With the nature the Rightwing, the Gruden story was no surprise, But..

Jump to Last Post 1-5 of 5 discussions (82 posts)
  1. Credence2 profile image78
    Credence2posted 11 months ago

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … f-slavery/
    -----------
    An excerpt:

    "On June 2, 2021, the National Football League (NFL) announced it would discontinue the use of race norming—the practice of assuming a lower baseline of cognitive abilities in Black players—in legal settlements for concussion-related injuries. For the past several years, Black former professional football players, led by former Pittsburgh Steelers Kevin Henry and Najeh Davenport, had been speaking out against the practice. Henry, Davenport and colleagues demonstrated that race norming was interfering with their ability to receive compensation and benefits from the settlement. Black retirees, who are overrepresented in the number of former players, staked legitimate claims about their impaired health after risking their minds and bodies for this American sport. Bottom line: the race norming practice limited Black players’ access to the compensation they were rightfully owed."
    ------
    This is the kind of thing that puts me off against so many of you that cheer for the wrong side. The National Football League, reducing itself to the equivalent of racist phrenology theory and practice? These are major American Institutions, boys and girls. So,when I speak of systemic that is just what this is?  Or do I need to print it in Braille and shove it where the sun don't shine? This NFL admitted to the practice, mean while everybody wants us all to just "get along". There is no refuge for this level of disrespect toward Black football players, and toward me indirectly. There is nothing about "last week" that would have me believe that all of this is just a thing of the past.

    I hope that the NFL is sued so throughly that all their football games will to be preempted for the immediate future. Their football fans will have to share in the punishment for the NFL's shortsightedness. But, I don't care for the stuff anyway, so no skin off of my nose.

    Just opiate for the the masses.

    Anyone with nerve enough to attempt to explain this little quandary on my behalf? I can't understand how level headed, responsible people think that they can do such things without being discovered and held accountable?

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Gosh, race norming has been around for some 40 or 50 years, I will admit I had no idea it was being applied in the NFL to discriminate.  Being a nurse, I am aware the medical field used it as a tool.  It was designed to help guide physicians on the treatment of health problems that are more common to afflict a specific race, not only blacks but other races. I have always looked at it as a very clinical tool. 

      I realize it was also used in the adjustment of test scores on the basis of race or ethnicity.  Most well used by federal employment services as a means of correcting allegedly racially biased aptitude tests and meeting equal employment opportunity and affirmative action goals. 

      Not sure how the NFL could feel this kind of racist ploy was fair or how they could ever justify what they have done to black football players.

      I can only give my view, it is helpful in a medical setting to help diagnose a health problem. I don't feel it should be used in any form of aptitude testing at this point.  We need and should be demanding better education, not making exceptions due to our failure to educate our citizens.

      Race norming certainly should not be like the NFL has used it. This is a civil rights violation. I can see why you are so angry.  I must say I was very shocked after reading the article you offered. It clearly is a racist practice, and this kind of BS should have been outlawed long ago in the NFL.

      I would think the NFL will incur many lawsuits over this kind of practice, and they will be well deserved.   Not sure we will ever be allowed to get along...

      1. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Sharlee, you are right, certain ethnic groups a more prone to some maladies than others.

        Many standardized tests have been criticized as culturally biased. It has nothing to do with differences in cognitive ability, which is unscientific and unproven. The NFL is employing tactics not far beyond slavery, economic exploitation on the basis of race.

        "They" justified it as fair 10 years ago with Wells Fargo and Bank of America being sued for their admitted fraud in lending practices toward black and Hispanic mortgage applicants. There are some problems with McDonalds regarding distribution of franchises on other than merit based principles.

        The mind and cognition are very complicated in their evaluation, the money changing legal people at the NFL were neither qualified nor had the right to impose differing standards between black and white players. As Abe Lincoln once said, "every man is equal in the right to eat thebread that he had sown".

        I and the conservatives will be at odds when they fuss about Critical Race Theory, for example, claiming that systemic racism is not part of America. This is one aspect that clearly is shown not to be true. How many of other conservative points can be shown to not be true? We have the extreme of whites being blamed for every raining day since the Republic's  founding verses George Washington cuts down the cherry tree. The truth is essential as it is somewhere in between.

    2. tsmog profile image77
      tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Frankly, I had not heard of 'Race Normalizing' until you introduced it. The NFL was wrong for the practice no matter the reasoning in my view. I am glad a stand was made and it was resolved. I can see how and agree it is an example of systemic racism.

      I was curious though. I discovered an article written sometime back published at Harvard University that was interesting. It is How Science and Genetics are Reshaping the Race Debate of the 21st Century.

      There is political stuff regarding Trump at the beginning and end. I skimmed passed that to the scientific stuff that appears at the subheading Race in the new era of human genetics research. It reveals the discoveries made from the Human Genome Project I found interesting. Maybe take a peek, yet probably something you already know. What stood out for me is Race is a social construct, not a biological one. And, today they have undeniable proof of that from that project.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        That was an interesting read. I agree with passing on all the political stuff in it because it presents the flavor of a bias. But, I also see that when considering the article's slant on race as social and cultural, (my replacement for their geographical), constructs, the slant seems supported.

        Then, after settling my mind, I got a chuckle thinking about those "Alt-Right," et al. folks the article spoke of. Imagine proving to a White Supremacy member that he was 99% black, or a black man that he is 99% white. (I know that is an over-simplistic use of the data's point, but the image of it still brought a chuckle) ;-)

        Before this article, (not important for me to question its science), I knew, generally, about everyone sharing the majority of genes—as in the context of humans and apes sharing similar majorities,  but I was accepting of the 5-race theory.

        Well damn, I gotta change my thinking.

        But hold on. I am only getting rid of the idea that race is a biological reality. I still think race, as a categorization, (as the article said), is real in all societies. As real as if it were a true biological fact. And not just in modern societies but throughout the history of societies. (damn again, that is a depressing thought, it means we aren't `real intelligently' talking about current events, we're just rehashing history. What a bunch of minions we are.)

        So, that debunking of a "fact" doesn't really change any society's race discussions except for forcing reasonable discussions to discard that "fact"  as support for a point.

        GA

        1. IslandBites profile image90
          IslandBitesposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          but I was accepting of the 5-race theory.

          Really? I'm surprised that this is news to guys like you. neutral


          Btw, not your 99%, but you reminded me of this video. big_smile

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptSZnTtGCQA

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            A surprise? Ha, could I use that to declare that it just shows how little I think about race in such conversations? (shh... not even allowing the consideration that it shows how little I know about race to raise its head)

            Yep, your video was on track, but my funny mental images had the White Supremacist a little more vocally animated.

            GA

        2. tsmog profile image77
          tsmogposted 11 months agoin reply to this

          I, too, had the perhaps socially programmed view of the five race theory since it was/is on so many government forms. What would make it more official than that? And, a casual perspective of monkeys and humans sharing DNA. Yet, I am pretty much biology as well as Darwinism ignorant.

          After posting my reply I did look for supporting information of what was presented. Though not reading them, I did discover supportive articles/studies.

      2. Credence2 profile image78
        Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Hiya, TS, thanks for weighing in.

        Bravo, it was an excellent article and one that many need to take notice of.

        I am familiar with "race norming" as it pertaines to medicine. Our tribe tends to have a predisposition for more kidney related problems so, what is the acceptable standard may well differ between whites and African Americans, for example.

        The article just provided evidence in favor of what I have always suspected to be true.

        Since no one has figured out how to medically or chemically destroy one race yet preserve another, it would indicate that there are not enough distinct identifying genetic differences between us to make that possible. Otherwise, the Nazis and the white supremacist would have grabbed at such an idea long ago.

        Regardless, you and the article are spot on, race is a social construct. And, it would not be a big deal if so many would stop unfair making distinctions based upon this.

  2. Readmikenow profile image94
    Readmikenowposted 11 months ago

    If the NFL is racist, you have to wonder against what race.  70% of the players in the NFL are black. 

    "Statista.com broke down the NFL African Americans in the National Football League in 2019. The percentages are broken down by role. As of 2019, 58.9% of African Americans in the NFL were the players themselves. This number has now grown to 70% in 2020."

    https://www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/what-pe … yers-black

    Maybe the NFL should be subject to affirmative action and be forced to hire more white, Hispanic and Asian players.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      What about the NHL, Mike, why is it lily-white? So what IS your point?

      We are not talking about players, Mike, we are talking about managers, attorneys and such, did you read the memo?

      Because conservatives dismiss these concerns of ours, that is why we dismiss them, and their ideals at the polls come election time.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        According to Mike's figures, around 41% of managers and such in the NFL are black.  And they allow this kind of thing?

        Are you ignoring Mike's suggestion that we re-institute legalized discrimination, as we had in the past, and force the NFL to hire more whites?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Regardless of Mike's statistics, Wilderness, this is the only statistic that I am interested in.

          30 of the 32 NFL owners are white, and are voting to fine their predominantly black players for "disrespecting" the anthem. some things never change
          — Jordan Zirm (@clevezirm) May 23, 2018

          The other 2 owners are Asian and Pakistani.

          Are you trying to be clever?

          Whites virtually own the NFL. Based upon this, that is how it was possible to discriminate against black players in a overwhelmingly black club.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Perhaps you should talk to Oprah.  I'm sure she could afford an NFL team.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Well, Perhaps if more people like Oprah were the owners, I would not have had to bring up so much unpleasantness, as this bit of nastiness would not have occurred in the first place.

      2. Readmikenow profile image94
        Readmikenowposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        I think we need more diversity in NFL, NBA and MLB players.  The NBA is 80 percent black.  50 percent of the coaches are black.  Couldn't sports only benefit from having a more diverse mixture of players?

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Are you trying to catch me in a snare, Mike?

          In a merit based society the best are selected and I have no problem with that as long as everyone has equal opportunity to compete.

          You misrepresented the facts, I have heard that only 3 head coaches are black while the statistic for assistant coaches is closer to what you say it is.

          The best is the best and there is no substitute, white have the same opportunity to compete for slots. With the NFL being owned by whites, why would you think that they would be exclude competitive white players?

          1. Readmikenow profile image94
            Readmikenowposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            "With the NFL being owned by whites, why would you think that they would be exclude competitive white players?"

            What does competitiveness have to do with it?  The goal of affirmative action is to create a more diverse work environment.  Individuals who are less qualified get hired over more qualified individuals in the name of diversity.

            Why shouldn't this be done with professional sports?  The professional sports is just another workplace.  It could only benefit by being more diverse.

            When I was an Army officer I had a quota for who I nominated for a promotion and race was a huge factor.  This was done to have a more diverse military.

            So, why should professional sports be any different?

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

              I like this as a general explanation as to how this came to be within a nation virtually drenched in systemic racism the effect of which needed to be ameliorated and atoned for.
              -----------
              The term "affirmative action" was first used in the United States in "Executive Order No. 10925",[13] signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961, which included a provision that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[14] It was used to promote actions that achieve non-discrimination. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin" and "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."[15]

              In 1968, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[clarification needed][16]

              Affirmative action is intended to promote the opportunities of defined minority groups within a society to give them equal access to that of the majority population.[17]

              It is often instituted for government and educational settings to ensure that certain designated groups within a society are able to participate in all provided opportunities including promotional, educational, and training opportunities.[18]

              The stated justification for affirmative action by its proponents is to help compensate for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture,[19] and to address existing discrimination.[20]

              -------
              There can be no competitiveness where some have  not been allowed to compete, period.

              It is interesting to note how many responsible societies and governments around the world recognize the necessity for similar programs.

              Trying to explain that to conservatives is like the refrain on "Hey Jude".

              Yes, and I was an Air Force Officer and I had to meet every qualifications required of others and received no preferential treatment. So.......

              Conservatives whine about reducing standards just to provide opportunity to anyone other than whites. it is more resentment about their being allowed to compete, period, with the reduced standard stuff a big red herring. You can come clean with me, Mike. Isn't that really what this is all about

              It should be a commitment to a diverse work environment with competition among those that meet standardized qualifications applicable to all.

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated [fairly] during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin"

                This was always a contradiction to me, for "affirmative action" most definitely did take into account the race of job applicants, and was used to choose one race of another.  That was the entire purpose; to discriminate against one applicant in favor of another, based solely on race.  So much for "white privilege".

                1. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Ok, but the reason it was necessary to issue the executive orders "without regard to their race", because it was obvious that race had been unethically and illegally taken into consideration in selection process. Otherwise why did Kennedy and Johnson need to make the point?

                  To make sure of a neutral fair hiring process, oversight was necessary( are racial minorities actually being included) to make certain that the intent of the program was, in fact, being complied with.

                  1. Readmikenow profile image94
                    Readmikenowposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    So, you think it is justice to punish people who had nothing to do with the past and are only trying to do the best they can.  Punish them because of the color of THEIR skin because people they don't know and had nothing to do with punished others.

                    Seems like a case of misdirected anger against an innocent victim.  Do you like being made responsible for other people's behavior?  Behavior you had nothing to do with? Does that seem like justice to you?

                  2. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    I understand the necessity to outright lie about being "fair" and "unbiased" as to race.

                    But that did NOT make the process "fair", nor did it change the intent of the program, which was to discriminate against some applicants based solely on their race.

                    Again, so much for "white privilege", when being white meant having jobs denied because of the applicants race.

      3. Ken Burgess profile image85
        Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

        Its discouraging.

        Even more discouraging is that worse comments that were made public were swept under the rug.  A long history of deliberately racist acts were ignored... and the same people who are so outraged by Gruden elected an even worse person President, wantonly so.

        A President that happily allowed Russia to open new pipelines into Europe, waiving sanctions on Russia, after four years of hearing about how Trump was Putin's puppet.

        A President that shut down America's Oil and Natural Gas production,  halting energy development on federal land, shutting down the 80 million-acre oil lease sale putting the Louisiana oil and gas industry near to bankruptcy,  shutting down oil and energy development in ANWAR which would increase use of the Alaska pipeline, etc. etc.

        That same President not six months later pleads to OPEC to produce more oil, as oil and gas prices rise because of our inability now to access our own resources.

        A President that held an Electric Vehicle gala at the White House, proclaiming support for EVs and Renewable Energy, lauding Legacy Auto for its [in]action as well as the UAW.  Absent was the actual company that has propelled the world into the 21st century and to a future of EVs (Tesla).

        A President that handed over Afghanistan to the Taliban and China.

        A President who opened the Border to all willing to cross it regardless of their vaccination status.

        A President that forces his own citizens to be vaccinated or be fired.

        A President that wants to increase taxes on any American that makes a living working or running a small business, while pretending those taxes are going to be on the rich.

        Such a waste of time... effort... energy... even discussing Gruden while ignoring all that an even more avid racist does to run this nation into the ground.

        1. Credence2 profile image78
          Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

          Ken, it is all discouraging just an additional topic that I find just at least as discouraging as anything that you had mentioned.

          You really think that a portly fat cat like Trump was going to do any better by the common man?

          1. Sharlee01 profile image85
            Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

            Have you checked the unemployment today for black citizens? Can you say that the previous administration did not greatly improve employment for blacks?  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-aven … tions-end/

            One very good program the last administration produced was Opportunity Zines. It has shown good results, and Biden at this point seems to realize that and has not messed with the program. This program was positive for black citizens. 

            "What will Biden do with opportunity zones?
            A new political climate. President Joe Biden's plan to raise the capital gains tax rate to 39.6% for households earning more than $1 million annually could sweeten opportunity zone investments. " This will certainly benefit blacks that have businesses or hope to open a business.

            Do you feel with the rich paying more will benefit the poor and middle class?  Does not history prove that the rich will pass their costs on to all of us? If someone wealthy walks in and purchases milk do they not pay the same as the poor? But does it phase the rich as badly as it does the poor buy that milk or fill their gas tank or how about heating their homes. It is predicted we will pay anywhere from 30% to 50% more to stay warm.  Was it a benefit to have lower heating costs?  Will it bother the more wealthy to pay more to heat their homes? The poor benefited under Trump by keeping more cash in their pocket. 

            Is the green deal important to you?  Will pumping oil in another area of our earth ultimately change what is being released into our atmosphere?

            Could have we more benefited from being energy efficient, working to better control pollution under regulations, and better ways of ensuring energy production was using the best technologies.   Should not common sense come into play here?

            To say it simply, and just my view.  We were on a good path all-around now we have gone backward, and quickly.  I don't expect you to answer all of my questions. I just had hoped to offer food for thought.  I respect your views and know how you feel about conservatives ideologies. Like I said just food for thought. And you must realize, Trump is not a conservative in any respect.

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              The Enterprise Zone idea has been around since the 1980's, a brainchild of the late Jack Kemp. It is now a stardard time worn idea that is not much more than something either party just "checks the block" on, much like the congressional extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 used to be. The Democrats are offering so much more toward that goal and intent. That is if they can stop internal squabbling, execute the DINOs, and squash Republican resistance.

              Trump is aligned with virtually all those ideals of the Republican Party, of course he is conservative. While so many conservatives are trying to convince us all otherwise.

              It is important to reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels, not just for Geo-political purposes, but in recognition of the fact that the Earth and its resources are not infinite.

              It is always questionable in a progressive tax system what is a fair share for the wealthy. I have to be concerned that the tax code is written by the fat cats who certainly intend that their liability be minimal.

              The wealthy are only interested in lining their own pockets, they certainly are not concerned about "enterprise zones".

              By the way, thanks for the article.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                Sharlee01posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                The Opportunity Zone program is different from the Enterprise zones. The Trump tax bill offered tax breaks to developers who “invest” in poor communities.  And yes the tax breaks are very good for the rich when it comes to the program. Developers can either defer paying or pay no taxes on the developments they build depending on how long they are invested in the neighborhoods.  The idea is that new investment will help create jobs in neighborhoods that need economic growth.

                It has had some success and in some cases has failed the neighborhoods due to housing that were built were too expensive for the people that lived in the area. Although jobs were created in most areas that were labeled opportunity zones. This is certainly along the lines of due to tax breaks the rich get richer. However,  more jobs are created.

                The rich will always workaround taxes, and stay rich. That is just a fact.
                If they are taxed more, they pass it off to the less fortunate. It would seem naive to think this will change.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image85
            Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

            No, I don't believe moving back to Trump is the answer... I'm not sure there was going to be an answer you or I would have found real comfort in.  The DNC was just as determined to bury Sanders, Warren and Gabbard as they were Trump.  The people didn't pick Biden... the DNC and the powers behind the scenes did.

            No, it was clear to me when they wheeled Clinton out to do her character assassination of Gabbard:  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillar … med-russia   that there was no chance we would see positive new ideas and direction out of the Democrats.

            The only thing the people got were the same old lies they always are fed, from the same old corrupt cronies... Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, who have been there for decades and are more responsible for any mess this country is in than Trump could ever be.

            After 4+ years of divisiveness in our Media and Politics there was no way remaining with Trump was a viable solution... unfortunately Biden represents the old adage "One step forward, Two steps back".

            1. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              I have been dissatisfied as Mr. Biden needs to ram more firmly against the Right and its advocates and take fewer prisoners.

              How can I expect any Rightwinger of advocate of right wing ideas to properly attack itself? That is a far damn less likelihood than Biden and the Democrats getting it together.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image85
                Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                Explain to me how "Rightwingers" are responsible for:

                1) Shutting down America's Oil and Natural Gas production,  halting energy development on federal land, shutting down the 80 million-acre oil lease sale putting the Louisiana oil and gas industry near to bankruptcy,  shutting down oil and energy development in ANWAR which would increase use of the Alaska pipeline, etc. etc.

                This has made us unable to be self-sufficient, unable to meet our own needs, Oil has risen from $39 a barrel to $81 a barrel since Biden instituted these changes.

                The President has since asked OPEC to produce more oil, as oil and gas prices rose because of our inability now to access our own resources.

                Gas Prices are currently $1.37 cents higher on average than they were October 2020, one year ago.

                His efforts did nothing to address Oil and Gas usage... it merely made Oil and Gas more costly for Americans.  Which in turn makes everything more costly for Americans.

                2) Biden opening the Border to all willing to cross it regardless of their vaccination status.

                Biden now forces his own citizens to be vaccinated or be fired.  How does this make sense?  How does this slow the spread of the virus?  How does firing Nurses and Police make the nation safer, while allowing hundreds of thousands of foreigners to be bused across the country unvaccinated?

                Just a couple things off the top of my head that I believe are really making life more difficult in America for many, things that have nothing to do with Rightwingers or Conservatives... and everything to do with Biden and his Administration.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Personally, I'm not sure it isn't wise to keep our own oil for when the world runs short.  Be self sufficient then, not when it is still cheap ("cheap" is relative; when middle east oil runs out we will see "expensive").

                  Just a thought...

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image85
                    Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Perhaps... or perhaps it would have been better to wait a year or two, for when the country had come out of its "Pandemic" doldrums.

                    Not make it the first thing you do when sworn into office.

                    Perhaps it would have been better to develop that EV infrastructure and those Renewable Energy resources first, and then turn off the spigot.

                2. Credence2 profile image78
                  Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

                  Like you say, there may not had been any good choices, I took the choice at the time that was the least problematic for me, as I could not stomach another 4 year term for Donald Trump.

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    Do you think, after seeing this fiasco ridden 4 years, you will be able to stomach another 4 years of Democrat leadership?  What if it's not Biden but still Democrat - will our experience of the highest inflation in decades, going back to the days of oil dependency and bringing in millions of illegal aliens turn you off sufficiently to not vote Democrat?

                  2. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                    OMG! It's deja vu, all over again. Can you hear the echo if you just change the last two words?

                    And it is a legitimate rationalization to you now?

                    GA

            2. Credence2 profile image78
              Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

              Biden comes forth a to weak and vacillating to confront his adversaries with the necessary rather than honey. They are my adversaries as well, he may be guilty of bringing a knife to a gunfight.

              I could have only hoped that Warren and Sanders would not be silenced but the chance that they might not have been was more likely with a Democratic head rather than a Republican, No?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image85
                Ken Burgessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

                You and I see the past few years events completely differently...

                I saw Trump as a potential instigator for real change, that he would hopefully force a shift of power within the Democratic Party that would force them to become a voice for the people... not Wall St., Corporate, and Foreign powers.

                My hopes were dashed... nothing better came forth... instead the most corrupt elements within DC and within the Democratic Party tightened their grip and assumed even more control.

                Schumer, Pelosi, and Biden are... representatives for the elites, the 1%, the agendas of international agencies, not our own. Deceivers void of decency.

  3. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 11 months ago

    The sad truth about bigotry is that most bigots either don't realize that they are bigots, or they convince themselves that their bigotry is perfectly justified.

    1. Credence2 profile image78
      Credence2posted 11 months agoin reply to this

      Ain't that the truth!!

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 11 months agoin reply to this

      With that I would agree.

  4. profile image58
    sportsbugzposted 10 months ago

    All game groups need pioneers to show the way and assist with growing new or more youthful colleagues.Sportsbugz  An emergentics study has tracked down a connection between's playing sports and solid authority characteristics. Sports empower individuals to foster a group attitude whether its triumphant, losing or preparing together.

  5. profile image58
    delightmilkposted 10 months ago

    Country Delight affirms that main new Milk acquired is conveyed with hardly a pause in between so the quality remaining parts unaffected and the shoppers get it in the most normal structure.

    Draining double a day assists the organization with having new Milk for bundling and conveyance. In this length,country delight milk  the nature of Milk is tried and afterward provided to the customer.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis 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.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe 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 PixelsWe 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.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)