Black voters say they won't forget Trump's racist tweets

guno said:
Robin D. Stephens lived through Jim Crow and thought the worst days of racism were behind her. Then President Donald Trump told four American congresswomen of color to "go back" to where they came from.

"It was very hurtful to see the person who is the leader of the country that I live in and that I respect and love, speak that way to U.S. citizens," said Stephens, a 61-year-old retired public defender who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

But Stephens is tired of talking about Trump's racist tweets. She is ready to take her pain to the polls.



https://www.wral.com/black-voters-s...8722/?userId=115fb0e64cdb4f09b0a1eccef3088892
Click to expand...

I won't forget the Kav S.C. hearing. That goes for Lisa Murkowski when she's up for reelection also.
 
Wolverine said:
Oh you are one of those who give Obama credit for unemployment rates being the lowest ever two years almost three after he left office, you are a special kind of stupid!
Click to expand...

Because your ignorance includes not undestand the economy is on the same trajectory as Obama left him, I suppose you can tell us all what economic moves Trump made that made it better. His tax cut just made the wealth gap worse by moving a couple trillion to the wealthy and corporations.
 
StoneByStone said:
They hide it, but they also give out dog whistles to let racists know they're on their side. When Trump tweets "go back to your countries" or claims that he's a Nationalist, those are dog whistles with plausible deniability. Trump could always claim the tweets weren't racist because he never mentioned race.



I would have agreed in the Pre-Trump days. However, Trump and the Alt-Right have transformed the GOP.
It is true that most of this racist talk is just talk. Trump uses racist tweets to suck up to the Alt-Right, but he has no plan to actually build the wall. However, supporting a party that demonizes you, even if it's only in tweets, still makes you a cuck.

Uncle Tom is not derogatory towards black voters. It's derogatory towards black voters who vote for people who dehumanize them.
Click to expand...


Sounds like some conspiracy theory you have going on there. Trumps tweets doesn't dehumanize the black voters it only stabs at the four democratic congresswomen. In which you and the media label as "women of color".
 
Southern Chicken said:
YOU SAID that republicans hide their anti-black then said they are open about it. Isn't that a contradiction? The democratic party doesn't own the label of being pro or anti-black and neither does the Republicans party. There are wacko members in both parties. However, I still see you are the one using the term Uncle Tom in a derogatory way toward black voters.
Click to expand...

And don't go tap dancing away from responding to this....which one is it? Is it hidden or not?
 
Southern Chicken said:
Sounds like some conspiracy theory you have going on there. Trumps tweets doesn't dehumanize the black voters it only stabs at the four democratic congresswomen. In which you and the media label as "women of color".
Click to expand...

If Trump burnt a cross on a black person's lawn, would you consider that racist?

If so, why?
 
StoneByStone said:
If Trump burnt a cross on a black person's lawn, would you consider that racist?

If so, why?
Click to expand...

If I didn't give him permission to do it to my personal property then it could be considered a crime and not necessarily a hate crime or racist. Being that I am a law abiding citizen, I follow the constitution. Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the speaker intended to threaten violence or provoke an immediate act of violence. While a person may be removed from a classroom or fired from employment for engaging in ‘hate speech’, under the First Amendment a person may be charged with a crime only if their statements constitute a threat or provocation of immediate violence.

To support this I will point out two cases:
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003).

In each case the defendants were arrested and convicted of a crime for burning a cross, and in each case the Supreme Court reversed the defendants’ convictions.
 
guno said:
Robin D. Stephens lived through Jim Crow and thought the worst days of racism were behind her. Then President Donald Trump told four American congresswomen of color to "go back" to where they came from.

"It was very hurtful to see the person who is the leader of the country that I live in and that I respect and love, speak that way to U.S. citizens," said Stephens, a 61-year-old retired public defender who lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

But Stephens is tired of talking about Trump's racist tweets. She is ready to take her pain to the polls.



https://www.wral.com/black-voters-s...8722/?userId=115fb0e64cdb4f09b0a1eccef3088892
Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck, they are 12% of the population and half of that wont vote and the other half is in jail or felons
 
Southern Chicken said:
If I didn't give him permission to do it to my personal property then it could be considered a crime and not necessarily a hate crime or racist. Being that I am a law abiding citizen, I follow the constitution. Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the speaker intended to threaten violence or provoke an immediate act of violence. While a person may be removed from a classroom or fired from employment for engaging in ‘hate speech’, under the First Amendment a person may be charged with a crime only if their statements constitute a threat or provocation of immediate violence.

To support this I will point out two cases:
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003).

In each case the defendants were arrested and convicted of a crime for burning a cross, and in each case the Supreme Court reversed the defendants’ convictions.
Click to expand...

Once again, if Trump burnt a cross on a black person's lawn, would you consider that racist?
I'm not saying whether it would be legal or illegal, would you consider it racist?
 
StoneByStone said:
Once again, if Trump burnt a cross on a black person's lawn, would you consider that racist?
I'm not saying whether it would be legal or illegal, would you consider it racist?
Click to expand...

What part of no don't you understand? However I would consider it a crime. It is hard to prove intent. I prefer to allow the law to determine intent. By the way there have been cases where a black person sprayed the nword on his own property. Also look at the Smollett case in Chicago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top