New York Crimes pivot from Russian colluision to racism...here it is!!

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

Trump basically is the Republican Party now. you know it, but it doesn't allow for cheap remarks to acknowledge that.

That me point..what's with this Trump party shit??
It was just a stupid statement.
I illustrate absurdity with absurdity.

[oeb11]

Trump hate.

Nominate someOne better - DPST's.

so far, nothing but Clowns on the DPST stage.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you remind me of LBJ saying to Martin Luther King, in 1963.. "Martin, I agree with what you're trying to do ((obtain civil rights), but why are you in such a hurry"?

Mine Google says LBJ was a Demonicrat. What's yours say?


Mine Google also quotes LBJ saying that he would have those (voting blocks)s voting Demonicrat for 200 years. What's yours say?

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Mine Google says LBJ was a Demonicrat. What's yours say?


Mine Google also quotes LBJ saying that he would have those (voting blocks)s voting Demonicrat for 200 years. What's yours say?

my Google says that, not "mine".

what is your point? I'm not an LBJ fan.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

honestly, when I read those words, I don't "hear" a guy trying to bring down Trump.. I hear a guy searching hard for READERSHIP. race and racism is a magnetic topic, for an industry that is losing subscribers at a rapid rate.

I DON'T see a guy searching for truth.
I DO see a guy hiding behind the first amendment and court rulings that basically forbids suing a "Public Person" for anything libelous.
I DO see a news outlet that continually gives back Pulitzer prizes because of false reporting.
I DO see a newspaper that has to make frequent corrections so much that they "shadow" correct misinformation without even acknowledging blatant mistakes.
I saw where an NYT Editor wrote a headline that was marginally complimentary to President Trump. People clamored against it and he has to change the headline and now fears for his job:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...line-a-bad-one

It hasn't been "The Newspaper of Public Record" for a long time.

[oeb11]

I think not "People clamored against it" referring to the MYT headline
The PC Police clamored - and the NYT hurriedly knuckled under to their disappearing readership.

we will see how the next two years of "Racism Racism" goes from the DPST Paaty of radical islam and Anti-Semitic Racism!!! The party of Omar and Tlaib and their Racism.

LOL
The usual DPST hypocrisy!!!!!

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

my Google says that, not "mine".

what is your point? I'm not an LBJ fan.

Well... uhm, you quoted him in an attempt to make a point, which I inferred had to do with a party that has consistently subverted a part of the population. And that party happens to be the Demonicrats. Has been that was for a couple hundred years. I don't see anything actually changing that in the foreseeable future either.



The part I find fascinating about the civil rights act is the Demonicrat party leaders made enough concessions to get enough Republicans on board to back the bill, which they had been trying to get passed for years. Don't recall if it was a veto-proof majority at the moment. It wan't until the Republicans were in step with the other party that the legislation even made it LBJ's desk.

[Jaxson66]

Originally Posted by bb1961

This is the most ridiculous nonsense...impeachment doesn't have the constitution behind him and ol' Jer doesn't know...but don't tell him.

"A vote for any GOP candidates in 2020 is a vote for the trump party".
I didn't know Trump had a party other than the GOP

Like the very stable genius and smart guy often replies “ We’ll see what happens “.

The suckers of a con are always the last to know, that’s the trump party.

[nevergaveitathought]

of course it (the constitution) was the framework to rid America of slavery

whats incorrect about that statement?

whats your supposed umbrage about?

are you thinking things could change immediately, things that had that been going on since the dawn of man? slavery that had been ingrained in America under british rule could somehow immediately upon independence and in forming a union be eliminated?

do you think there would magically be a united states had there been some immediate emancipation?

but the work was being done and had been done and state by state it was being eliminated. but intransigence took hold and a war over it was had

I don't get your point at all.

change history? wave a magic wand?

as far as dimocrats and the civil war and dimocrats and jim crow, well that's the difficulty over 180 years or more

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

are you thinking things could change immediately, things that had that been going on since the dawn of man? slavery that had been ingrained in America under british rule could somehow immediately upon independence and in forming a union be eliminated?

I didn't say immediately.. but 90 years to end Slavery? should have been abolished in 10 years.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I didn't say immediately.. but 90 years to end Slavery? should have been abolished in 10 years.

Alert to CHANG...slavery goes on today!!

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by bb1961

Alert to CHANG...slavery goes on today!!

you continue your juvenile posting. no kidding it does.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

honestly, when I read those words, I don't "hear" a guy trying to bring down Trump.. I hear a guy searching hard for READERSHIP. race and racism is a magnetic topic, for an industry that is losing subscribers at a rapid rate.

Most NYT political reporters do probably hate Trump. Yes, however, they'd likely be a bit more objective and cut down on the racism claims if not for the economic imperative of selling subscriptions and advertising to an audience that hates Trump. It's a vicious cycle. The more the press sensationalizes claims against Trump, the more its readership hates him, which encourages the press to be even more one sided.

And the left doesn't have a monopoly on this.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I didn't say immediately.. but 90 years to end Slavery? should have been abolished in 10 years.

It took the British nearly three hundred years to end it's role in the slavery. Get real.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It took the British nearly three hundred years to end it's role in the slavery. Get real.

I suppose you think the "#Metoo Victims should endure another, oh, 298 years of victimization, since they started their movement about 2 years ago?