Modded Mustang Forums banner

41 - 60 of 195 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
When it comes to lynching and slavery that brutal practice stayed in place well beyond the time of slavery if I’m not mistaken one of the last documented ones was in Alabama in the 80s. But there were plenty throughout the south in my parents and parents lifetime therefore it seems like your lifetime as well that was way after slavery days it would seem like more so Jim Crow days.


I see and hear all of the social and political b.s. that goes on right now but when my parents do from time to time talk about why they don’t go to high school reunions because of the environment back then and the stories I’m told when we walk family grave yards I realize just how terrible some of that crap was they internalize and how the siblings are in the 70s looking at some of the graves of cousins and years it’s a realization to me that a lot of what was went through was not that long ago like way back in the slavery days.

Even though imo some older generations have seen how terrible things were socially awhile back a nasty pot and differences of others are still being stirred up and that fire is being stoked. A lot of those ppl who dealt with that who lived through JC and Civil Rights Movement are still living both sides and straddlers of the aisle. And we are still forming and delicate as a Nation we are not too far removed from that history for old fools who know it to stoke that fire and play well what are you talking about that’s not what I meant or what I’m doing type of games. And assholes who act like they don’t see it and play dumb when you point it out to them face to face or on social media.

Anyway imo it just seems like a very dangerous game that could potentially have a full social split or even bloody consequences bc you never know how people will react. I doubt you missed my point but surely in life with willful ignorance there will be at least 2 people (other than you on this post) to play the I have no idea what you’re talking about game. Time for a salad and ice water for me.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 PM ----------

Walking through all the monuments and museums in DC was pretty eye opening to see all the gaslighting that has been going on for a decade or so now.

"The Civil War wasn't about slaves"

*every single monument and document from the time period showing very specifically that it was about slaves including from the Confederate side*

"That's all made up by the libs!"

*eyes roll out of skull*

The amount of **** right wingers have made up in an attempt to overwrite the facts of history is quite literally ****ing insane.

cue something about because DC is full of Democrats here


Again, they will continue to fabricate a reality that suits what they want to see and believe, regardless of the facts and history (hence the GOP being the party of the religious and people that are predisposed to a predefined, structured hierarchy - groups that are incredibly easy to manipulate). They will continue to do it after Trump is gone and I have a hard time believing we will ever come back from this mindset. The rest of them worship the almighty dollar over all else, including human life, so they fall right in line as well and will never fall out as long as the GOP keeps deregulating industries and "cutting taxes" [for somebody, most likely not them].

The GOP has learned what keeps them in power, and their next "Trump" probably won't be some dumb **** doofus like the current one.

Unfortunately the system of checks and balances doesn't mean **** if the checks and balances walk hand-in-hand with a corrupt authoritarian.

Didn’t really start paying attention to politics until 2010 bc that’s when I got out before that I didn’t really wanna have my head or judgements clouded with it in any shape form or fashion if that makes sense. But I locked into it once I did retire and some of the stuff you just pointed out and have been pointing out it’s like man... it use to be surprising then got to a point where it wasn’t surprising at all was to be expected then it was sad to see.

But now it seems like sort of a boiling point borderline dangerous how some just brush over that stuff, ignore what’s in front of them , bend it to something else etc... one would think it’s bizzaro world or something. If a person says something disagreeable then it’s he or she is a libtard or did that person say that I think he is a Democrat. Even the President does that crap with former employees. Well I think he was a Democrat, Hillary or Obama lover anyway.
Wtf....


Anyway it’s like taking tribalism and nationalism to the next level listening to some of that stuff. It’s just crazy and stirs a nasty pot of division. And “if I had a son he would have looked like Trayvon” caused an uproar on he topic of division and divisive statements. That’s crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: socialist

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
This goes to show you that an individual can still learn even if they are almost 70. Jim Crow wasn't just a Southern thing. Even though Indiana was anti-slavery there were Jim Crow laws in Indiana. The last one was passed when I was two years old. It was about miscegenation. I had to look that up. It was prohibiting mixed race marriages. I had no idea Indiana had passed that law.

Brown vs. the Board of Education was when I was four. The Civil Rights Act was when I was 14 and Indiana repealed the miscegenation law when I was 15. Growing up in a small (600 people) farming town with no blacks I wasn't really aware of any of this. I grew up in a house where I never heard my parents use racial slurs. My greatest concern at 15 was getting a drivers license. At 19 I was in the Air Force. I had friends who were black and my supervisor and mentor was black. He is the single reason I sewed on SSgt in 3 1/2 years.

When I walk the graveyards I don't see the same thing. Thanks for the lesson.
 

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
This goes to show you that an individual can still learn even if they are almost 70. Jim Crow wasn't just a Southern thing. Even though Indiana was anti-slavery there were Jim Crow laws in Indiana. The last one was passed when I was two years old. It was about miscegenation. I had to look that up. It was prohibiting mixed race marriages. I had no idea Indiana had passed that law.

Brown vs. the Board of Education was when I was four. The Civil Rights Act was when I was 14 and Indiana repealed the miscegenation law when I was 15. Growing up in a small (600 people) farming town with no blacks I wasn't really aware of any of this. I grew up in a house where I never heard my parents use racial slurs. My greatest concern at 15 was getting a drivers license. At 19 I was in the Air Force. I had friends who were black and my supervisor and mentor was black. He is the single reason I sewed on SSgt in 3 1/2 years.

When I walk the graveyards I don't see the same thing. Thanks for the lesson.
My mother is your age and she said the same thing when I've asked her about it. Living in a small Texas town, she didn't notice the segregation or desegregation because there just weren't enough black people living there for her to have noticed anything.

Even being born and raised as a southern Baptist in a small town in Texas during that period, she was raised by parents that did not (at least outwardly) hold racist views. My grandfather was the first college football coach in Texas to recruit hispanic and black players because he didn't give a **** about color, he cared about winning football games, which is why he's in the Texas Football Hall of Fame.

I've spoken to a handful of those players personally since I'm his only grandson, so I've been to a few of the memorials and hall of fame inductions as his kind of proxy since he passed away in the 90s. They all hold him in very high regard for giving them a chance in a time period where lots of people viewed them as subhuman.
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Today the House of Representatives voted along strict party lines (231 Democrats vs.194 Republicans) for an impeachment inquiry, not an actual impeachment but an inquiry. It appears that not much is changing though.

The vote reminded me of an old saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper." (not Benjamin Franklin) But Alexander Hamilton did say during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.”

Back to the present, in another article today a high school principal was fired for saying that he couldn't say if the Holocaust was factual or not. He said some didn't believe it happened. What idiots. It is one of the most documented events of the 20th century. While it is true that most who saw it have now passed on there are still a few alive who were there. Many years ago I was stationed with an officer whose father was one of the soldiers that freed a concentration camp. While my uncle (101st Airborne) was in Germany at the time he was not one of them. He did parachute into the Invasion of Normandy and was at the Siege of Bastogne

People believe what they want to believe. The principal and others do not want to believe the Holocaust happened even though it did. Others want to believe things that didn't happen. Beliefs do not require factual evidence.

I for one would like to see a fair inquiry but as one Republican representative put it the process is anything but fair. He said Schiff has been appointed prosecutor, judge and jury. Like I said, nothing has changed except that the wolves voted to eat the lamb.

The more I watch, the more I'm convinced one news commentator is right. The House Democrats do not want an impeachment. They apparently have no hard evidence. But, they want their presidential candidate to be running against a president under an impeachment inquiry. I suppose they think that it will help them win. We will just have to wait and see what happens next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I just saw a video of an short interview with Representative Katie Hill. She just resigned from the House because of misconduct (exactly what I'm not sure but it has something to do with inappropriate pictures posted by her ex-husband.)

She said that she voted for impeachment as her last act in Congress because of Trump's crime against women. Then she said something about women's control of their own bodies.

It sounds like she voted to impeach Trump because of the Republican stance on abortion. This is just an example of the circus and BS surrounding this impeachment inquiry. She voted for impeachment simply because she does not want a Republican in the White House.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
Today the House of Representatives voted along strict party lines

The more I watch, the more I'm convinced one news commentator is right. The House Democrats do not want an impeachment. They apparently have no hard evidence. But, they want their presidential candidate to be running against a president under an impeachment inquiry. I suppose they think that it will help them win. We will just have to wait and see what happens next.

While it may not be directly comparable it almost sounds like the political gamesmanship of it looks better to have one presidential candidate any candidate at the time run against a candidate who has on ongoing investigation or what seems to be an investigation going on and could possibly be locked up or not. Does create a bit of hesitation when people are looking at a given candidate in a situation like that.

It could even stir up a **** storm if the opposing part strings the investigation out for a long time with NUMEROUS hearings spread out over time leading up to election time and then some crazy curve ball about how nothing will come of it all is dropped on the voters just days before the election.

So yeah looking at how all of this stuff has been playing out even in the past few years when it came to the GOP and Clinton and now what’s going on with Trump to see any type of political gamesmanship would be no surprise at all.

But from even prior to the start doesn’t really seem like he candidate and this president has really done much to help himself or those around him when it comes to staying out of social and political b.s. So we will just all obviously just have to wait and see how it plays out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: socialist

·
PSN alphadong11
Joined
·
28,936 Posts

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
I didn't really get the meaning of "SDNY". If that is some sort of reference to the federal courts they can reach him in Florida as well.

People move all the time and Florida is a favorite place for moving and he already owns the place in Florida. Obama is moving into a $15 million mansion in Martha Vineyards. So what? Some states like California and New York do not seem to understand that if its taxes become out of line people move.

My wife is from California. Her brother is planning to move to Texas. Her nephew already has. We have a mobile population. People are free to move to places they like better.

To me a move from the cold north and crowded New York City to a warm, less congested Florida is a no brainer. (Note: We got our first snow flurries of the season last night. The temperature is currently below freezing. I am NOT looking forward to winter. If I had the money I'd move too.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,185 Posts
Obama isn’t under scrutiny and possible investigation for some of the obvious reasons. Neither is the obvious Joes you mentioned like all of the crap that is going on with Trump let’s not play completely crazy or do these obvious denial games when it comes to his seemingly strategic moves to backtrack on stuff and to cover is ass on other stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: socialist

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Obama isn’t under scrutiny and possible investigation for some of the obvious reasons. Neither is the obvious Joes you mentioned like all of the crap that is going on with Trump let’s not play completely crazy or do these obvious denial games when it comes to his seemingly strategic moves to backtrack on stuff and to cover is ass on other stuff.
Suspicious aren't we. Federal law reaches into Florida and New York can call someone back for trial. The rich are moving out of New York because of high taxes. This is nothing new.

On a different note: I just heard that if there is an actual impeachment and a Senate trial all Senators have to be present. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is judge and the Senators are jury. If this were to happen before the election then Senator Warren and other senators running for President would not be able to campaign during the impeachment trial. That could affect her chances of winning Iowa and New Hampshire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
In the transcripts recently released former US envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker pushed back on the idea that Trump was trying to get dirt on Biden.

This caught some Democrats attention. "One of the most significant revelations from Tuesday's release is that E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his prior testimony to say that he told a top Ukrainian official that U.S. aid would likely not resume until the country issues a corruption statement -- a revelation that was quickly hailed by Democrats of proof of the quid pro quo they have been alleging took place."

I really wish that Democrats would not only read the Constitution but that they also review their own laws. Last week a reporter interviewed a state department official. There is a law requiring the President to withhold military unless he can make certain it is not going to a corrupt government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #53
In the transcripts recently released former US envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker pushed back on the idea that Trump was trying to get dirt on Biden.

This caught some Democrats attention. "One of the most significant revelations from Tuesday's release is that E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his prior testimony to say that he told a top Ukrainian official that U.S. aid would likely not resume until the country issues a corruption statement -- a revelation that was quickly hailed by Democrats of proof of the quid pro quo they have been alleging took place."

I really wish that Democrats would not only read the Constitution but that they also review their own laws. Last week a reporter interviewed a state department official. There is a law requiring the President to withhold military unless he can make certain it is not going to a corrupt government.
You left the part out where he also said that a visit and money was conditioned on Zelensky announcing the opening of an investigation of Him and his son. Quid Pro Quo or, for the laymen, Bribery.

John
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Apparently you have been listening to Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. He is talking a lot about extortion.

He seems to be focused a lot on this. "One of the most significant items from Tuesday's transcript release is that Sondland revised his prior testimony to say that he told a top Ukrainian official that U.S. aid would likely not resume until the country issues a corruption statement -- a revelation that was quickly hailed by Democrats of proof of the quid pro quo they have been alleging took place."

I am not familiar with the law but I also heard a report last week before the transcripts were released where there is a US law requiring that exact thing. We are not suppose to be aid to corrupt government. Why? Aid researcher William Easterly at New York University estimated that 76% of all US aid went to corrupt governments. Sen. Rand Paul in 2017 said 70% was skimmed off the top. But many think that is a very high estimate and that there is no way of really knowing.

It seems to me that we should be aware of the level of corruption within the government we are giving aid to.

P.S. This also points out that Trump was not trying to get dirt on Biden but was investigating the level of corruption our former Vice President was involved in. I saw the video clip of Biden bragging that he got the Ukrainian corruption investigator fired while he was Vice President.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #55
Apparently you have been listening to Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif. He is talking a lot about extortion.

He seems to be focused a lot on this. "One of the most significant items from Tuesday's transcript release is that Sondland revised his prior testimony to say that he told a top Ukrainian official that U.S. aid would likely not resume until the country issues a corruption statement -- a revelation that was quickly hailed by Democrats of proof of the quid pro quo they have been alleging took place."

I am not familiar with the law but I also heard a report last week before the transcripts were released where there is a US law requiring that exact thing. We are not suppose to be aid to corrupt government. Why? Aid researcher William Easterly at New York University estimated that 76% of all US aid went to corrupt governments. Sen. Rand Paul in 2017 said 70% was skimmed off the top. But many think that is a very high estimate and that there is no way of really knowing.

It seems to me that we should be aware of the level of corruption within the government we are giving aid to.

P.S. This also points out that Trump was not trying to get dirt on Biden but was investigating the level of corruption our former Vice President was involved in. I saw the video clip of Biden bragging that he got the Ukrainian corruption investigator fired while he was Vice President.
Had there been a genuine desire to root out corruption then your argument would be valid and has been used by Republicans as a defense.

Unfortunately when you look at the last 3 years there has been zero statements in regards to "fighting corruption". When this bogus excuse was procured and let out into the wild it was handily destroyed by one question.

"Are there any other instances where you can show that Trumps emphasis has been on fighting corruption?"

Answer? Zero...…..

It's a ruse. An excuse to try and defend Trump but the more light that gets exposed to the facts the roachs scatter.....

John
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-Lee. 30

·
7.62x39 CO2 Cannon
Joined
·
5,055 Posts
https://www.facebook.com/NashvilleTeaParty/videos/420358682209965/

Rand Paul telling it like it is....

---------- Post added at 08:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:03 AM ----------

Dan Bongino
Jim Jordan Drops Mic on Biased Reporters, Reads Them Testimony
The one thing the media don't want to do when it comes to impeachment: Listen to the truth.

https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/videos/414745145869055/

---------- Post added at 08:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------

Trump Reads Tweets From Whistleblower's Attorney

https://www.facebook.com/dan.bongino/videos/437169323607903/
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
New testimony by George Kent, a career state department. He raised the flag on Biden's conflict of interest in February 2015 concerning Hunter Biden's position in Ukraine and Vice-President Biden was overseeing Ukraine policy. (I wonder if this was when the VP got the Ukrainian investigator fired.) He also testified that no one in Ukraine was aware the military aid was on hold until August 29th a month after the President's phone call. Two weeks later it was released.

The Democrats need to keep looking. They still don't have anything that would be considered a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #58
Qq

New testimony by George Kent, a career state department. He raised the flag on Biden's conflict of interest in February 2015 concerning Hunter Biden's position in Ukraine and Vice-President Biden was overseeing Ukraine policy. (I wonder if this was when the VP got the Ukrainian investigator fired.) He also testified that no one in Ukraine was aware the military aid was on hold until August 29th a month after the President's phone call. Two weeks later it was released.

The Democrats need to keep looking. They still don't have anything that would be considered a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
They most definitely do have enough to charge a High Crime or Misdemeanor. The question is if Republicans in the Senate are willing to grow a backbone or if they'll continue to cower in the corner hoping Trump doesn't single them out.

Schiff has the goods on Trump. Bill Taylors testimony alone says it all. Schiff is making sure he does everything by the book so that Republicans can't go back in and claim that he circumvented rules even though they've already tried to do that and watched it fail spectacularly with both Judge Napolitano on Fox and a Federal Judge both stating that the inquiry was legal and that Schiff was following the rules enacted by Republicans in 2015 when Boehner was Speaker.

And the prize for Douche Bag Brown Noser of the year? Lindsay Graham. He was asked what it would take for him to change his mind on impeachment and he said that if there was a QPQ then he would be disturbed. Fast forward to today and Grahams statements are that A) He doesn't believe there was a QPQ regardless of the fact that you have credible corroborating witnesses stating that there was in fact a QPQ and B) that he won't read the transcripts of the closed door meetings even though he spent the last two weeks bitching about how unfair it was that transcripts weren't being provided.

Republicans have no defense for what Trump has done which is why they've been whining about process this whole time just like you did.

Hypocrisy at it's finest!

John
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-Lee. 30

·
missippi roolz
Joined
·
9,244 Posts
New testimony by George Kent, a career state department. He raised the flag on Biden's conflict of interest in February 2015 concerning Hunter Biden's position in Ukraine and Vice-President Biden was overseeing Ukraine policy. (I wonder if this was when the VP got the Ukrainian investigator fired.) He also testified that no one in Ukraine was aware the military aid was on hold until August 29th a month after the President's phone call. Two weeks later it was released.

The Democrats need to keep looking. They still don't have anything that would be considered a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
Sorry, you trust one single person's testimony because it clears Trump and distrust literally every single other one because they don't, including a decorated veteran? Or have you bought into the Fox News #fakenews that that guy is actually a Ukrainian spy working for Biden?
 

·
US Air Force (retired)
Joined
·
13,542 Posts
Not a single source, but my starting position when I read this stuff is vastly differ from those who hate Trump and want him out at all cost. Thanks to their friends in the media Democrats have been setting the talking points as "getting dirt on a political opponent." That is the wrong talking point. It should be "investigating the corruption of a former Vice President."

An investigation that complied with the law on not giving aid to corrupt government. An investigation that started in 2015 before Trump was elected. And, an investigation that the (at the time) VP proudly told a TV reporter he got stopped. He got the Ukrainian investigator fired.

If I can find it I'll go back and read Taylor's testimony.

P.S. There is now evidence that the whistleblower's lawyer is a staunch Democrats who was writing about getting Trump out of office shortly after he was elected. He wanted CNN to take the led and build up support for a coup. Interesting. I had previously read reports that the whistleblower's complaint (all built on hearsay evidence) looked as if it had been written by a lawyer. I originally that if true it might have been someone on Schiff's staff since the whistleblower is known to have talked to them first. But it is more logical to assume that the individual's lawyer helped.

---------- Post added at 07:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 AM ----------


Additional comment on that lawyer.

Here is the whistleblower's lawyer's defense of himself.

“Those tweets were reflective and repeated the sentiments of millions of people,” Zaid said. “I was referring to a completely lawful process of what President Trump would likely face as a result of stepping over the line, and that particularly whatever would happen would come about as a result of lawyers. The coup comment referred to those working inside the Administration who were already, just a week into office, standing up to him to enforce recognized rules of law.“

Then, in July 2017, Zaid remarked, "I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president." Also that month, Zaid tweeted, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters."

"I'm not a Trump fan," Zaid said on a podcast last year. "I go out of my way on Twitter to say '#Resistance.' It's not a resistance against the GOP or a Republican -- I don't think [Trump] is a Republican, quite frankly." (Zaid also boasted that he has sued "every" president since 1993, and pursues "them all," regardless of party affiliation.)

Who is this guy? Sued every president since 1993? Predicted in 2017 that Trump would be out? On what? The Democrats have been looking. First they thought the Mueller report to get him. Now a very suspicious whistleblower complaint based on hearsay evidence that may have been written by this guy. There's nothing there.

---------- Post added at 07:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:07 AM ----------

According to this report Taylor it looks like he was never told that aid was being withheld to get an anti-corruption investigation. He became aware of that both a White House meeting and aid was being withheld on a phone call. On September 8, he sent a text message to Sondland that it would be a disaster if Ukraine started an investigation and aid was withheld. Aid was released three days later.

And this is evidence of a high crime? If an actually impeachment vote is taken and a Senate trial takes place. The jury (the Senators) will have to make that decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC
41 - 60 of 195 Posts
Top