That's it: Uncle Clerance has got to go!
Background, let me know if for some reason you cannot access this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk … velations/
I go back to 1969 when Abe Fortas was forced to step down as a Supreme Court Justice for accepting 20k from a donor, who was charged with financial impropriety. The demand for his ouster came from both parities in Congress, where even Democrats were prepared to lose a liberal court justice in order to maintain the integrity of the court.
So, much has changed, in 2023 we have a man on the bench guilty of far more egregious violations than those that sank Fortas.
As a apprentice federal purchasing agent some 40 years ago, I had to turn down that bottle of sipping whiskey to help with cold Montana nights offered from a vendor that wanted preferential treatment in the bidding process. I ran a clean shop and I am reasonable in expecting more from the top judicial officials of the land.
---------------------
Cases in point: Courtesy-Forbes Magazine
Harlan Crow Trips: ProPublica first reported Thomas has for years accepted trips from GOP megadonor and developer Harlan Crow, including on his private jet and superyacht, without disclosing them on financial disclosures as federal law requires.
Harlan Crow Tuition: ProPublica reported Thursday Crow also paid two years of tuition for Thomas’ grandnephew Mark Martin, whom the justice has custody of, to attend two private schools in the 2000s, which cost $6,000 per month at one of the schools and were similarly not disclosed—even as Thomas did disclose a tuition payment a different friend made years earlier.
Harlan Crow Real Estate: Thomas and his family also sold a string of properties in Savannah, Georgia, to Crow in 2014 without disclosing that as required, ProPublica reports—including the home where his mother still lives—which Crow told the publication he purchased so he could eventually build a museum dedicated to the justice.
Ginni Thomas Conservative Activism: Thomas’ wife, Ginni Thomas, is a right-wing activist, which has raised considerable ethics concerns about overlap between her and her husband’s work—particularly as the New Yorker reported groups she’s been involved with have submitted briefs before the Supreme Court, including a group that has weighed in on the court’s pending case about affirmative action in university admissions.
Ginni Thomas Leonard Leo: Leo, a conservative judicial activist who’s spent billions on efforts to reshape the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, told then-conservative pollster Kellyanne Conway to give Ginni Thomas “another $25k” through a nonprofit group he advises—which then filed a brief with the Supreme Court—but conceal that the payment was for her, the Post reports, telling Conway, “No mention of Ginni, of course.”
Ginni Thomas 2020 Election: Thomas pushed efforts to overturn the 2020 election results as her husband was hearing cases on it, including sending text messages to then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, which fueled calls for Thomas to resign or face impeachment over the perceived conflict of interest.
January 6: Ginni Thomas has also confirmed she briefly attended the rally on January 6 that preceded the attack on the Capitol building and publicly criticized the House January 6 Committee, and the justice has come under fire for failing to recuse himself in a case concerning former President Donald Trump’s records being turned over to the committee—in which he was the only justice to dissent and believe the records should have been withheld.
Ginni Thomas Funding: The Post reported in March that a conservative group Ginni Thomas formed in 2019 had raised nearly $600,000 from anonymous donors funneled through a right-wing think tank that filed an amicus brief at the Supreme Court during the same time, and ethics experts said Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from that case if his wife was paid by the group.
--------------
We obviously need a code of conduct, reminding justices that while the Constitution shields them from the sort of accountability applied to elected officials, they can and will be held accountable for misconduct. Republicans have consistently resisted the idea, I wonder why?
Is the man stupid enough to believe that these fat cats are plying him with wealth because they like him? Plutocrats know how to manipulate the system to get what they want outside of acceptable channels and Thomas played into it? He deserves to be dismissed in disgrace.Just shooting from the hip . . . the justices certainly are not saints nor should they be treated that way. They are being treated that way . . . all of them maybe more so for the right. That is left to be determined.
To not be subject to a code of ethics is ludicrous IMO!! What about no one is above the law, which ethics is its base in theory. If there is no reasonable law (Ethics) then there is anarchy, right?They are in a position where they are hard to remove. It takes overwhelming numbers in Congress to dismiss a justice. Thomas and Roberts know that, yet still some sort of restraint needs to be in place to prevent any of them from just robbing the store.
Bipartisan Respect for the institution allowed the removal or resignation of Fortas in 1969. The same applied to Nixon in 1974. But with hyperparrisanship displayed by the GOP in this case how many more ethical outrages could we be asked to tolerate?
In my world, there are no sacred cows and no one should be free to break rules with impunity.It is a problem, and I agree that those exhibiting poor behavior need to be "fired".
Problem is that same hyperpartisanship, by both GOP and Democrats. I can just see Democrats firing every conservative justice every time they get the chance - they've already made their feelings on such activity crystal clear with two faux attempts on Trump.
And the GOP is no better - they have learned very quickly from the Democrats how to use the law to gain political advantage.
So...every time a new party is in power we would have a new court. Why bother - just let Congress make all the decisions based on the ideology currently in power.
Which leaves us with how to reasonably remove a sitting justice for poor behavior (as opposed to decisions unpopular to the "reigning" party)? Perhaps a 3/4 vote?" I can just see Democrats firing every conservative justice every time they get the chance - they've already made their feelings on such activity crystal clear with two faux attempts on Trump."
I don't see that, but I do see excuses from the Right covering up clear ethics violations in Justice Thomas' conduct by blaming Democrats for attacking Thomas for partisan or ideological reasons. We lived with conservative justices before, so that is not the issue. But isn't just like Republicans? Their ruse is quite transparent. Why no code of conduct, that standard applies to all lower court judges, why should it not apply to the highest court in the land?
Any of the Justices can be as corrupt as they please, as it appears virtually impossible to hold them accountable.
This is not partisan but about ethics from the one branch of government where it is probably the most important.You don't see Democrats using fake law enforcement to kick out a political opponent? Then you desperately need to examine both your feelings and the party.
I haven't seen anyone at all, let alone a Republican, "covering up clear ethics violations in Justice Thomas' conduct". Can you be more specific?
Why don't Democrats enforce the code of conduct for SCOTUS members? You put all the blame on Republicans, but Democrats are doing no more than Republicans. Why?
Absolutely it is partisan, and if you don't realize that then you once more need to stand back and take a hard look at what our vaunted "leaders" are doing...on both sides of the aisle.
Sigh, "faux" attempts indeed. Why do you keep overlooking that the MAJORITY of the Senate voted to kick Trump out??? To make it simpler, the MAJORITY of the Senate thought Trump guilty, even some that voted to save his butt anyway (McConnell, for example). Faux indeed! To me, that attitude is a red flag of hyperpartisanship.
I also noticed you ignored Credence's lead in about Abe Fortes.
Isn't that what is done today? Hyperpartisan presidents nominate extreme Justices and partisan presidents nominate Justices more toward the middle (like Garland where McConnell decided to become president and not let a vote come up on him)
When they clean out Biden for all his crimes, let me know.
Till then, this list of wrongdoings is not even a drop in a bucket full of water compared to how deeply corrupt Biden and his extended friends and family (including former SoS Kerry and his son who was partnered with Hunter in gettting billions from China) are.When they clean out Biden for all his crimes, let me know.
As soon as we nail Trump for all of his.........
Excuses, excuses.... distractions, misdirection, so you give Uncle Clearance a free pass? It is easy to see where you usually stand simply with the positions you take. Right and Left can not mix, we recognize each other when we see it.....
The point is that the Supreme Court is supposed to be above the fray but now is soiled with corruption and partisanship. And with today's Republican Party, I fear that it will never been corrected anytime soon.
BTW, why are the Republicans opposed to an code of ethics for members of the Court?Trump is no longer in office, he is no longer impacting policy, so he is irrelevant to this.
Biden on the other hand has been far more damaging to America and Americans, has been responsible in part for hundreds of thousands of deaths so far, how many more hundreds of thousands are added who knows, he has plenty of time left on his term.
Biden's crimes are far more damaging and criminal, constituting the laundering of billions of dollars. Thomas had someone pay for a kids education?
Are you kidding me?
You bring this up at a time when we have a President that we know has had funds to the tune of billions of dollars from China... that has a long history and millions if not billions of dollars funneled through Ukraine, where we happen to be flying planes full of money to... actual pallets of money for "support" in their war against Russia.
You support the most criminal and corrupt President to ever sit in the Oval Office, which is saying a lot considering who has come before him... and you want to rant about a kid getting an education paid for?
Hah!"Trump is no longer in office, he is no longer impacting policy, so he is irrelevant to this."
But he was and you were all for him and his approach.
It is more than a kid getting his education paid for, you are clearly on the other side of this issue, completely disregarding the ethics involved. Did you bother to even look into the truth?
While you keep trying to convince me that the political Right is not my enemy? Right.....
If Biden is guilty, let the appropriate investigations reveal this. That is the same thing that I say about Trump and his legal woes.You have every right to believe that there is reason for concern.
But those reasons for concern are being prayed upon, they are being used for you to support programs that will ultimately be just as harmful.
I will not say more harmful, the very concerns I have for my freedoms and independence and privacy are not more significant than yours... we are merely identifying the threat coming from a different source.
I can't identify, Tulsi Gabbard or Robert Kennedy or even Trump as a more serious threat. If I attempt to put myself in your shoes, I still cannot do it, because I have seen nothing from any of them, even Trump, that I consider more offensive or more racist than what Biden has done or said."You have every right to believe that there is reason for concern."
"But those reasons for concern are being prayed upon, they are being used for you to support programs that will ultimately be just as harmful."
That remains to be seen...
-----
"I will not say more harmful, the very concerns I have for my freedoms and independence and privacy are not more significant than yours... we are merely identifying the threat coming from a different source."
This is as true a statement as ever been said..
---------
I have plenty of examples of Trump being far more egregious in his race baiting than Biden, do I have to make a list? I am certainly not going to accept egregious race baiting from any candidate that expect me to vote for him or her.America is a Banana Republic.
Although people are starting to figure this out (why we have had so much support for Trump and Sanders), the elite, the establishment, whatever you want to call them, could never have pulled this off without the unfathomable ignorance of the American public.
As someone who was brainwashed for half of my life, I try not to be judgmental about it. I have had my moments of frustration, as you know.
I have consistently tried to make you and others aware of this grotesque merger of crony corporate interests and government, how we have gotten to the point where stopping its total control over our lives is almost to the point of being impossible now.
The ratio between employee compensation to gross domestic product in the U.S. is the lowest in history and corporate profits are at their highest-ever point.
Anyone that tries to stand up and challenge it is labeled and silenced.
You choose to accept those labels on them, rather than consider why suddenly, they are being deplatformed, labeled, and shut down.
America used to be the land of opportunity and optimism.
Now it is becoming the land of oppression by the elite: two-thirds of Americans believe the economy is rigged in favor of corporate interests like Big Pharma and the Military Industrial Complex.
Optimism that Obama brought has turned to anger. Voters’ fury fueled the insurgencies of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders both in 2016 and 2020.
Don't be fooled, a deal was done and Sanders was told to step aside, twice, I doubt he will ever be given support like that again.
Donald Trump got 75 million votes despite a disastrous 2020 of Pandemic and Riots and constant negative media coverage. No Presidential candidate ever received so many votes.
More on that can be learned here...
https://youtu.be/4eTG32YC_Uw?t=165
What Americans want has become immaterial to the establishment.
Even when over 80% of the population wants something, they don't care, we saw this with the bank bailouts in 2008, when Americans across the board were opposed to it, but Congress passed TARP anyway.
Even when Americans were over 75% against the Affordable Care Act, they passed it, and when Americans gave a strong reaction against it, creating a wave of overturned seats in Congress, the movement was labeled as racist and attacked by governmnet agencies like the FBI and IRS.
Several years of supposed “economic recovery” didn't change the public’s perception of the bank bailouts. Years after the fact studies showed that only 23% percent of Americans favored the bank bailouts and the disgust was completely bipartisan.
Despite widespread disapproval, Congress passed TARP and it was at that moment that many Americans began waking up to the fact they are nothing more than economic slaves with no voice and no representation.
They are serfs. Even more importantly, when they revolted against the ACA, the politicians they voted in to do away with it betrayed them, they did not reverse it even when they had the majority and a President wanting Congress to abolish it.
We find ourselves in the precarious position we are in today... where I believe the majority of Americans recognize that the government is not working in their best interests. I should specify that these Americans are the working class. Those whose lives are dependent on government checks, government housing, etc. won't care so long as they continue to be cared for.. if that ever changes...
I think the Biden Administrations efforts on promoting transgenders, child sex changes, Equity not Equality, and shuttling millions of immigrants all over the country may push that majority into action... or not.
Maybe it will be the increasing inflation, the interest rates that make buying a home or car financially unattainable for anyone making less than six figures...
Maybe it will be the banking collapse that is coming and forcing everyone to accept digital wallets and CBDC... or maybe Americans are just too far gone, too willing to accept serfdom.
Most likely, it is the latter, and those running things in DC are betting on it.Most likely it is the latter. Consider that over half the population gets charity of one kind or another from Uncle Sam and you understand why I say that. Those are the people that are satisfied already, and they already compromise more than the working class in its entirety, let alone the much smaller number that works without being subsidized by the tax base.
How about 100% of the population and most rich corporations?
"Even when Americans were over 75% against the Affordable Care Act,
"(tEquity not Equality,).
Republicans are not known for supporting either one.
------
and shuttling millions of immigrants all over the country may push that majority into action... or not.
What majority? Those god fearing Christians of the Caucasian persuasion? That is fast changing as well, no wonder the Right is so nervous.
That's incorrect, the highest level of disapproval verses approval was 52 percent verses 48 percent, recorded in 2018, considerably different from 75 percent disapproval you speak of.
If ACA was so awful why couldn't the GOP dominated congress repeal it?
Rich people in today's political climate are never going to work in the best interests of anyone but rich people. That is why I am suspicious of the Right who are more than willing to allow them to run off with the store while speaking about working class populism from the other side of their mouths.
-------
"Maybe it will be the increasing inflation, the interest rates that make buying a home or car financially unattainable for anyone making less than six figures... "
This is the new reality, most troubling...I believe we had this debate many years ago, regarding the ACA.
Prior to its passing it was unpopular, the majority of Americans did not trust Congress, Pelosi's "You'll just have to wait to see what is in it, after we pass it." did not go over well.
The rich got richer, the large Insurance companies were able to kill off smaller competitors. The Hospitals were able to tack on extra charges for those who had insurance... everyone was happy except the struggling middle class who often had to choose between paying for their ACA plan or paying for something else vital to them.
Most of the plans on the ACA had obscene deductibles that made them all but worthless. Supposedly very high-deductible plans are no longer allowed under the ACA, but its not something I have looked into with any seriousness, so I don't know.
They have improved how you can pay for it as well. The government pays up front for most if not all of it, and then if you make more money than would qualify for that government help, they take it back out of your taxes, if I understand correctly.
It has been improved, probably due to the fact that about half the country was still unsatisfied with it and wanted it gone even as recently as 2020.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/268943/ame … acare.aspx
All that said, it was one of the primary catalysts to the backlash we saw in the 2010 elections and again in the 2012 elections... part of the cumulative distrust and disconnect between DC politics and the people.
Whether you believe Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are extremists or not, the voters flocked to them... vocal, active, angry voters... and I believe come 2024 there will be more that can be categorized as such than we saw in 2016 or 2020.
I simply don't buy your Russian propaganda.
Talk about being blind to the Truth - and without evidence as usual.
Ken, your comment makes much sense to me. I read in the link that the rich donor paid $5,000 a month for 2 years for the Justice kid. Summing up, its just $120,000. What comparision can that make with the billions biden took? But I'm having problem understanding the disclosure question.
What billions, why wasn't Joe prosecuted - or even investigated by the Republicans?
Do the Republicans ever witch-hunt the Democrates? Why d' you think Narcy Pelosi was not targeted? Why not or should biden now? Your suggestion seems odd and absurd. You're also forget biden's business deals with Russia?
Biden has been a boon to America and we need four more years. His only mistake was in not reversing Trump's policy on Afghanistan and making a measured, safe withdrawal.
"You support the most criminal and corrupt President to ever sit in the Oval Office" - You are speaking of Trump, right? He beats all other presidents in corruptness AND ineptitude.
Nobody will be letting you know anything since Biden has committed no crimes like Trump has.
I was sorely disappointed when the liberal justices signed on to the Roberts memo stating we don't need no ethics on this Court. Actually, I am surprised any of them did save for Kavanaugh and Thomas.
I have made a return simply to say Amen and Hear, Hear Ken....oh and to quote Grace.
+10000000000Attacking Clarence Thomas is nothing but the left's next political attack on a free-thinking black conservative who does not follow their liberal agenda. The left has two standards of justice. One for them and one for those on the right.
Ted Cruz has answered these allegations.
Sen. Cruz:
“In 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas appeared before this committee in one of the most disgraceful performances by the Senate Judiciary Committee in our nation's history. Justice Thomas rightly described the treatment he got from then chairman Joe Biden, and Senate Democrats as a quote, ‘high-tech lynching.’
“It is sad to see 30 years later, this committee is again, engaged in the same despicable tactics.
“Senate Democrats and their lap dogs in the media are engaged in a two-fold political campaign, number one to delegitimize the Supreme Court of the United States because they are angry that there are a majority of constitutionalists on the court. But number two, very directly, this is a political campaign designed to smear Justice Clarence Thomas, and the reason is simple. The Left despises Clarence Thomas, and they do not despise him because he's a conservative. The Left despises Clarence Thomas because he is a conservative African American. Here's what Clarence Thomas said at that confirmation hearing. He said, ‘if you are a free thinking, African American,’ quote, ‘you will be lynched, destroyed and caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate.’
“Well, in three decades, that hasn't changed. It's gotten worse. And to be clear, here's the left's view. I point to one article, just three weeks ago: ‘The Democrats need to destroy Clarence Thomas's reputation. They'll never successfully impeach him.’
“But so what? Make him a metaphor for every insidious thing, the far right has done to this country? That's what the Left is trying to do. And I will tell you, if you look at the next that next poster board, the Left has repeatedly attacked Clarence Thomas with a racism. This is a magazine cover that showed Justice Scalia, every bit as conservative as Clarence Thomas, but he's portrayed as the master and Clarence Thomas in a bigoted attack is portrayed as shining his shoes. I'll show you another one. To give you a sense of the racist vitriol from the Left. Here's a racist caricature of Clarence Thomas, ‘Lawn Jockey for the Far Right.’ This is the bigoted contempt the Left has. I'll show you another magazine cover.
“This is how the left views Clarence Thomas. Now it's important for people at home to understand this is not about judicial ethics, you can take those down. This is not about judicial ethics. This is not about rules that should apply to judges across the board, we could have a reasonable discussion about that. This is about applying a double standard to Clarence Thomas, and only Clarence Thomas. The attack that my Democrat colleagues breathlessly repeat is that Clarence Thomas stayed at the vacation home of a very close friend of his a successful Texas businessman, flew on his plane and went on his yacht.
“Well, if that's the standard, going and traveling and being paid for by others, then guess what just about every Supreme Court Justice has done so and done so in much greater numbers. Justice Thomas was appointed in 1991. And the time since then, he's taken 109 reported trips, five international trips.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed in 1993. Two years later in the time she was on the court. She took 157 trips, including 28 international trips.
“Mr. Payne, yes or no. Do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg was corrupt?”
Mr. Payne:
“No.”
Sen. Cruz:
“No? Nor do I.
“Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not alone. Justice Stephen Breyer appointed the year later in 1994, took 233 reported trips, including 63 international trips again, yes or no, Mr. Payne, do you think Stephen Breyer was corrupt?
Mr. Payne:
“No.”
Sen. Cruz:
“Nor do I. I would point out Justice Kagan has done the same thing. Justice Sotomayor has done the same thing. And yet, none of my Democrat colleagues care, because this is a political attack directed at a justice they hate. And by the way, let's spend a moment focusing on Justice Stephen Breyer, a delightful human being, someone I know personally, someone who served decades on the Court. Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly traveled on the penny of a prominent democratic billionaire, the Pritzker Family. Now, JB Pritzker is the Democrat governor of the state of Illinois, from which our chairman hails, I would be shocked if the chairman of this committee has not had multiple meals with the Pritzker Family.
“Justice Breyer was a longtime member of the board that awarded the Pritzker Architecture Prize. But what did that mean? That meant Justice Breyer traveled on the dime of these Democrat billionaires in 2019, Justice Breyer traveled to New York City to Vancouver in Paris in 2018 Justice Breyer traveled to Ireland and Spain and 2016 he traveled to New York, Spain and France. In 2013. He traveled to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, in 2012. He traveled to Beijing and to London.
“All of this paid for by the Pritzker foundation. Now, none of my Democrat colleagues are mad about this. And let me be clear, I'm not suggesting Justice Breyer is corrupt. What I'm suggesting is this committee is corrupt because this is a kangaroo circuit circus. And I will note, we had 15 Senate Democrats, including six members of this committee send a letter to the Appropriations Committee threatening to cut off the funding for security at the Supreme Court. The left is willing to threaten the lives of the justices. Justice Samuel Alito, this weekend in the Wall Street Journal said that the attacks directed at the justices are making them targets of assassination.
“This is disgraceful.
“Every senator who signed this letter should be embarrassed. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be admitted into the record and also that the interview with Justice Alito from this weekend be entered into the record.
“Democrats can have disagreements based on law, but this attempt to delegitimize the court this attempt to personally smear Clarence Thomas is dishonest. And everyone in the media echoing it is participating in a shameful reprise of 1991’s high-tech lynching.”This is what I say, the need for ethics standards should apply to all justices, otherwise we have just a cabal of political hacks. Why are Republicans so opposed to the idea? The answer revealed is just another one of the reasons why Republicans suck in my opinion. In my world, NO ONE is exempted from being held accountable for misconduct.
Excerpt, courtesy of the New York Times, the Grey Lady.
WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers reiterated calls on Thursday to tighten ethics rules for the Supreme Court after a report revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted luxury gifts from a major conservative donor without disclosing them.
An investigation by ProPublica described how Justice Thomas accompanied the donor, Harlan Crow, a real estate billionaire, on a series of vacations for nearly two decades. The trips included extended stays on Mr. Crow’s yacht, flights on Mr. Crow’s private jet and visits to Mr. Crow’s all-male private retreat in Monte Rio, Calif.
The disclosure early Thursday renewed scrutiny of Justice Thomas, who has long faced questions over conflicts of interest in part because of the political activities of his wife, Virginia Thomas.
No formal code of conduct on the Supreme Court specifically bars the justice from taking the trips mentioned in ProPublica’s reporting. But under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, justices, like federal judges, must file a financial disclosure each year that lists gifts of more than $415 in avoidance of even an “appearance of impropriety.” The cost of one of the trips with Mr. Crow may have exceeded $500,000, according to ProPublica.
Lawmakers have seized on the lack of enforceable ethics code governing Supreme Court justices, urging that they be held to standards similar to those in place for members of the executive and legislative branches.
The Senate is considering a bill that would codify that practice, in line with past legislation. And new rules adopted in March now require the justices to report travel by private jet and extended stays at commercial properties including hotels, resorts and hunting lodges.
On Thursday, lawmakers emphasized that stricter standards were necessary.
“In every other place in government, there is an ethics rule that applies,” Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat of Rhode Island who sits on the Judiciary Committee’s panel that oversees federal courts, said in an interview. “The only place in the United States government where that is not true is the United States Supreme Court, where the nine justices have exempted themselves from this very basic process.”
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, who oversees the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed that sentiment.
“The highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest ethical standards,” Mr. Durbin said in a statement, adding that Justice Thomas’s conduct was “simply inconsistent with the ethical standards the American people expect of any public servant, let alone a justice on the Supreme Court.”If the left believes as you do, they wouldn't just focus of the black conservative justice, they would focus on all of the justices. That focus on the only black conservative on the court is one of the many reasons I believe the left truly sucks. It's called selective outrage.
Agreed. But let the law or bill be stanardized. So that every Justice of the Supreme Court knows his/her limit. Every American is a conservative to a limited extend. America was found on Christian conservative rule. Subsequent settlers or groups develop various conservative philosophies, that is detrimental to the country at large. Critically, the. Republican and Democrate conservatism differs greatly. This is where the problem arise, the R and D parties signficantly disagreed in many respect. I had an uncle (now late) who was a Justice of a Federal Revenue Court in Nigeria. You may present him with any gift you like, and he may tell that he wouldn't perverted justice if you take the law into your hands.
You need a refresher in American civics if you actually believe the statement that you have just posted....
Very well said... But would you tell me when was the American Constitution was ractified without looking into one of the basic civic lesson books or digital media? I was open to such a challenge by your fellow American some 4 years ago. I was the only one that got the answer. I think I'm telling you this for the second and final time. America, God's own country is wonderful and fruitful. But you Americans are with the habit or doctrine of conservatism making things hard politically, if not socially.
I admire your knowledge and understanding of the American political system, particularely since you live in Nigeria. I confess, I could not come close to having anywhere near a similar understanding or your country or it politics. However, I would expect that most high school graduates would know when the Constitution was ratified.
There is no religious establishment in the United States.Thank you. As for your last paragraph, I have my doubt.
Christianity is a religion, right? Followed by...?
Christianity is fading in America just as it has done in Europe.
Yea, it may fade in Europe, specific in the UK. But has Islam or Hinduism hacked off the root and foundation of Christianity? Or is the 'woke' cult belittling christianity?
In case you have fallen for right-wing propaganda, "woke" is about identifying and talking about social injustice. Are you opposed to doing that?
You need to read up on the foundations of Islam and Hinduism and their relationship to Christianity (and Judeism for that matter). Neither Islam nor Hindus derive from Christianity.I'm not opposed to messing up or opposing social justice. Have you read the Koran, in English translation? I have. Anyone doing the reading should note the significant comparison between the two books. Woke is a thought of you Americans, not an outsider.
Nope, I have no interest in Islam, I have the same issues with Islam as I do Christianity. Islam and Christianity are just to offshoots of Judaism. I have, on the other hand, read the Bible from cover to cover three times. That is why I have no use for Christianity.
I don't think you have any understanding of what "woke" is.Islam interested me because as It's student, but I don't profess the religion. What? You read the Bible from cover to cover 3? times just a year? Good. I read the NT Mathew to Revelation 10 times in a month. The OT takes me 2 times a month. In each case I read 10 chapters morning and evening per each testament. And averaging the whole Bible 7 times in the year... Woke like Cancel Culture has its root in America, not the world.
Not a year, but over the span of 25 years starting from when I was 10.
Interesting indeed. For over a span of 25 years, that means 3*25=75 times. It's a pity that the Bible don't mean anything to you, yet you're preaching from the from the same Bible to me. I found that very odd and absurd.
No, lol. Over a 25 year span, from when I was 10 to somewhere around 35, I read the Bible three times.
It was thoughts like the one I quoted for you that told me the Christian version of God is not for me. Besides, which God would it be? One of those believed in by the different Jewish sects, or the several hundred Christian ones, or how about the multiple Islamic versions? I told myself at a very young age that when the monotheists figure which one is the real God, then I will take another look at it.
BTW, the Bible meant A LOT to me and I did not like what I read.I was like you back then. And I evidently came to the realization that the Bible no less than a book of literature, was a book of prayer. Did you pray before and after reading the Bible? The Psalms, for example, Psalm23, is a codified book of prayers and songs to enriched one's life. Much thanks.
Only when forced to when I was a kid. When I look around me, I simply don't see the point.
The problem with so much of this is that this is the sort of matter that has to be reflected upon and decided at the most personal level. No one should be coerced or proselytized in this regard. Conservatives here like to think that we have some sort of national religion that they are free to impose on those that would prefer to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.
The Bible speaks of God saying "choose now who you will serve". If God gives me that choice, who is man to take it away?God has already gave the chooce. What's your mindset or decision?
I have made my choice in that direction, if you must know. But I wouldn't dare impose my personal ideas and thoughts about this on others. I would offer it only if I were asked.
I am a hard-core introvert - all I do is look "inward" And when I did regarding Christianity, all I saw was a power-hungry religion willing kill others who disagreed with them.
I prefer much more peaceful religions like Buddhism and Pantheism.
I a nutshell, I believe some unknown force for some unknown reason (assuming there even needs to be one) brought the necessary ingredients together in a singularity that became the Big Bang which, in turn, became us. Simple, non-contradictory, and for the most part, understandable.
The only unanswerable question left is who/what is that unknown?What? I don't accept anything less than normal.
Yes, Christianity is a religion but so is Islam and Hinduism, so what is it supposed to be followed by?
Seems it was follow by Islam or Hinduism. Are not these later twos established?
I don't understand, "establishment"means an official government sanctioned religion. That is not the case in the US or at least it is not supposed to be.
Thank you...the American Constituion, like the Nigerian counterpart don't sanction any state or national religion.
None of them are "established" by the Constitution or by any American gov't. They are "organized" religions.
Are saying the other Justices are being as unethical as Thomas is?
If the information Mike presented (concerning Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) is true, what names would you give them to go along with 'Uncle Clarence'?
Or, is your condemnation of Thomas a matter of degrees? Maybe they all took the trips and accommodations but Justice Thomas deserves the pejorative because he is the only one who had a kid's tuition paid . . . and that's a step too far?
GAIf the information Mike presented (concerning Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor) is true, what names would you give them to go along with 'Uncle Clarence'?
Good progressive and liberal jurists....
I'll get back with you on the rest.....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … ou-realize
As for the rest, this article expresses my opinion. Giving Thomas the benifit of the doubt does not excuse him for being stupid and careless in not understanding this basic principle for as long as he has been on the bench. Thomas may well have been brought under the magnifying glass for the egregious nature and the very extent of the appearance of impropriety while on the bench. I did not find any of other justices outside of Gorsuch who has so obvious a case, can you?
So, yes, you can stop parroting conservatives who say this is only about his kid's schooling paid for by a billionaire. It is far more involved....First, I addressed the tuition because, from the presented information, it seemed to be the only difference in the actions of the other judges. They all accepted big trips and accommodations on some rich person's dime. The point wasn't parroting anyone. It was the logical consideration for why you would condemn Thomas as a traitorous 'Uncle Tom,' and the others as "Good progressive and liberal jurists."
If the tuition thing isn't what made the difference for you, was it dollar-to-dollar comparisons? Are you finding degrees of wrong that you could claim are okay and ones that are definitely Uncle Tom scale. A $100K ethics-violating trip is okay for a good progressive jurist to accept, but a $250K trip is a corruption of ethics that deserves the condemnation of being labeled a white man's conservative Toadie?
"Parroting . . . " You know better.
GAThomas' rulings have been contrary to the interests of the black community, always supporting mere caprice of police power over civil rights and liberties. So, from our viewpoint THAT is what he is. He is no Thurgood Marshall.
I still have not been able to identify any other Justices among the nine that has offended so egregiously and fail to report such largesse from others on his or her behalf and not considered the appearance of impropriety because of it.
Any and all the Justices on the bench are required or should be required to report gifts which has been defined as substantial value for any number of reasons
Did you read the article, you just did not dismiss it out of hand?
Who, if any, are they?Credence2, is Justice Clarence Thomas being used by the whites against the African-Americans?
I would not want to go so far as to say that.
But, his judicial rulings are consistently conservative and conservatism as practiced in America has been to the disadvantage of minority groups, by its very definition.
Do a little research, and ask why Jews, Asians, indigenous people (American Indians), Hispanics, Blacks and younger voters generally do not support conservative candidates politically and consequentially will not support Justice Thomas from a judicial standpoint. The only overwhelming supporter of all this are the conservative whites. So, it is more than just a Black against white thing....Well noted and thank you. I'll do a research as suggested.
I didn't read your link. Not because I dismissed it out of hand, but because my entrance was based on the information in Mike's post. My point was only about the stark difference in your rationalizations for condemning and bashing Justice Thomas as an 'Uncle Tom."
The information provided was that Thomas accepted free trips on a conservative billionaire's dime. 109 trips, 5 being international.
And for that, you criticize him for ethics violations and call him an Uncle Tom.
But, it appears Justice Breyer accepted 233 trips, including 63 international trips on a liberal billionaires dime and you call him a good progressive jurist.
What difference do you see in these two examples that make one a white man's Toadie and the other a good progressive jurist?
That you have issues with Justice Thomas' ideology and rulings is not the point (the explanation in your link?), the point is that you say he is an unethical jurist that should be investigated because he did something that your good progressive jurists did. By your standards, he's an Uncle Tom for doing what Breyer and Ginsberg did.
Once again, for you, if something is done by a Democrat it's not wrong, but if a Republican does it it is wrong. That's as hypocritical as you say Republicans are.
GAThat term "Uncle Tom" speaks of Thomas' rulings and jurisprudence in general from the standpoint of the African-American community and is separate from his ethics issues. When you speak of "toadies" and such, that is my explanation.
Perhaps before you criticize me, You might read my link instead of just reading Mike's?
I am going to check on the Justice Breyer reference comparison and if his case is similar to Thomas', I will gladly back off. But, I will not fall for the
Time honored conservative ruse of taking two totally different and disparate circumstances and putting them both in the same pot. So, I will check with a critical eye, and it had better be good.
Clerance, from the standpoint and view of the preponderance of OUR community is an "Uncle Tom" independent of Breyer or Ginsberg.
So, there is no "cherry picking" to be found in my arguments.I stand corrected GA, it appears upon my initial investigation is that they ALL do it, and that you conservatives have been right, I am guilty if picking on Thomas for things that each and every juror has been guilty of to a varied extent. From, that standpoint, I stand corrected, this time....
It does point to the fact that there needs to be a code of ethics to which Supreme Court Justices must adhere. Otherwise, the conflicts of interests when they should clearly recuse themselves from ruling on a case, would, in actually, never arise. What we end up with are 9 totally corrupt, political hacks. Without rules and regulations having teeth, what is to prevent that?
Despite all of that, Uncle Clerance is still an Uncle Tom....Damn, and I had a good response all qued up. ;-)
GA"Despite all of that, Uncle Clerance is still an Uncle Tom...."
If I understand the reference correctly - That Clarance does not behave as you think a black man should, but instead like a white man - is there anything that could be more racist, more divisive and more harmful to our people than to divide us by declaring that skin color determines how one should behave?Below, says why he is an Uncle Tom on the Court and always has been and to date continues to be. Take a little time to read and educate yourself before you grace us all with your hypothesis, if you please?
-------
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/07/us/clare … index.html
-----
But it’s Thomas’ voting record that has cemented the cynicism many blacks feel toward him.
Critics say he has consistently voted against black people as well as other marginalized groups: women, LGBTQ people, religious minorities and death row inmates.
He is the first Supreme Court justice to openly criticize the high court’s landmark civil rights ruling, Brown v. Board of Education.
And he joined a 2013 high court decision – Shelby County v. Holder – that eviscerated the Voting Rights Act, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement.I read the article you provided.
This article is nothing more or less than an opinion piece.
I did see there are many assumptions about “white conservatives,” and no opinions from black conservatives,
From the article,
“One journalist praised Thomas in 2017 for being the product of a “caring, supervised, value-laden upbringing, compared with a more usual poor, fatherless black childhood” marked by “victimhood.”
Isn’t this something that should be admired?
“He once told a black reporter: “There is nothing you can do to get past black skin. I don’t care how educated you are, how good you are at what you do – you’ll never have the same contacts or opportunities, you’ll never be seen as equal to whites.”
Isn’t his experience proven this true? He would not experience a percent of the hate and vitriol from the black community should he have been a white conservative.
“He once told a group of black college students, “Nobody cares how tough your upbringing was. Nobody cares if you suffered some discrimination. And moreover, you have to remember that whatever you’ve gone through, it pales in comparison to the hardships previous generations endured.”
Obama lectured black people so much about not using racism as a crutch that some commentators criticized him for it.”
He shares view similar to that of Obama. I don’t see why this is a problem. This means if you hate Clarence, you then have to hate Obama.
“Thomas has lectured blacks about the evils of affirmative action. Yet he made it into Yale Law School because of an affirmative action program.”
He addressed and said how the environment is very different today from when he was trying to get into law school. Clarence Thomas then gave examples of how “the pendulum has swung too far the other way."
“If you’re a black person who rises to a high level in politics or law, many folks in the black community expect you to use that position to better the living conditions of people who look like you or at the very least speak truth to power,” says Perry of Howard University. “Clarence Thomas has done neither.”
That is NOT the job of a Supreme Court Justice. They are supposed to interpret the cases before them based on the Constitution, case law as well as legislative law. In theory, it should be color blind.First, thanks for reading the article.
Isn't everything a matter of opinion? It is only conservatives that see their opinions as the gospel.
Perhaps, black conservatives were not available to comment, after all we did get the opinion of white conservatives, did we not?
--------
He once told a black reporter: “There is nothing you can do to get past black skin. I don’t care how educated you are, how good you are at what you do – you’ll never have the same contacts or opportunities, you’ll never be seen as equal to whites.”
"Isn’t his experience proven this true? He would not experience a percent of the hate and vitriol from the black community should he have been a white conservative."
So, Uncle Clerance wants all to resign ourselves to a racist and inequitable system as a given, is this what we have been fighting for for the last 150 years? Yes, he gets the vitriol and deserves it, as a black man who has experienced much of this first hand, he should know better.
-------
Yes, Obama and many civil Right leaders chided the black community on not using race as an excuse for lack of achievement, but I would never see Obama on the Supreme Court ruling against the very decisions that made what opportunities there are today available. That is the difference.
It is just Thomas' opinion that the Pendulum has swung too far the other way, after he has dipped his wick, I guess that is easy enough to say regarding those that follow him. So, is it gospel, I doubt it? I, myself question some basic premises regarding "Affirmative Action" but we are far from the "post racial era" that conservatives speak of, so often.
The only accurate thing that you said here is that Clerance Thomas is not there to promote the interests of Black people but render judicial rulings based upon the Constitution. I and many blacks question his "interpretation". Only conservatives say he is a Constitutionalist, that is because he renders decisions that only conservatives approve of, that is all. We see his support of issues that revisit and support anti-civil rights themes that had been decided ages ago as counterproductive and most of US find him as irritating a turn back clock artist as any white conservative.
Thomas has questioned the legal foundation of the Kansas board of Ed. Ruling in 1954. So, he must be a "Plessy" man. That 1954 ruling was a unanimous one, so, what legal basis did Thomas have that is so much more correct than how the decision was actually interpreted and decided in 1954?
The theory and the ideal verses the reality are often times far apart, otherwise would not Plessy 1896 have been the best decision without need for a total reversal?I sure wish Thomas DID base his decisions on the Constitution. Unfortunately, he rarely does.
Someone out there should challenge him in the name of the law, if it involve incompetency. But I think it's his conservatism stance?
That seems like what I said - that he votes as a white man (always evil and against black people) and is therefore an "Uncle Tom".
But I made no hypothesis, just asked a question. Except that divisive rhetoric and judging by color is racist and divisive. Do you disagree with that?Ask your question, Wilderness, not all white men are the problem just the conservative ones. Conservatives, black or white, are cut from the same cloth and I do not discriminate in identifying both them as a problem.
It is a matter of opinion, Thomas rulings have been anti-civil Rights, and when we look at criminal justice, his decisions give police unlimited discretion and caprice at the expense of civil liberties, much like the "Stop and Frisk" controversy a few years ago. How am I expected to support such a decision, that is his opinion and his own interpretation? I won't and WE don't, so yes, he gets not a great deal of support from our community being as a milestone around our necks.
So, what is divisive rhetoric, is it the fact that we want our history relative to this country taught accurately or we don't want books from our intellectual class burned as tinder, for example? But, otherwise. I can't disagree with your statement on the surface and in the most general of terms.
I don't really think that white folks are in a position to know nor appreciate the issues at hand."It is a matter of opinion"
You're right - it is a matter of opinion that all conservatives are evil racists. An opinion that is so obviously false to fact as well as extremely divisive and harmful to the country we can be glad that the large majority of people, liberal OR conservative, would not even consider the possibility of signing on to the nonsense."It is a matter of opinion"
And, So, it will remain.....There you go again with the all or nothing mantra.
The fact is, most conservatives are not evil, although many are racist. But that is not the point, they can be as evil and racist as they want so long as they leave the rest of us alone.
The problem with conservatism is the philosophy (as laid out by Russell Kirk) has no guardrails, unlike liberal orthodoxy which does. Conservatives believe this:
1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. - That belief is the root of the problem
2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.{/b] - Nothing wrong with that, so long as one doesn't take it too far. Unfortunately, this is one that has no guardrails and in practice has led to much societal harm - starting with allowing slavery to continue to exist.
3. [b]Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. - Meaning, "that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary." - In a liberal's view, this means conservatives think progress is a bad thing. This principal has also been abused to cause societal harm.
4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. - Meaning "Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues"- Liberals (maybe not the far Left) agree with that one.
5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. - Meaning, "They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems" - I am not sure what that means unless conservatives think that equality is a bad thing.
6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. - Meaning "Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created ... All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. " - A rather pessimistic outlook on life, sort of sad.
7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. - Yes, liberals agree.
8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. - Yep, that is a good thing as well.
9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. - "A state in which an individual or a small group (such as conservative Christianity) are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. "
10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. - Meaning "The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. " - Liberals absolutely disagree with this.The comment I replied to: "Conservatives, black or white, are cut from the same cloth".
That's pretty plain, if the reader doesn't already know the author, that the subject is indeed all conservatives.There is a reason conservatives and liberals are distinctive in their attitudes and their actions....
Your a Floridian, Credence - do you think DeSantis will finally get around to burning the books he doesn't like. Maybe some Disney films with them?
Indeed, ESO, and neither Florida Republicans nor DeSantis has had the last word over this issue
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/11768791 … an-lawsuit
So it is not over "until the fat lady sings". You can bet we are coming for them. This is all going to blow up in their faces,With Nikki Fried having just been elected to run the FDC, I have already seen major changes as she tries to breath life back into a moribund Democratic Party. (I think the previous chair was working for the other side.)
The first sign of that is a Democrat winning handily the mayor of Jacksonville.
She has three challenges: 1) getting more Democrats registered, 2) getting blacks to care more about their future, and 3) winning back the Latino vote which they simply gave away by ignoring them.
It also seems the DNC is taking more interest in Florida this time around - they starved us for cash in 2022.
To say that he voted against all those groups you mentioned is less than accurate. Unless there is something beyond his Court writings that influence your view (secret diary writings, pledged associations, etc.), it would be more accurate to say he has voted against legal decisions that affected those groups of people.
Any other statement carries biased connotations that aren't there to inform but to criticize. Right?
GAThe cases that Thomas ruled upon attacked civil liberties and civil rights in favor of the view of reactionaries, do I need to dredge up an example or two, if you are in doubt?
I can't speak for other groups, but Thomas goes beyond legal jurisprudence to turn back the clock on what we all understood as part of the law.
I am not speaking of Thomas from the view of a white conservative, but from my view as a member of the African American community, I and the vast majority see him as an impediment and not an asset, regardless of the fact that white conservatives believe that we should revere him. So, I am here to both inform and to criticize....
I think you mentioned somewhere else that the term derives from blacks who did the bidding of their white slave masters, in order to curry their favor, and abused other black slaves. Do I have that right?
This Mark Robinson of North Carolina is what they call a driver, picking up the "masters" mantle, a magnitude worse than an merely being an accommodating "Uncle Tom".
After reading many different biographies, I am beginning see Thomas, as I don't believe that his radical background can really be totally expunged in his own mind over time, in a different light. He is not supporting the whims of conservative whites in politics and the judiciary because he thinks as they do. It is his resignation to and recognition of the futility of the "color blind" ideal as being unattainable in America and that liberal politics makes it just that much harder for blacks and minorities to act independently in the face of that. I still believe that it is a attainable goal and do not share Thomas' pessimistic outlook. If possible at all, it may occur in the, hopefully, not remote future. Thomas may well not even be an "Uncle Tom" but one fighting for our interests from an unexpected direction. Some of his writings and those of his biographers seem to point that way.
I am always going to have problems with Thomas' unerring conservatism on every issue, but may consider more carefully his motives and what drives him.
Yes, his rulings and opinions have been problematic, but the reasons behind that were unexpected.I hadn't looked into Justice Thomas at all. I was simply addressing the politics of the criticisms that were drawn from the "Uncle Tom" vein. I was shooting from the hip. I read that label as being intentionally base.
Your review of what you found is reassuring. My 'shooting from the hip' defense of him seems right to me. So do your criticisms of his conservativism (not that your criticisms are right, but that it's right that you would have them). Clashing ideologies are a part of the mechanism.
Now, about this Disney issue . . . ;-)
GA
I finally saw where the claim was made that Breyer's trips were on a billionaires dime. What was not mentioned was whether Breyer reported it on his disclosures. Why wasn't this brought up?
I suspect it is true - but the main point is overlooked here - there was no indication that that anyone paid for the liberal Justice's trips. Why not? If a Justice takes an overseas trip which they paid for (and I don't know if they did or not - because that nifty piece of information was omitted) then they don't need to report it. If, however, like in Thomas' case it was paid for by a political donor, it does and he didn't.
Obviously you approve (or at least find no fault with) of his lying on his disclosure records since 2011, at least.
Of course, Cruz doesn't give a damn about the woman, that Thomas sexually harassed, Anita Hill. I have noticed over the years that when a Democrat steps over the line in this regard, Democrats are the first to condemn and punish him. Republicans, on the other hand, go to the mat to protect their own. I guess the two sides view the subject differently.
As an outsider, I find it hateful to coutribute in such an issue. But I've had some good time visiting Justice Clarence Thomas online. From a very low background, to the Superior Bench, the man seems determined and focussed. I'm glad that the Ragean, Bush, and even Trump had the right hand of Clarence Thomas. The question I see here is politics left and right. It has to be balanced or neutral as regards every ethnics of the Bench. Senators, politicians, law makers should leave uncle Clardnce alone. He's a blessing from God to America. Others had throd that path. Why pick on Clarence?
No doubt. But can't you enumerate them logically?
Article excerpt...
Corey Robin States,
"Thomas assumes that racism and white supremacy is ineradicable in America. It’s a permanent feature of the American condition. And the problem for him with contemporary liberal America, which he thinks really begins with the New Deal, is that white supremacy to a certain degree changed its spots but not nearly as much as most people think."
Could I have been wrong about this man? I have often come to similar conclusions myself, more often than I would like.. but, I would not want to be THAT pessimistic.
Most interesting article, check it out...
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics … orey-robinCorey Robin states... that Thomas assumes...
WTF does Corey know about what is in the mind of Thomas?
Not a damned thing... that is just BS.As the scholar in biographing Thomas, who else is qualified to take issue with it? Where is your substantiated rebuttal?
BS? Not much different than the revelations that Thomas made in his two books from what I can see after reading their synopses.
https://www.amazon.com/My-Grandfathers- … 0060565551
https://www.amazon.com/Created-Equal-Cl … &psc=1
White conservativism and black conservatism are the same mindset? Otherwise how can Ronald Reagan or Donald Trump agreed with Clearance Thomas? Curiously, I'm yet to read where among the 8 Associated Justices, where Thomas de-concurred with his fekow Justices. Otherwise, the system or establishment seems to be the problem.
So, did you find out why so many diverse groups in America have issues with conservative candidates and policies, as I asked you about earlier?
Sorry I'm late to this post. But your suggestion is still ever my priority. I've noted that the conservative question is rooted along side the formation of the USA. The divers ethnics make conservatism to a complexion, instead of a simple role. Conservatism not as the Europans or the British held it is a thorny flesh in America. Although it came with a religious (christianity) tune, and how the two main political parties- R and D are making political issues out of it beats my mind.
I came across a movie I think you are going to appreciate if you haven't seen it.
Anarchy USA (1966) a film by G. Edward Griffin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2wk6svKExk
It really is compelling and I do feel much of what we see occurring now and in recent years reflects the occurrences of those times.
Ultimately, unlike the revolutions noted in China, Cuba and Algeria, I think what we are seeing today is a different kind of revolution:
BTW did you know that the WEF joined with the UN in 2019?
https://www.weforum.org/press/2019/06/w … framework/
https://www.tni.org/en/article/end-the- … -agreement
So much has been accomplished since then, so much has been tested and prepared for the next phase. You thought 2020 was bad... give it a little more time."George Edward Griffin (born November 7, 1931) is an American author, filmmaker, and conspiracy theorist. Griffin's writings promote a number of right-wing views and conspiracy theories regarding political, defense and health care."
-------
Ken, you ought to know that I can never give any credibility to this man or his film. He was saying in 1966 the same thing that George Wallace and Lester Maddox was saying at the same time.
But it is as Malcolm X said during the period was that "patience by the blacks was something far beyond anything that whites had any right to expect, or Dr. King's "fierce urgency of now".
And what were blacks to do, continue to wait on "good will" that meant absolutely nothing? The situation was no different in 1966 than it was in 1866 and there was no reason to believe that it would be any better by 2066. The Civil Rights movement was vital and necessary and I don't care if it was Communist inspired or not, quite frankly. What was the alternative, what were we to be waiting for to correct grievous civil and social rights violations within American society? If it took rattling cages to get attention brought to it, then I say so much the better.
The film was just an abhorrent right wing propaganda piece, to which I can no credibility. I would have though by this point that you would know better...
I may well have issue with the WEF and the UN, I will have to study it further to determine my position on this issue, that seems to be shrouded from the public eye. From what I see so far, my initial impression of this WEF is far from positive.Remember, it was Griffen's ancestors, along with many evangelical-types that said blacks liked to be slaves.
And the sins of the father are visited onto the son. If your ancestors kept slaves you are evil, racist and disgusting.
Your very woke attitudes are showing through.If I espoused the same things that Griffin's does, then yes, I would be as evil, racist, and disgusting as he is.
I am proud to have my "woke" attitudes showing through because they are what is necessary to nudge America off its racist path.A lot of people are proud to be "woke", and rejoice in the built-in, institutional racism inherent in it.
Personally I prefer the concept of color blind and do not demonize any race for anything, especially for what someone of the same color did 200 years ago."Color Blind" has been used by Conservatives as a way to not pass laws to get rid of past sins. Until we actually have a non-racist society, "color-blindness" just maintains the status quo. That is why being "woke" is so necessary.
Right. It is necessary to promote racism and discriminate against another race. Never even attempt to be color blind, for that is not in the agenda.
Not in my book, Eso, not in my book. You can keep your racist, discriminatory "woke" policies but I will never endorse them. Racism is evil and wrong, whether against blacks, Hispanics, Caucasians, Asians, Inuits, Indians or any other race.*shrug* That's the "woke" agenda; demonize any Caucasian and teach that they are racist whether they are or not. You're proud of being "woke", you're proud of racist activities.
But if the son is the mirror image of their father, why should I see this individual any differently?
Woke is just another "excuse" word.
That is why I like to discuss these matters with you, that you are firm in your position is based on a foundation of experience... I can respect that.
I am willing to accept criticism and re-consider my position when it is challenged by someone who has lived through and experienced what I have not.
It is impossible to have a rational discussion with the well educated, well off, white progressives that love to explain what is racist and why... they can be the definition of words like arrogance and self-righteousness, with an impressive amount of disdain and disregard for anyone that challenges their position.
However, the point I was seeing in those movies/documentaries was not that racism didn't exist in 1966... but that it was/is used as a tool to get Americans to fight one another based on these differences.
One of my major questions has been, how did we go from a time in the 90s when racism was at an all time low... when the biggest stars in American culture were the likes of Michael Jordan, Michael Jackson, Will Smith, Oprah... to today's racial tensions?
What is the purpose of the MSM and politicians stirring up racial divide every chance they get?
Obviously they are not focusing on that alone, they have put everything into question today, what is a woman, 72 different sexes, etc. etc. its a long list of which to divide people into... the era of victimhood.
Ultimately it is for a reason... Agenda 2030... the Great Reset... the UN & WEF and the majority of politicians in DC (the Uniparty) that support those agendas.
How do you get Americans to accept open borders (open society) endless warfare overseas (Democracy building), and ultimately CBDC, Social Credit and Carbon Taxes?
You get them to fight one another, and you label all those that attempt to protect the Nation, the Constitution, and the integrity of Freedoms and Liberty by labeling them racists, rapists, terrorists... or whatever else works, like Russian collusion.I appreciate your desire to challenge me to address the appropriate questions, and to return honest answers.
"I am willing to accept criticism and re-consider my position when it is challenged by someone who has lived through and experienced what I have not"
Don't let me off that easily, I still need to make my case and do not want to fall back solely on experience, to give me any advantage that I have not otherwise earned in a rational debate/discussion.
----------
We did not need a "tool" nor have to be agitated from outside influences. This was as American an initiative as Apple pie. Increasing impatience with the pace of change during the 20th century constituted the fuel, and riots and continued agitation were the ignition. The civil rights movement was coming to fruition during the 1950s to full revolt. By the time the 1960s arrived, Kennedy and Johnson both realized that the discontent could no longer be ignored or contained. It well had the potential to tear the nation apart and in a time of Cold War rivalry, hypocrisy was a trait that we dared not present to the world. Now, there is television with the new Telstar communications satellite that can send moving images across the globe.
We have had successful symbols but the symbol is not always the same as the substance. You can probably ask any of these successful people you listed, do you think that they would say that America's racial issue problem has gone away because of their success? Blacks tend be a Democratic Party constituency, regardless of social class. That would tend to support my point. The nineties went pretty well, as Bill Clinton presided over a booming American economy and larger percentages of our group were enjoying it more than had previously.
We are currently seeing a backlash with Trumpism and the conservatives regarding civil rights issues. Movement to minimize our existence and influence in the American story is going full tilt. I am seeing the appearance of racial hostility from rightwing sects that are not always firmly discredited by the Republican Party. We did not have that during the 1990s, after getting over Reagan, I believed that things were improving. So, we currently are reacting to the increased presence of reactionaries in our society today and what appears to be their ever greater influence.
I would like to see more of the structural disadvantages go away in many areas, even though there will always be a handful that can successfully negotiate the minefield. Life itself is full of land mines, let's just remove the ones that unfairly put certain people at a disadvantage at the start.
The mislabel of genders and sex is misunderstood by me. But I don't have to understand it to afford anyone and everyone with equal rights, regardless of who they say they are or what they may look like.
I don't accept open borders as that is a different issue than civil rights for American citizens. But, The process of immigration needs to be both fair and orderly. I question our military involvement abroad and the sheer magnitude and extent of it, I always have. I am not in favor of the United States giving up its prerogative to be a sovereign nation and become part of a one world government. But, there is a need for balance, cooperation with other nations in certain areas may well be necessary to ensure our mutual survival.Perception is reality, this is the problem.
The MSM works with extreme prejudice to paint the likes of DeSantis and Trump as racist, while excusing everything Biden says or does/did that could be construed as such.
That they go on to attack Larry Elder, Tulsi Gabbard, and others as being racist, when that flies in the face of reality, is where it is clear the effort to label, smear, and dismiss these voices becomes overly obvious.
This is why I say racism and divide is being generated... instigated... propagated for a purpose that is not to benefit America or Americans, regardless of race.
I have never argued against that. Opportunity should be presented to all.
I don't think we are seeing policy put in place that allows true opportunity, I see it as the disintegration of Law, Order and social cohesion.
Allowing for Mob looting, allowing for crimes to go without punishment, again much of this is politicized and allowed for a purpose.
Can you point out the clear benefits you have seen for the inner cities and disenfranchised of America since Biden has been elected?
I have seen a lot of EOs and rhetoric on behalf of transgenders, child sex change, religious intolerance, and even immigrants... but not a whole lot on behalf of bringing something that positively affects the communities you are most concerned about.
Perhaps I am unaware of them.I believe that the reality accurately reflect the perception. Democrats are not expunging our existence in history and burning books from our most renown authors. Exposing a bad tendency done100 times over it being done once or twice matters and they are not equivalent. There is such an idea as magnitude and extent as there are no absolutes.
Neither Elder or Gabbard are racists, but if they throw their lot in with conservative politicians and Trump then they advocate policy positions not appealing to me nor much of the black community, who tends to vote Democratic for a reason.
Racism and the divide has always been here, only conservatives seem to believe that it is being manufactured, as if it were unnatural for a citizen to want equal rights. This is the first time where it appears that society is backsliding in regards to this issue. These rise of racial strife from white supremacist groups over the last 20 years is well documented. Excuse me if I give statistics provided by the FBI more credibility than what is presented by Breitbart or OAN.
I haven't seen any progress during Trumps term either, despite his boasts. Poverty and disadvantage are and always have been difficult to correct regardless who is in power. It is just that the Republicans have consistently presented themselves as an impediment unlike the Democrats. With a interminable flinty over representative Republican Congress, right now, we are trying to keep Republicans from taking away those gains that we have thought that we have secured.Credence,
From the position from which you are arguing, as I understand it, I agree fully with you.
Do you not recognize my argument... that there is something larger going on, that at this time, the divisiveness between races, sexes, etc. is being stirred to levels that we have not seen in decades, for a reason?
That the extremists, their groups, their worst actions, are being exposed and exploited by the MSM to help foster those divisions?
If I am wrong, it doesn't matter much. But if I am right, if the WEF gets its way, what will become of America's Freedoms, Liberty and Opportunity?
https://plandemicseries.com/
An interesting three minute clip to make you think.By the MSM? That is simply wrong. It is the RWM that is stirring the divisiveness.
Ken, I do recognize your argument. That, too, goes back to earliest times in American history. The corporate class in the capitalist system use divide and conquer to sow discord and have all people fighting among themselves while they run away with the store.
Stoking racism is just a tool in that toolbox. Racism was used to deny blacks entry into labor unions when it was clear that the economic issues among poor blacks and whites were identical. But, what got in the way? The corporatist use what WEB DuBois defines as the "invisible wages of whiteness" The whites' perception of their social, economic and political status as being distinct needing to be protected relative to black folks was more important than shared economic grievances over the same exploitation. I think that to a large extent that explains the power of Trumpism and the cult personality worship, today. The corporates told the working class whites "you get to boss the blacks and I will boss the money". That concept has been around for a long time.
I agree that we are all being manipulated by those opulent few who need to maintain their relative wealth and power at the expense of those of lesser means. How else does the few stay in control over the many?Whites were always so quick to embrace and take the bait of the corporatist in earlier times during the last century as shown in my Labor union membership example and are following the same script again with Trump, in my opinion.
How important are those "wages"in the face of larger tangible issues and problems that lie before us.
America's liberty, opportunity and freedom mean nothing to me unless I am allowed to partake of it on equal basis.What is beginning to bother me is that we KNOW foreign countries have made false statements that were swallowed whole by Americans, and we ignore it as if never happened.
Are we in an "information" war, a digital one but war nevertheless, and don't even recognize it? I certainly don't know but I DO think we are far behind in this kind of activity.I agree that we Know that, but what does that have to do with what Credence was saying, especially as it relates to 2010 and earlier?
I don't think you need to ask the question as it is obvious we are in an information war with Trump's friends, the Authoritarians.Elaborate if you please on what you are discussing here? Examples?
There is also the "in invisible wages of richness" that the wealthy do not pay taxes on.
That was an excellent reply, thank you.
Substantive and informative. Much of it I can agree with.
I think you are off on Trump's base (the majority of it). I think Michael Moore said it best about why the "Middle Class" voted for him and still support him.
Trump says FU to the Establishment, the Elites, he speaks of Draining the Swamp, he talks about keeping jobs in America, he talks about Making America Great.
Globalism gutted the American industrial center, it wiped out almost all good paying blue collar jobs.
While you and I can articulate sound arguments to why these things happened, while we are willing to do research and consider the benefits it brought us and the world, while also making International corporations incredibly wealthy and powerful... most do not think that deeply about it.
Most only know their government allowed those jobs to go to China, Mexico, Canada even. Most only know that politicians promise to fix things, while they lose their homes, jobs, hope.
Those same politicians they see get richer, more corrupt, and more dismissive of the voter's needs and interests.
Those Americans that support Trump are tired of all of it.
Trump became popular for them because he pointed all these things out to them. He told them the system was rigged against them. He told them just what Hillary Clinton came out and said... they are "deplorable", the disdain with which many politicians hold the "Middle Class" the "Working Class" is palpable.
Those folks are growing in number and if someone else doesn't step forward and fight for their interests and stand for the things Trump says he stands for (whether he does stand for those things or not is not the point I am making) then Trump is all they have.
And in this economy, and this political environment where average Americans are being bombarded with children being mutilated for sex changes (I have seen gruesome pictures of these operations, its inhumane, and they are becoming more commonplace, with dozens being done weekly in some hospitals)... where women are competing against trans men in sports, for swimsuit ads, bra ads, etc...
Trump's numbers are growing, Biden is far more despised than the MSM will ever let you know. I don't think that is a good thing, but I don't think a warmongering dementia addled lunatic like Biden is a better choice.
The people in the middle of the road who would be a better option, the Tulsi Gabbards and the RFKs, will never get a chance, they don't have the money and support... they are silenced by the DNC and RNC instead.
Sometimes you have to ask yourself why the MSM gives Trump so much coverage, why is he constantly in the news, why has this always been about Trump vs. Biden?The middle class you refer to left him in 2020, was did many Republicans. BTW, it was only a small, but important, segment of the middle class that were conned by Trump, the conservative-leaning union workers who rightly felt the Democratic Party had forgotten them.
Keep in mind that Trump only only won be less than 1% in WI, MI, and PA, the states that put him over the top. And I argue, but can't prove, that the pro-Trump Russian influence campaign had a lot to do with those squeaky close wins (along with Clinton running a poor campaign).Thank you, Ken...
"Trump says FU to the Establishment, the Elites, he speaks of Draining the Swamp, he talks about keeping jobs in America, he talks about Making America Great."
Then why is it only white people that see it that way as Trump's sole and largest constituency base? Shouldn't that concern find support over a broader spectrum of the electorate beyond just white people? Are they the only ones that see it or does Trump in charge represent an advantage to them as opposed to others? There are no nonwhite groups that even approach giving him any meaningful support, that includes Jews and Asians.
-------
Trump insists on staying in the news, with his candidacy for President and his endless scandals, how can he be anywhere else?It sounds like Ken doesn't want the MSM reporting on all the bad things and the few good things Trump does.
Yeah you have a point there, its not like he is shy in front of a camara.
I wouldn't say no one gives him support.
In an ABC News/Washington Post poll released over the weekend, 51% of the 1,006 adults surveyed listed Trump as their preferred 2024 Republican nominee, compared with 25% for his nearest opponent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. And, when incorporating which way undecided adults would lean, 49% said they would back Trump in a general election against President Joe Biden, with 42% of respondents supporting Biden.
Sherry, a 56-year-old who said she is living on disability assistance, accused Trump of trying to "bribe the officials when they was trying to change over the election process." Still, she said other politicians are also "crooks and criminals" and that she could not bring herself to vote for Biden in a 2024 general election.
"There's nobody left. At least he had the jobs and everything going, you just had to weed out a lot of his comments and stuff," she said of Trump.
"Since Biden's been in office, I've been struggling bad. I've had to have help from my little brother, my kids, and I don't like that," Sherry said. "I didn't have to have all that help when Trump was in office. Since Biden's been in office, every month it's like, am I going to make it? If my house wasn't paid for, I wouldn't make it."
Those comments reflect the larger results from the poll, in which American adults said by a 54-36% margin that Trump did a better job handling the economy when he was president than Biden has done.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/new-pol … d=99201832
Enough of Trump, for a guy I am not really that fond of discussing you sure seem to get the conversation back to him a lot.
All that stuff I have been mentioning, the CBDC, Social Credit, Agenda 2030, etc. etc. ... you really should check this out:
https://twitter.com/songpinganq/status/ … 7179394048"All that "stuff" you have been mentioning" - SORRY, I don't deal in conspiracy theories.
I read what I could from your sources, who knows, Trump may rise to power once again?
Not in my lifetime. In 2016, it was unreasonable that he would win - even he didn't think so. I feel that confident because Hillary (even though I like her a lot) isn't running this time, enough Americans now know what a despicable, dishonest character he is and aren't part of his cult, and (save for possible Russian AI attacks) most of us are on to Russian influence campaigns - although I am sure Musk will spread their propaganda far and wide.
The fact that any candidate could have so much of the scent of corruption and dishonesty being accepted by so many without question speaks to the powers of white fragility, supremacy and fear.
Not so long ago, anyone with a record like Trump would have disqualified himself. Times certainly has changed.
I hope not, as that would certainly be a signal of America's decline.White fragility?
It's economics. It's sociological wellbeing.
It's choosing to insult Saudi Arabia, refusing to negotiate with Russia, choosing to antagonize China.
Biden is a disaster. Maybe not for race based issues, LGBTQ issues, and open border supporters.... But for hardworking Americans, retirees on a fixed income, small businesses, he is literally the worst President we have had in our lifetimes.Tell me why inflation-adjusted consumer spending is at an ALL TIME HIGH?
I am waiting for an answer to that question, as well.
Boy oh boy,, what world are you living. Inflation is at all time high, man. People have to buy thiings to live such as food & other necessities. They have no choice. They simply have to hold their noses & buy-that DOESN'T mean that they accept it. They merely have to "go with THAT flow." Unless you have AT LEAST $250k as a yearly income in the United States, many people are ADVERSELY affected by INFLATION. HELLOOOO.
You realize, of course, that wager earners for $200K and up is 8.5% of all workers. So, agreeing with you, one could say practically everyone is affected by inflation while some more than others, unfortunately.
Get the scoop on wage earners at;
Average Income in America: What salary in the United States puts you in the top 50%, top 10%, and top 1%? (Updated for 2023) by Best Wallet Hacks.
https://wallethacks.com/average-median- … n-america/
Who says that those concerned about race issues, LGBTQ issues and open borders are not hard working Americans, retirees on fixed incomes or small business owners?
Credence2, such people have MORE PRESSING ISSUES to be concerned about than mere superfluous social issues. People are living from hand to mouth or more precisely from hand to elbow. People are concerned about putting food on the table, providing a mddle class life for their children, & ascertaining that their children receive a relevant education. Only a few people are concerned about the superfluous social issues over more important life issues.
What constitutes more pressing issues with your tendency to distort the reality on the ground is solely your opinion. I don't share it.
Are the Rightwingers you commonly suck up to really able to do any better?Curious with the dialogue on what do people care about I discovered an article titled; Top Ten Things People Care Way Too Much About by the website Top Tens. Celebrities was #1 followed by sports. Politics is at #6 while LGBTQ is at #13. Number 19 is caring about their hair.
https://www.thetoptens.com/list/things- … uch-about/THAT is a valid argument.
So, lets compare the terrible Trump to your enlightened leader Biden.
Did Trump maintain relations with Saudi Arabia or destroy them?
Did Trump antagonize and escalate hostilities with Russia over Ukraine or maintain peace?
Did Trump have lows in gas prices we had not seen in over a decade?
Despite DC's efforts to ruin his Administration from day 1, despite constant betrayals from within the DC establishment, the country was doing well under Trump's efforts, up until the peak of the pandemic.
Then Democrat Mayors and Governors went lockdown loony on their cities and states... except to allow looting and rioting... some of those pandemic efforts were worse AFTER Trump left office Biden took over, when Biden tried for FORCE corporations and government institutions to FORCE all Americans to take what we now know to be potentially harmful vaccines that had terrible side effects on a not insignificant percentage of the population.
The media character assassinated Trump, and still does, while the same media covers for Biden's mistakes, corruption, criminal activities, and insane policy decisions.Now, let's set the record straight.
Trump should have destroyed that vile dictatorship. Biden was too easy.
Trump and Putin are friends. Trump looks up to Putin's dictatorial powers and wish he had them himself (in fact, he tried to acquire them)
You mean since Obama? In terms of real dollars, gas costs the same or less under Biden than it did under Trump.
Yes, Trump did not ruin what Obama had built economically. He didn't do better and he didn't do worse.
I know you don't care, but how many lives did that save? Millions? Trump, on the other hand through his policies, had over a million excess deaths. And he keeps saying he is proud of that.
Actually, other than inflation, the effect of the pandemic were not worse in 2021.
Biden should have "forced" corporations and the gov't to take the life-saving vaccines. It is a simple LIE that they are harmful, potentially or otherwise.
Trump assassinated himself, not the media. The MSM reported what they saw while the RSM hid the bad things about Trump
Biden is the WORST president ever. However, there are people who refuse to accept reality. A blind man can see what Biden is doing to America. America has never been in such dire straits as she has under this excuse of a president. Like Oblumler, Biden is concentrating on inane, even irrelevant social issues. Who cares about these superfluous social issues when there are far more relevant issues?
To become the Republican candidate, perhaps, though they will try like heck to make sure that doesn't happen.
The RNC doesn't want him as the nominee. The corporations, most billionaires, like Gates and Bezos, are against Trump.
JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, Bank of America, Wells Fargo etc. I don't believe they support Trump.
Many hundreds of Billions will be spent to put in an accepted establishment shill over allowing Trump's return.
And there is always the likelihood of conflict escalating in Ukraine, or another pandemic, something that will allow for the 2024 election to be handled with unusual rules and allowances for unsecured and unverifiable Mail In Ballots, again.
I have never believed Trump would be allowed to return, if he had 100 million Americans voting for him, it wouldn't be enough.
----
I don't know if you were able to see the Social Credit videos and reports of the other link:
China's Wechat tell users whether they are within a 500-meter radius of someone, who are on the the blacklist of social credit system.
This alerts who you may want to 'stay away' from, lest your social credit score goes down!
A "Good Score" brings you benefits, whilst a "Low Score" gets you blacklisted you can't get a decent job, a hotel room...your kids can't attend good schools.
Your life can be "switched off" at any time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A8W-TFM4oAI do not dismiss the unfortunate trends that you are speaking of here.
I guess I just fail to understand why you think that this man, Trump and his movement are going to save America?I don't.
But if we are not already in WWIII by some miracle, if we aren't deep in another lockdown for some reason, I'll take my chances.
If the only thing good Trump does is de-escalate the Ukrainian war and force Ukraine/NATO to accept terms, that's good enough for me.
I could care less about breaking Russia apart so some trillion dollar corporations can become infinitely richer off of a war with Russia and then ransacking its wealth of resources.You do know, don't you, that the "terms" you are talking about is letting Russia gobble up Ukraine. But, I gather that like Trump, you have no issue with that.
Especially since he destroyed in the first place.
Find me even one study that shows Mail-In ballots are bad. Otherwise, we will all know you subscribe to hyperbole and nonsense.
Funny how all this hoopla over how ballots seem to get the attention of the right only after their standard bearer lost in 2020. Is it just a coincidence? I doubt it. They show time and time again that the only fair election is one where only their candidates wins, ask Kari Lake in Arizona.
Here is an interesting potential result of Crow's gifts to Thomas -
"Wyden has raised the possibility that the hospitality may have required disclosure on federal tax filings, which generally require taxpayers to report gifts in excess of a certain amount. The letter also indicated an interest in examining whether the travel was recorded on tax records as a business expense."
While Crow may have to have reported some of the things he gave Thomas, Thomas doesn't have to report receiving them to the IRS.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/politics … index.htmlCredence this is some material I really want your feedback on. Your perspective on these opinions and issues.
Making Black America @PBS - REACTION by @ChadOJackson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W-sqDp6MdM
Uncle Tom II - A Review by @JerichoGreen1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30kwIgFHy14Ok, Ken, i will have a look and let you know....
Without going into detail the moderator is a "kid" by my standards and is as wrong and as misguided as it possibly to be.
I have heard it all before.....
I will challenge anything that he says point by point and rebut and reject his accomodationism...
You must really hate America to wish that on us.
Nope! Those 51% that prefers Trump over Ron, Biden, and the others, are they fools? And what about lady Sherry and her discourse...? In spite of her daily hardship, she still prefers Trump? The best move is that Americans must bring back Trump. He'll make America great again. Run Trump. Run.
Related Discussions
- 95
Should Clarence Thomas resign or be Impeached for unethical behavior?
by Scott Belford 22 months ago
A brand new report just came out that shows Thomas was investigated in 2011 for exactly the same type of unethical behavior we see today.. Then, of course, you have the Brett Kavanaugh-type inquiry into claims of Thomas' sexual abuse.Should this man of questionable integrity be sitting on the...
- 28
We Must Rise Up To Force Accountability Using A Diversity Of Tactics
by Sharlee 3 years ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
- 39
Unelected Resistance: The Legal War Against President Trump’s Mandate
by Sharlee 7 weeks ago
Just a few months into President Trump’s second term, we’re witnessing an aggressive judicial campaign unlike anything in recent memory. Though elected by a majority of Americans hungry for change and committed to America First policies, President Trump’s ability to govern is being challenged not...
- 24
The Robert's Court is about to become the most Activist Court Ever
by Scott Belford 4 weeks ago
The Conservative Robert's Supreme Court is about to assign another long-standing precedent, this one which protects the lives of all Americans, to the judicial graveyard along side the devastating Dobb's decision which took away women's federally protected right to privacy.In 1984, the Court ruled...
- 186
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 14 months ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 40
Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 16 months ago
Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”The resolution — which...