
That way he could quibble and make exceptions (as some do here). Why can’t he just condemn racism? Would it cause him to lose supporters?
I hope those ‘surging number of minority supporters’ were watching or listening.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I know.
Just when I thought this year couldn’t get any worst, we have to choose between these two.
May God have mercy on us.
Just when I thought this year couldn’t get any worst, we have to choose between these two.
May God have mercy on us.
Last edited:
D
Donkey
Guest
Shut-up
The phrase is probably a shortened form of " shut up your mouth " or " shut your mouth up ". … Its use is generally considered rude and impolite, and may also considered a form of profanity by some. (Wikipedia)
I distinctly recall learning this in kindergarten. It was a profanity in K class and still is today for my grandkids.
Would you shut-up man. ~ Joe Biden
His was an order in the form of a question.
The phrase is probably a shortened form of " shut up your mouth " or " shut your mouth up ". … Its use is generally considered rude and impolite, and may also considered a form of profanity by some. (Wikipedia)
I distinctly recall learning this in kindergarten. It was a profanity in K class and still is today for my grandkids.
Would you shut-up man. ~ Joe Biden
His was an order in the form of a question.
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
I think that anyone who is not ashamed at how Trump performed in last night’s debate is in active denial. It was unworthy of a president.
D
Donkey
Guest
I’m not at all ashamed. President Trump arrived ready to ‘shoot bear’ in his usual way and all he had to unload on was a flimsy target.
Last edited:
V
Vanny
Guest
I was very interested in Mr. Biden’s reply to would you expand the Supreme Court and abolish the filibuster. We did not get an answer to that. It was sidestepped. That is very important. Of Supreme importance, pardon the pun, as it would change the face of our country.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m a Trump voter and will remain one because I will not support a man purporting to be Catholic who promises to again force Catholic charities to provide abortifacients, to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, to reverse the Mexico City policy and who “married” two men to each other.
Having said that, it appeared to me Trump was not well prepared, and Biden is every bit as mean as he seemed to be back when talking about George W. Bush years ago.
Last edited:
S
SantaFe
Guest
I agree with you completely!
Last edited:
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
We were not allowed to use those words growing up. I also did not allow my kids to use that on each other, so they started saying, “shut.” I put a stop to that too.
T
TK421
Guest
Round 2 is October 15th in Miami 
Until then. Peace.
Until then. Peace.
P
Peeps
Guest
I apologize for being unclear.
I agree with you that the response, “I condemn white supremacy” would have been simple, to the point…
…but rather meaningless. I asked “How do you think that the white supremacist groups should be dealt with?”
My answer to that is that they need to be dealt with the same way other extremist groups are dealt with in the U.S.
I assume that such groups are under pretty much constant surveillance, and that the known leaders of these groups are constantly watched and their whereabouts tracked at all time. I also think that at any large gatherings (e.g., the March for Life, which is where I have seen these White Supremacist groups masquerading as “pro-life” and trying to recruit naive teens and college kids as well as solicit funds from soft-hearted older people), the “feds” and other law-enforcement groups keep a sharp lookout for any “radical” groups, including but not limited to white supremacist groups, black power groups with a known agenda promoting violence, fanatical religious groups that advocate violence, etc.
I also think that the public needs to be educated about the differences between white supremacist and violent black power organizations and good, public-minded, legitimate organizations that are peaceful and that exist to promote their own ethnic group in a positive way rather than in a way that attempts to prove racial or ethnic superiority.
I think that all political parties need to come together–literally meet together, either in person or online, and forge a written agreement to condemn ethnic organizations that advocate violence, and in this agreement, make it clear that they support law enforcement agencies as they track these organizations in order to prevent any violent activity, and also seek to apprehend and punish those individuals in such organizations that are involved in violent acts.
I think that those involved with the agreement need to debate and eventually come to a decision and put it in writing concerning what constitutes a '“violent action.” Some people seem to believe that just saying or writing something is a “violent action,” while others insist that this is “free speech.” This needs to be agree upon so that we have unity when these acts are created. Right now, some people believe that even wearing certain colors or hairstyles consitutes a violent act deserving of incarceration/fines, while others believe that the act must actually violate a written law (e.g., shooting a gun during a protest activity.).
It all needs to be written out. What we’re doing now (nothing) is dividing all of us further, as we are all talking/acting at cross purposes while the hate groups thrive.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think he got “tunnel mind”. He seemed to want to know which organizations Wallace was talking about. Since Wallace was mildly on Biden’s side in the debate, Trump probably expected a “gotcha” if he answered too broadly, because a lot of people get called “racist” or “white supremacits” who aren’t.
But I do think it was Trump’s foul up. He made it too complicated when I don’t think it really was.
But I do think it was Trump’s foul up. He made it too complicated when I don’t think it really was.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
I hope I’ve given you something to think about in my above post.
Just condeming “racism” means nothing. What is “racism?”
Nowadays, a white woman can be accused of committing a racist act if she twirls her long blond hair around her fingers while she talks at lunchtime. Or a black person can be accused of being part of a violent racist group if they wear a BLM logo on an article of clothing.
Neither of these are racist acts. The first is a nervous habit and the woman is not overtly trying to prove her racial superiority over anyone. (If anything, she’s making everyone nervous because they are worried that one of her hairs might drift into their meal–yech!!).
The second is an act of pride of culture/race/heritage. The person wearing the BLM logo is, in all likelihood, not advocating joining the actual BLM group (which does have some disturbing and somewhat frightening commentary on their website), but is actually expressing unity with those who believe that black people should never be treated as though they “don’t matter.”
I don’t blame the President for demanding clarity and not being willing to make a blanket statement. Remember the old hippie song, “One Tin Soldier.” It can happen when we act or speak in haste.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m not as sure of that. While one may be able to easily keep track of information and events put out to the public, being a white supremicist is not illegal. Constant surveillance in the absence of some illegal actions could possibly violate the 4th amendment. Someone with a law background can probably speak on that better.
I don’t think there is a test for “legit organization.” That may be a value judgement (opinion). From what I’ve seen, there isn’t even test for “organization.” From what I’ve seen similar dress or uttering similar phrases is sufficient for some to consider otherwise unassociated people part of an organization.
Good luck with that.
Not everyone does.
Keep the 4th ammendment in mind here.
Don’t current laws already cover that?
I think this may already be covered by law also. What is there to add?
The text of laws are already available. I’m not seeing that anything new would be added by the above suggestions.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is quite complete. Here is a more complete transcript:LeafByNiggle:
Please don’t twist reality to defend biden. Just admit he misspoke/flipflopped when responding to Wallace’s simple question. Yes, it was Wallace and not Trump who asked the question
So if Biden’s response seems incomplete its because Trump did not let him finish his response. I’m not twisting reality. It is Breitbart that is twisting reality by pretending that a cutoff sentence without the explanation that followed constitutes “claims that Biden does not support the Green New Deal.”
Last edited:
- Status