Sounds kind of racist to me , It just reminds me though that racism plays a huge part FROM the positions minorities too . 90 percent of Black voters voted for Obama , proving racism exists in the black community , now he says this , I wonder when the media will call out racism where racism TRULY exists ?
The utter simplicity of racism and hypocrisy is that they dwell especially IN the minority ?
That's pretty low of him. Not surprised. It will take low talk and dirty tactics to keep the voters in the dark until November.
Well, that's good news really, because the Democratic party must be in a panic about losing the Black Voters. There are far less willing to support Hillary than any other Democrat running for president from what I read. More and more people are waking up and deciding to support Trump, because they are researching and thinking for themselves.
Last I saw a couple weeks ago:
Clinton 70% (shrinking)
Trump 30% (growing)
Cmon, horse, lets not banter over the ridiculous. Obama was referring to his policy initiatives and who would be most likely to continue them. Yes, we are pro Obama, better have an disagreement between friends than to embrace a mortal enemy, yes?
I think Republicans suck and so believes much of the Black community, I don't need to test the winds to tell you that. Trump will be lucky to get 5 percent of the Black vote, and I don't care what infowars says
How many times do I have to tell conservatives? Blacks vote constantly Democrat, because the other party dismisses them in its entirety. That has been true in large part since the sixties. So what rock have you been hiding under for over 50 years? So, Einstein, it is about the association with Democratic Party not Obama and Black, get it?
But you have to wonder on what plantation do Jews and Asians live on, they are traditionally heavy Democratic voters? Trump's theme of xenophobia will certainly play well with them?
What you REALLY mean is conservatives fail to recognize Blacks ONLY ;first and foremost like Obama . Just can't get by being equal to everyone else can they ?
And Hillary has delivered SO much for blacks in America ? Yes ? Oh , promises -only don't count ?
Watch what happens , in spite of your wishes black voters are on the Trump train .
I don't even" hate" democrats , but interesting term there Credence !
I will be watching, horse, to see Trump and the Republicans deliver on so much MORE...
No , It is attitudes resembling yours that are weighing the benefits of how to vote , that you're watching !
Can I get more entitlements if I vote to continue his policies ?
Can I gain more personally if I vote for Hillary over Trump ?
What do I get out of this election ?
How will my Democratic vote serve me ?
Does any of this sound familiar ? This is the agenda of the new left .
No, horse, it sounds like just more BS from the 'old right'.
We both know that you have no use for Farrakhan and the Black Muslim group he represents, but since he attacks Obama, now he is your bud?
What you think is quite clever is actually quite transparent for anyone that has two eyes that can see.
Credence , The difference is , IS when they say something TRUTHUL ! Listen to Alveda King, she is one of my hero's , Why ? Because SHE is honest ! When Farrakhan says something HONEST I listen .
Try honesty sometime !
How does 90 percent of Black voters voting for Obama prove racism exists in the black community?
It sounds like you are saying a Black voting for a Black, because he is black is racist. Is that your intention? I just think it is dumb, I don't get the racism part. And since you said it was simplicity itself, now I have to worry about what I missed. Or who is missing what.
Is putting a man in the white house purely because he has black skin really different than putting him in the back of the bus...purely because he has black skin?
You both are off, if I selected Obama solely due to fact that he was a Black Man, I would be guilty of bias. But, let me tell you that I would never vote for Herman Cain or Alan Keyes, as it has nothing to do with the candidate being Black. If the candidate does not mesh with my ideological and political stance, it doesn't matter what color you are, he or she will not get my vote.
Why do you assume that they voted purely for his black skin? Clinton is projected to receive an even higher percentage of votes from blacks than Obama did. I'm thinking they view Democratic policies more favorably than Republican policies.
Yea !.............. That's really working out for blacks in the inner cities isn't it ,? Lots of brands new jobs in the inner city too , No ? And how about that crime rate , it's gone isn't it ? How about the great education system in the ghetto ? That's spitting out genius' Yes ?
So tell us just how Voting for another Clinton is going to be an act of celebration in Ferguson Mo. , Charlotte Sc. , Baltimore Md. Chicago Ill. ...............................You can chime in anytime their Credence ..........Yeaa ! Vote Hillary !
Oh, I got it wrong again ? Or are you blinded by the systematic breakdown in EVERY ONE of the democratic run inner cities ?
Yeah, I'll chime in. Besides running his mouth, what has Trump proposed to do about the problems?While the current situation needs improving, going backwards is not the solution.
Why take a chance with an unknown who despite his expedient rhetoric has a record of hostility to Minorities and their aspirations?
Pretty simple concept, really, I am surprised that you are not picking it up.
Stop and frisk. More police protection and involvement.
What has Clinton proposed?
Trump has proposed bringing back the concept of "stop and frisk", which did not pass Constitutional muster when taken to court. The idea that extra legal attempts to violate 4th amendment protections guranteed to us all can have an exception apply to the inner city will not stand. I think Clinton is smart enough not to get on board with this as a continued source of harrassment within the Black community.
Won't argue that stop and frisk is unconstitutional: it is.
What has Clinton proposed?
Case law in Terry v. Ohio, on the street investigation for weapons by an officer, "patting down" or stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion of intent isn't unconstitutional.
There are more recent case laws that are not as restrictive as Terry.
Our Forth Amendment however does need to be protected from unreasonable pat downs. Cops need to follow their permissions of procedures and authority granted by the government. The cops know who the criminals are and where they live on their beat.
The Government's authority is granted by the Constitution, and it's procedures are to be adherent to that.
This is an excerpt from an Atlantic Monthly article, that is about the. Practice of 'stop and 'frisk associated with ' broken windows policing'
"Every time I read the ‘Broken Windows’ article, I get more upset,” says Udi Ofer, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey, who is considering a legal challenge to Newark’s stop-and-frisk program. (This would be in addition to the federal monitor reportedly soon to be assigned to Newark’s force by the U.S. Department of Justice, in response to a 2010 ACLU petition about a range of police abuses.) “Broken-windows policing,” he claims, gives cops far too much discretionary power in deciding what is suspect behavior, who might be up to no good, and what to do about it. “Under the rubric of broken windows,” he says, “comes racial profiling.”
I concur with this assessment.
Street Stops and Broken Windows: Terry,
Race, and Disorder in New York City
PDF: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6cb2/f … e6d860.pdf
We are talking about "stop and frisk" not broken windows.
"Reasonable suspicion" to investigate with "patting down".
I was talking about how well "stop and frisk" helped in NYC.
From 2,500 deaths per year down to 500 per year.
I happen to believe innocent people have the right to LIFE.
"There are more recent case laws that are not as restrictive as Terry." ~ me
"Case law in Terry v. Ohio, on the street investigation for weapons by an officer, "patting down" or stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion of intent isn't unconstitutional. "
Apparently not, if your skin is dark. Only those with light skin may be stopped and frisked.
http://www.wbur.org/news/2016/09/20/mas … lee-police
"Lacking any information about facial features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, weight, or other physical characteristics, the victim's description 'contribute[d] nothing to the officers' ability to distinguish the defendant from any other black male' wearing dark clothes and a 'hoodie' in Roxbury."
If you're black, hide your face and wear bulky clothing adequate description cannot be made to provide "reasonable cause" and stop someone, let alone frisk them. In the case in point, a clothing description was given for robbery suspects, and two men were stopped. An unlicensed, illegal gun was found and the suspect charged and convicted of it - case thrown out on appeal because their hoodie prevented adequate description to allow them to be stopped. The court also noted that, if you are black, running from cops cannot be deemed to be suspicious enough to stop or frisk them. But only if you are black.
Who says that unjustied stops and harrassment by police apply only if you are Black? If whites were being treated this way, you don't think that they would not make a fuss?
Nobody should be subjected to this, race has nothing to do with it.
In New York, the stop and frisk policy was being used wholesale on any Black male pedestrian where there was no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime had taken place or was in progress. I think that if suspects had been identified by their clothing from the victim, it may constitute reasonable suspicion to stop as long as the clothing identification was not general such as 'the assailant was wearing a shirt'.
Not according to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. Their decision applies only to blacks, and that limitation was clearly articulated.
I disagreed with the NY policy, finding it unconstitutional and almost certain to be abused from racism, but this one is ridiculous. A red hoodie, a black hoodie and dark clothing, for three suspects, coupled with being black was insufficient because the description of the suspects did not include "facial features, hairstyles, skin tone, height, weight, or other physical characteristics".
But the worst of it is that blacks, and ONLY blacks, that run from cops cannot be deemed as "suspicious behavior" and cannot be considered "reasonable cause" to either stop OR frisk them. Which I found rather interesting as a cop making a traffic stop in my state may frisk the occupants for weapons. Not for anything else, but weapons indicate danger and they are very much allowed to look for weapons.
I'm flabbergasted. Thanks for sharing the article link.
Kind of my feeling, too. While I disagree that cops should be able to randomly stop anyone they wish and frisk them, that decision goes way overboard.
I agree. If cops see a bunch of white men riding into their city on Harleys, wearing hoodies, and maybe layered with a black leather vest and a club patch on the back...the cops are going to investigate. I don't blame them, even if they are all good guys just out for a ride.
If there's been a crime, everyone can be considered suspect.
This article might shine a little light on Clinton's position regarding your question.
http://time.com/4302806/hillary-clinton … top-frisk/
My question is Clinton's position of reducing crime in inner cities. And you give me a link that says she doesn't support stop and frisk.
Great! She doesn't support it! What does she support that will reduce crime?
First of all, Wilderness, I read the case ruling from the Mass. Supreme Court.
This is not about 'black men' and I don't see how you come to this conclusion. The ruling simply says that there no obligation for any citizen to interact with the police. It also says that fleeing from police does not constitute a justification for 'reasonable suspicion' on its own when all other relevant factors used to make that determination are absent. It is NOTED that black men may well have a justified fear of police encounters because of the municipal record of prior harrassment and racial profiling, having nothing to do with concealing criminal activity.
As for Ms. Clinton's solutions to the problem, she speaks about what I have been saying needs to be done in the light of all of these inappropriate uses of deadly force by law officers. Municipal police departments need to have procedures reviewed regarding their encounters with civilians and very well should have most of their discretion to act outside of procedure circumscribed that much more. That review will include personnel training, to weed out those that react on unjustified fear or otherwise display dangerous levels bias on the job. I haveno issue with increasing police presence in troubled communities, but those communities did not give the OK to suspend the Constitution as part of that.
Conservatives always seem to hail 'stop and frisk' as effective. For them, incarcerating all black men is effective. But, in our legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty. Thus, the onus is on the law enforcement officer to present the proof of guilt. So, any solution must, besides being effective, stand the test of Constitutional evaluation.
I don't know if the Constitution has been suspended in Idaho? I would find it intrusive to have my vehicle subject to a search with there being no probable cause for such a search, and no warrant. All this is possible in Idaho simply on the basis of a routine traffic stop?
"Rather, the finding that black males in Boston are disproportionately and repeatedly targeted for FIO [Field Interrogation and Observation] encounters suggests a reason for flight totally unrelated to consciousness of guilt. Such an individual <black male>, when approached by the police, might just as easily be motivated by the desire to avoid the recurring indignity of being racially profiled as by the desire to hide criminal activity. Given this reality for black males in the city of Boston, a judge should, in appropriate cases, consider the report's findings in weighing flight as a factor in the reasonable suspicion calculus."
Do you see anything here about white males, or females at all? Hispanics? Orientals? I don't, and the data "supporting" the decision was woefully lacking. This is a political call directed at liberals and nothing more.
"As for Ms. Clinton's solutions to the problem, she speaks about what I have been saying needs to be done in the light of all of these inappropriate uses of deadly force by law officers."
And this is supposed to reduce crime, how? I also have just a wee problem with that "all of these inappropriate uses of deadly force" bit - The numbers of incidents of such are tiny in a nation of billions of police interaction per year. It is a problem, but not one anywhere near what is being insinuated. You're playing the typical political ploy of ignoring the question and talking about something else totally unrelated.
It is possible in Idaho...as a weapons search only and as a search of the person only and not the car. Anything else found - drugs, paraphernalia, whatever - must be either ignored or handed back without further action. A cop, for instance, finding a pack of cigarettes on a minor may not even remove it from the pocket it is in as it is obviously not a weapon. I find it reasonable as a protection for police. I also find (KNOW) that it is abused as cops absolutely WILL confiscate illicit items and file charges. Whereupon a motion to suppress evidence must be made in a fairly short time - time that court appointed attorneys don't have available, whereupon it is admissible even though illegally obtained.
Mayor Rudy Giuliani cracked down on crime in New York, and one tactic used by officers was stop and frisk. It worked fast! It would work in Chicago, Detroit, wherever the crime rate is high. I don't think that's racist, its a smart tactic. I think law abiding citizens would welcome it in high crime areas. Its not based on skin color, but race baiters would try to make it about that. If it saves lives and stops crime!
Trump praises 'stop-and-frisk' police tactic at African-American town hall
47 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1ozGvuwDks
Take the guns away from criminals with stolen or otherwise illegal guns. Its pretty simple to me. Make sure a person is carrying legally.
ADDING: America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani, when he took office in New York City the murder rate was about 2,500 per year, and he drove it down to about 500 per year. Stop & Frisk!
Trump, Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks
The problem with Giulianis' stats is Giuliani. Maybe you haven't heard about things like how he reduced the homeless population...by rounding them up and shipping them out of the city or cleaning up the prostitution problem...by forcing them to operate in new jersey. Besides all that, stop and frisk is not only racially biased but it's also a constitional and human rights violation...but then again, who cares about any of that?
I have to wonder if you remember what New York City was like before America's Mayor cleaned up the city. My guess would be that you need to do some research for yourself, but maybe I'm wrong. You might like filth, living in fear because of crime, danger, and death. Not me! I wouldn't expect Americans to have to live like that when they don't have to.
When America's Mayor Rudy Giuliani took office in New York the murder rate was about 2,500 per year, and he drove it down to about 500.
He had 650,000 NYC residence alone on welfare, and he got it down by -600,000 when he required able bodied people on welfare to work, and he created the jobs. Ain't that crazy?
Its amazing what a leader can do!
The Big Apple got cleaned and shined by a great mayor.
Well, having lived in NYC for a time during the '80's and having been an Air Force Intelligence Analyst/Researcher I would say my reasearch abilities and knowledge of the citys' past are excellent. That being said, do you accept the end justifying the means? Granted, the welfare "clean up" was excellent albeit long in coming. It should be the first obvious task, any elected official worth his seat, would address. The other stats weren't based on actual positive social solutions but I guess as long as it impressed the local constituency that's all that mattered. As far as the numbers go, we all know how the government body pads numbers. They may look good on paper but an in-depth analysis usually shows the true extent of actions claimed. Apparently it does'nt matter to you that all of those "criminals" were simply made someone elses' problem.
It would matter if "all of those "criminals" were simply made someone elses' problem". But, that isn't apparent is it, or is it, if so, how so, who, where and why?
Well, I live in chester, ny, about 50 miles from the city. There was a "relocation camp" here owned by NYC. It was called "Camp LaGuardia". It's one of those facilities outside of the city that Giuliani dumped his "homelss" criminals. Out of sight, out of mind. Crime here increased commensurately with the existence of the camp. Fortunately, the camp was closed a few years ago and took it's criminal aspect with it. So, regardless of what you think you know, the fact remains that Giuliani simply Shuffled the NYC criminal element around giving the appearance of having solved the root problem...It's called generating a facade.
I hadn't heard of Camp La Guardia before. I read a couple articles about its history and then its timeline. Wow, an old prison turned into a homeless shelter since the Great Depression for adults.
I can see why residents of the surrounding community were angry with the mentally ill with criminal behaviors, made worse by drug addicts and alcoholics on the loose.
That was interesting to learn about. I would love to read some articles written by people who actually lived in the homeless shelter for a lengthy time. Going to research that when I have more time. -- Thanks!
Would you want to tolerate them walking through your back yard just so a neighboring community wouldn't have to? better yet, imagine you had no choice...live with it or pack up and leave?
Anyway, like I said, government officials lie, including their paper work/records about what really happens. There may very well have been mentally ill people there at one time but for decades past it was a "Giuliani dumping ground" filled with NYC criminal exiles.
Needless to say the Giuliani spin doctor program was very effective. Even so, the people who lived in Chester over those last decades of Camp LaGuardia can tell you with no uncertaintity that the majority of camp residents were the dispossessed criminal element of Giulianis' "clean up" of NYC. No complaints from city residents though. As far as they were concerned the problem had been solved...
We Don't know what Trump will do is right , And Hillary has made so many changes as part of the TWO Obama terms , her reign in Senate and as first lady of the governor ?
I know one thing , when there has been --O-- change for eight years --- I will vote for a promise over a pi$$ poor record any day !
A promise based on what? He doesn't deserve receiving any credibility.
but wasn't it promises that got obama elected?... promises that he, like every other president before him, made in order to get elected. As far as --O-- changes go, where have you been? Illegals now get free everything even though the rest of us get penalized for not buying something those illegals get for free...health insurance, the police, who've always been partial to killing blacks, now seem to have license to do it at will without provocation while leaving no recourse for their victims families etc. etc.. There's been more change in america over the last 8yrs at the hands of obama than I care to think about. At least with trump what you see is what you get, no surprises. clinton, on the other hand is very suspect in her credibility and intentions, but at least at her age we won't have to worry about a PMS driven nuclear world war.
Perhaps , Except that I could see through the empty promise , the empty suit of Obama's campaign ! Hillary's promise is full on perfectly rhetoric ! - she's shown that over and over -- Trump at least is a businessman who HAD to make something successful out of such promise .
The difference , Promise WITH progress !
Well, the only way to get that is to elect the person with the highest potential for following through on said promises. In other words, it's all a matter of poke and hope!...make your voting decision and hope you get what's been promised.
AND THAT ! Is the way Americans used to vote , quietly , confidently , hopefully , responsibly , I remember many times in life "holding my nose " and voting for the best possibility choice , knowing that it may not make a difference .
Lesson for the young and obviously inexperienced voter -- This isn't" Face-Book" fishing for friends .
This a serious business !
What the h***? This response has nothing to do with my comment. I don't know if it's just me but your posts are increasingly weird, like you aren't even reading what I write.
You don't enjoy forums at all when the debate turns against your bias do you ?
You didn't even address the main point of my comment, which is that it is erroneous to assume blacks voted for Obama simply because he is black. Clinton is polling an even greater percentage of black voters than did Obama. Is it because she has pretty pink cheeks?
I suppose since women support her in greater numbers you think it's because she's a woman?
You are the one who avoids real debate, since you rarely address the actual point and go off on your Reverse Racism Rant #Umpteen at every possible opportunity.
I'll check back to see if you stay on point or just continue with your rant that I've seen so often now I could probably regurgitate it on command.
My points must bother you incredibly , in order for you to remain on the defensive , perhaps you need to reconnoiter your true feelings about Trump and Hillary . I think almost everyone realizes by now that the trump victory means a far better America , A Hillary win means the spiraling down of American values !
Stop drinking the liberal cool aid .
Once again, you avoid the point of my comment altogether.
America has been spiraling down since the untimely end of JFKs presidency.
Since globalization is based on individual countries complying with pre-set rules of governing it doesn't really matter who gets elected anymore. They will all tell us what we want to hear while campaigning. Once elected all that stuff goes out the window and the elitist agenda takes over.
I disagree , This election whether Trump is elected or not , IS about the rejection of the two parties who support each other constantly to stay in power , They are working together no matter the NORMAL candidates elected of the usual 2 flavors , if a republican president wins , the democratic congress holds sway over the treasures and visa -versa , In this election the republican party office holders are holding out for Hillary , if Hillary wins then the democrats work within the republican held congress , They work too well together .
"You scratch my back I'll scratch yours " , sound familiar ? I will vote for the outsider thank you very much ! If this outsider doesn't cave then we should vote all incumbents out of office following this presidential election . We have to stop electing the same idiots to office --------they are playing the system and they are playing the voters !
Hillary is a continuation of the same - Trump is the outsider !
Prove me wrong .
I believe Trump will win, and do a great job at making America First, Safe and Great Again. This is our Brexit!
That being said, if he caves...his feet will be held to the fire by the people that support him, and the many who he woke up. Can't forget those that oppose him.
If, Hillary gets to pick Supreme Court judges, I believe we're in big trouble. (UN Agenda 2030)
I remember the first election Obama won. I go to the polls early before work. It's usually a quick in and out. On this particular occasion the line to vote was a good 1/8 mile long. The sea of faces were definitely, completely, black.
Blacks didn't elect Obama alone but anyone who says blacks didn't vote for him because he is black is ill informed. These people at my polling station were there for a reason. Which is certainly their right, but let's be honest please.
That ! Is the quintessential problem and question of the meaning of true racism , Who understands and recognizes the double edged sword that is "Racism ".
Certainly not the media .
Not many here apparently !
Again, Clinton is polling a higher percentage of black support than did Obama. That hardly supports your condescending opinion. I believe Obama's candidacy created excitement, which resulted in higher voter turnout. That is not the same as one race voting overwhelmingly for a candidate simply because of the color of his skin.
Hm. Well, I've voted in this district for 30 years and that was the first time anything like that ever happened. Coupled with comments made concerning the election at the time I would say it is not a condescending opinion. It is simple fact. As I stated, people can vote for whomever they want for whatever reasons. I've heard many many people point out that they are single issue voters. How does choosing a president because of their skin color differ from voting strictly b y someone's stand on abortion?
Forget it man , They will never understand the epitome of racism in process of screaming " racism" !
How do you equate the power of choice with a lack of choice? While your bus seating example certainly seems a racist act to me, voting based on skin color seems at worst to be a dumb decision. There are several descriptors that I think might apply; biased, prejudiced, or maybe even arrogant... but I don't think racist fits the slot.
So yes, I think the two are different.
Obama has done more to move america towards socialism than any president before him, and I kinda like my democratic republic, and now he wants us to keep america moving in that direction by electing what's-her'-name clinton! Even if one is partial to a socialist government run by someone with so much too prove, clinton is a security risk and a fabricator of contrivences the first being that she made claim to being a "New Yorker" only a few days after buying property in westchester county. The reason being that she needed to establish residency to run for senatorship. More importantly is her disregard for security procedures. If she's gonna lie about things she could at least make a reasonable attemp at plausibility.
I listened this video a day or so ago, and was stunned.
VIDEO – Bill Clinton: Rebuild Detroit with Syrian Refugees
* http://www.breitbart.com/2016-president … -refugees/
According to a September 2015 Rasmussen survey, 85 percent black voters oppose Clinton’s refugee agenda to admit more than 100,000 Middle Eastern refugees—with less than one percent of black voters (.56 percent) in favor of her refugee plan.
I read that the Obama Administration has spent $770 million to renovate Mosques overseas.
This black man is smart and spells out a big problem for Black Americas.
Bill Clinton admits he's destroyed millions of black men with prisons
Farrakhan Tells Obama, “Let Trump Do Want He Wants, You Failed Inner City Blacks”
Sunday at the Men’s Day program hosted at Union Temple Baptist Church in Washington, DC, Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan said to President Barack Obama, “Your people are suffering and dying in the streets,” of Chicago, so “you failed to do what should have been done.”
Farrakhan continued by saying it is time to let Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump do “what he wants to because he is not destroying your legacy.”
Farrakhan said, “So you Democrats, you been in their party a long time. Answer me, what did you get? You got a president. He is worried about his legacy. You want Hillary to get in to protect your legacy because Trump said the minute he gets in, he is going to reverse the Affordable Care Act. Because that is your signature achievement. To show you how hateful the enemy is, he hates that you achieve what you did achieve. So he said I’m going to tear it up when I get in. So he don’t want his legacy destroyed. Mr President, let the man do, if he get in, what he wants to because he is not destroying your legacy. If your legacy is bound up in an Affordable Care Act that only effects a few million people and they are trying to make it really difficult for those of us who signed up, that’s not your legacy.
He continued, “But I just want to tell you, Mr President, you’re from Chicago and so am I. I go out in the streets with the people. I visited the worst neighborhoods. I talked to the gangs. And while I was out there talking to them they said ‘You know, Farrakhan, the president ain’t never come. Could you get him to come and look after us?’ There’s your legacy, Mr. President, it’s in the streets with your suffering people, Mr. President. And If you can’t go and see about them, then don’t worry about your legacy. Cause the white people that you served so well, they’ll preserve your legacy. The hell they will. But you didn’t earn your legacy with us. We put you there. You fought for the rights of gay people. You fought for the rights of this people and that people. You fight for Israel. Your people are suffering and dying in the streets! That’s where you legacy is. Now you failed to do what should have been done.”
* http://truthfeed.com/farrakhan-tells-ob … cks/25058/
You set Obama straight, Mr. Farrakhan, because his legacy isn't worth saving.
In America , it's the only possibility right now where it takes a black man to tell a black president to straighten up his act , Why ? Because a divisive and false rhetoric dictated that the anointed one cannot be criticized for anything because it immediately comes across as" Racism ".
Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan message was loud and clear until he got to "You fight for Israel". The opposite is true, there's a complete timeline of Obama not/or fighting for Israel. Otherwise, Farrakhan gets a high-five from me...not for much else otherwise.
He is doing much better than Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson on my poison "Skittles" radar. IMHO
I don't qualify for the Affordable (what a joke!) Care Act. Supposedly, I can't afford to spend $28 a month on the cheapest insurance they offer. Funny, though -- I looked up on the internet about Medicare, since I'll be 65 in 2 years. Guess what? Medicare will be more than happy to bill me over a $100 a month (But I can't afford $28!). But Trump is not the friend of anyone who isn't lily white or an upper class citizen. Don't let him fool you
The "you didnt build that " guy is worried about his own image lol. No surprise there. Obama is a legacy in his own mind.
Stop and Frisk? More Police involvement? At this point in time, there isn't very many Blacks that will vote for this, For the same Police that consistently have questionable run ins with Black men that end up losing their life. As a Black man, I'm not going to vote for any one based on the color of their skin. In my opinion Hillary is an idiot, and Trump is an even bigger idiot. Either way you look at it, America is spiraling down out of control, and it's not Obama's fault, although he has done some bonehead moves. These issues started way before Obama's term.
I agree. But if Trump wins, you will have someone in office much like my loud-mouthed, racist governor of Maine, Paul LePage. He has claimed that 90% of drug dealers in Maine impregnate Maine's white women and are all responsible for the drugs. He has been pressured to resign, but he is a stubborn a-hole. Trump is just like him: stubborn, vain (thinking they are smarter than everyone else) loud-mouthed, sarcastic, and only caters to those with money.
LePage says the 90% of drug dealers are black or hispanic and come from other states. Meanwhile, the FBI checked out his erroneous statements about this. There were only 40% of blacks and/or hispanics, compared to 60% of white people.
I am caucasian, if that makes a difference. I think Trump and LePage are both bigots
That's hard to believe, that 40% of drug dealers are black or Hispanic, when blacks and Hispanics make up only 2% of the population of Maine. Are you sure of those figures?
by John Wilson 2 years ago
Clinton supporters - what would it take for you to NOT vote for the Hillary? To accept Trump?All the accusations about Trump that are now coming out, just weeks before the election. Not a coincidence. Even the mass media admits a bias against Trump and a love for Hillary. Doesn't it bother you ,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 3 years ago
her? Why? Why not? Ms. Clinton seem to have the best qualifications for president. She also has political experience and is a quite savvy person?
by ahorseback 13 months ago
Absolute political paranoia has somehow evolved into the very DNA of the democratic Party? How long can the democratic party be so stagnant in social advancements , the naysaying of cultural advancements is so damning as to demonstrably show democratic party as...
by Readmikenow 6 months ago
I've been a conservative since I graduated college. I've known many conservatives. My black conservative friends seem to really get a lot of grief for their beliefs. I've seen my one friend be banned from family gatherings at a sibling's home because he supported President Donald...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
WHY would ANYONE even vote for Donald Trump at THIS juncture?
by Faith Reaper 2 years ago
Just curious. Who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies- Hillary or Trump?I am conducting my own little poll here of sorts, as I am just curious who would you trust to defend our country against our enemies and why - Hillary or Trump?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|