Search this Topic:
Jul 14 17 4:42 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:"Well,I've known some (younger) racist white people who are N.W.A. fans, some back millitants unjustly accused Ray Charles /Jimi Hendrix /Charley Pride (we can add Michal Jackson into that mix too, and they were merciless towards Louis Armstrong )of tomming because they had strong white followings, I seem to recall some Black millitants saying they thought N.W.A. also played into white stereotypes of Blacks, and that was why they had huge white sales from the get-go."
Ray Charles...that's because he played in South Africa which he did strictly for the money, I think, other than that, Blacks have always took great pride in him and still do. Hendrix...it's because he hired Mitch and Noel and played loud Rock music in front of mostly white crowds for a while, rather than traditional R&B/Soul with political/social lyrics, like say Marvin Gaye or Curtis Mayfield. The militants started warming up to him once he started doing Band of Gypsies stuff and the music was actually even better than Experience sometimes, especially when the lineup was Mitchell and Billy Cox (although Buddy Miles was a more solid and consistent drummer than Mitch). Charlie Pride? Country music and mostly white crowds, they just couldn't relate to him in any way, I wouldn't say he was hated as an uncle tom. Michael Jackson? Even the NOI completely took his side during the court case and helped him out, if he was ever accused of "tomming" it was probably back when his skin first turned white or something, but the Black community has definitely a very positive view on him and are proud of him, I would say. Armstrong? I haven't heard much criticism of him from ANYBODY, doesn't mean there wasn't at the time though. Probably because he didn't get very political and because he was the kind of person who couldn't hate anybody or be negative, and maybe because of some of his movie roles.
As for NWA, I guess many stupid white kids, including racist ones, liked them because they found their videos entertaining, they liked hearing cursing (without even caring WHO were they even cursing), and could relate to stuff like sex, drugs and hating police, in their music. Again, when you really like somebody, unless you are a David Duke pure style racist (which most people with racist attitudes are not), you will like them regardless of their race, and their race would become a non-factor. NWA, Peter Tosh, Public Enemy and others could sing about Black pride and hate on white racists, and yet white racists will still buy their albums, why? Because they did it well. The fact that they Black or that they stand for a lot of what those whites oppose, doesn't matter anymore, when you like somebody, you like them, it's as simple as that!
Anyway,my point is still : "I would have voted for Obama for a third term" is this generation's version of "Some of my best friends are Black" or "I'm not racist, because I buy Michael Jackson records" "
Sure, but also, just because a person would vote for Obama's third term and wouldn't vote for Hillary does NOT mean that it is because of sexism. For instance, I'm sure they would vote for Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Warren if they had a choice! In fact, some of them voted for Jill Stein, who is a lot of things, but a dude she ain't!
"hell ,Putin said he wasn't homophobic and gave liking Elton John's music as proof of that."
I can assure you that Putin is far from the only one, and Elton John, as well as Queen, REM, Melissa Ethridge, Joan Jett, Dusty Springfield and George Michael have/had plenty of fans with homophobic views, and their sexual orientation didn't stop their great success in this very homophobic world, which again, goes to show that if you're great at what you do and people like you, almost nobody cares about what color you are, what gender you are or who do you prefer in the bedroom. But when you aren't good at what you do and people don't really like you, then of course you will need to come up with excuses to avoid taking responsibility for failure.
I don't know that Flavor Flav wouldn't get elected ,he has a more impressive resume than president pussygrabbber has.
Sure, but he doesn't have the power of fame and money behind him the way Trump does, either.
"The more left of center of the Democrats wanted Elizabeth Warren to run,she didn't because she wanted Hillary Clinton to be president ,they got Sanders to run instead,and you know the rest."
She didn't because the DNC knew that Hillary was done if Warren ran, so they OBVIOUSLY gave her an order, which she respected. Of course she will say what she did, just like Biden excused himself because he was still sad about the death of his son. But I'm not stupid! They are both loyal to the Democratic party and when the command was "stay home", they didn't argue or whine about it to the press, they simply wished Hillary well, they didn't even endorse her until Sanders officially gave up. Hillary had no chance against either one of them. And the establishment really wanted Hillary and nobody else, they made that decision.
The only reasons why they allowed Sanders to run is because he was a joke to them, they thought he was a piece of cake, that taking Vermont would be his maximum, they never expected him to gain NEAR as much popularity and success as he did, if they only knew, they would absolutely do everything to stop him, push him aside and nominate somebody more innocent without much personality to run against Hillary and lose very badly while making her look good.
Look,I don't agree with what Black millitants said about any of those artists (all of whom are favorites of mine ,as you know) ,but some whites have said "I can't be racist because I buy some Black records" and you and I know that is bullshit, the same for "Some of my best friends are Black " or "I would have voted for Obama for a third term",only a simpleton wouldn't have voted for third Obama term,and maybe even some of them would have too.
What significant difference is there between Obama and Hillary?
None that I can see, so it has to be sexism.
Why did Ted Nugent want to "hang" both Hillary and Obama?
As to the rest of what you said :My only comment is :I still disagree ,except for what you said about Warren not running and the DNC, in that you stated nothing but opinions and you sated them as fact which they aren't.
That is nothing but bullshit, which brings up one of my favorite quotes: "I'm allergic to bullshit"-Waylon Jennings
Jul 14 17 8:24 PM
Jul 15 17 3:22 PM
No,some Black militants in the day considered Ray Charles a "Tom" because he did country music,the same for Charley Pride ,shit ,some considered James Brown a "Tom" because he was a capitalist and supported Nixon.
They considered Jimi Hendrix "Tom" because his appeal was with whites as were almost all of his associates,in the early 80s Louis Farrakhan called Michael Jackson a "sissy", militants called MJ a "Tom",Black militants called both Louis Armstrong and Sammy Davis Jr. a "Tom",as critic Robert Christgau pointed out,the only Black entertainer who seemed to be in the "white world" ,who didn't get called a "Tom" was Chuck Berry.
No proof the DNC "ordered" Elizabeth Warren to do anything ,I don't think anybody can order her,she is smart and did not endorse anybody during the primaries for that reason,if she did you and other sandersnistas would be calling her a "sellout'',I think Biden would have ran ,and won ,if not for his tragedy.
You are entitled to like or dislike anybody for any reason (rational or not) you wish,but you cannot make up "facts'' to fit your agenda.
Jul 15 17 3:40 PM
And the only way you can effectively change that is by joining the Democratic Party and fighting for your version of liberalism within that party."
That's much much easier said than done, unfortunately, but I do admire your attitude here.
Her constituents say Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is far from selfish or corrupt, I don't know why you fixate on her,it's one thing to disagree with her,you and I have some of those same disagreements and you don't fixate on me,"
You are not a politician, just a citizen with an opinion like myself, you have the right to any disagreements. She is actually sending people to prison for doing drugs, she is actually using tax payer's money to promote anti-marijuana propaganda, she supports wars in the middle east, and she is responsible for all kinds of corrupt and despicable stuff. I am fixated on her in particular because as a liberal Jew, she is an embarrassment to me, as she is playing into anti-semitic stereotypes, so yes, that is causing me more disgust. People like her is some of the reason why anti-semitic stereotypes very much exist in the Black community, for instance.
Where I DO sympathize with your admiration of Shultz is, by kicking people like her out, I'm afraid that people like Linda Sarsour, James Zogby and Keith Ellison, or even J-street, will take over that vaccuum. I don't want that alternative at all, either,
",the fact is she has a very good resume in standing up to terrorists ,all kinds of racists (especially anti-Semites),hate crimes (especially against gays),she stood up to Bush 43 politicizing Terri Sciavo, she is strongly pro-choice ,and pro-Israel.
Agreed, she does have a good side and she knows right from wrong, but that makes her bad side even more disappointing and embarrassing.
I support her because I agree with her on all of those issues,and you agree with her on all of those issues too ,her constituents have voted for her over : Republicans ,Independents ,and Socialists.
Everyday it comes out that Putin was out to get her as well as Hillary."
That still doesn't take away anything from the reasons why many people dislike them.
I'm not a Wall Street sellout, but not all Wall Street people are bad, one could argue that business in a major reason LGBT people have made the progress they have."
There are many rich and successful gay people, so what?! That doesn't change anything about how the rich are getting richer and richer at the expense of the rest of us. Yeah, sure, let the rich keep fucking us all and take comfort in the fact that some of those people are LGBT or some other minorities, and some who agree with us on social issues!
I'm so glad to know that some of those rich white people are gay, are sometimes not exactly white, and often enjoy marijuana (or cocaine, since they can afford it) as much as the next guy! And that rich white women are pro-choice and will never have a problem getting an abortion if they need one! I'm totally relieved to know all that, and since such "great progress" has been made where the people who are fucking us and robbing us blind are not all nerdy white heterosexual sober people who support the religious right, and that a lot of them are probably cool nice people that we would enjoy having a beer with and sharing "south park" style jokes! But what good does it do to the 98% of us? Like I said, it's fantastic to know that rich LGBT people have a much better life today than they did before, but what about everybody else?
You and I don't have to agree 100% of the time to be buds, so why are you putting a higher standard on the Democrats (or any other political party) then you are on your personal relationships?"
Very simple! I have many friends that don't agree with me on most of my political views, but their views do not affect my life. I'm friends with many conservatives in real life too and have some in my family. Wonderful people with very misguided views, indeed, but that doesn't mean I will join the Republican party, either.
"No two people are going to agree 100% of time on anything ,I agree with virtually everything you say about the far left,so do lots of other Democrats,it takes unity to fight Trump,and that includes "girly men" as well as people with balls."
True, but if more people don't start acting with balls, even a unity may not be enough.
We can work together and keep all boats from drowning, which was the point Bernie Sanders himself made on SNL:"
I hope so.
I see "Black Only Days " as non-racist"
What about "White only days"? How is it any better?! Black is not an ethnicity, Black is a race. Black only days do not just include African-Americans who are in America since slavery days, it includes EVERYBODY who is Black, even exchange students from Africa, but nobody who isn't Black. That's racism! This is not what Dr. King fought and died for, and it doesn't help race relations in America at all. We can't fight racism if people keep dividing themselves over race, and teach younger kids in college to care about who's Black or White. Fighting fire with fire only causes more fire, I oppose racism from all sides.
" you must remember that "Black"is an ethnicity (the same as Jewish or Polish)as well as a race."
Not really. Not as it is applied with "black only days". Besides, where is Jewish only day? Where is Polish only days? Why don't we just keep dividing people into little groups and cause more and more bigotry?! I'm a proud Jew and no, I don't want a "Jewish only days" on campus, that would only cause more anti-semitic resentment anyways. We have a Black history month, which is all good with me, we have a Dr. King national holiday, which was a great idea too, I'm all about celebrating equality, human rights and African American culture, I'm all about making up to all of the great and genius African-American innovators who never got paid their worth, I'm all about protecting African-Americans from brutality and racism and making up financially for what happened in the past...but "black only days" and other Farrakhan-esqe bullshit? No way I would ever accept it! And plenty of Blacks find that idea offensive too.
things are not going to get better in the democratic party until you (and people like you) join and make them better, it won't happen overnight, it won't happen at all if you don't."
There still has to be enough common ground for us to stand on.
I don't agree with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on every issue ,I agree with her on over 90% of the issues and that's more than good enough for me,you seem to be asking for a perfect fit in a off the rack world,that isn't reality ,she has been opposed by Democrats, Republicans, and Socialists ,and she's defeated all of them ,every single time.
There are many rich and successful liberals,who are gay and straight alike,and they are the reason the proletariat in the country still has a fighting chance,Bruce Springsteen has said he has lived in some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country and in some of the richest neighborhoods in this country,and he said in both the poor and rich neighborhoods he has met some of the nicest people you' d ever want to meet, and he added that in both the poorest and richest neighborhoods he's met some of the biggest assholes you would not want to meet.
Literally minutes after Trump won the EC,these rich liberals put their money where their mouths were and immediately made generous donations to the ACLU and Planned Parenthood.
There are exclusive Polish and Jewish ethnic events where I live, nobody makes a big deal about it.
I think there is more than enough common ground for us to stand on, but we have to compromise and co-exist as well.
Jul 16 17 2:14 PM
Jul 16 17 2:57 PM
Jul 17 17 5:54 PM
TimeHasCome wrote:"No,some Black militants in the day considered Ray Charles a "Tom" because he did country music,the same for Charley Pride ,shit ,some considered James Brown a "Tom" because he was a capitalist and supported Nixon."
I'm pretty sure just about every popular and successful Black artist was considered a "Tom" by some militants at one point or another, even Bob Marley and Ice T, because country music and political views aside, they all still make most of their money by selling music to white people.
"They considered Jimi Hendrix "Tom" because his appeal was with whites as were almost all of his associates,in the early 80s Louis Farrakhan called Michael Jackson a "sissy", "
Very true about Jimi, but those attitudes were mostly changed by the time Jimi died, and nowdays hardly anybody in the Black community will ever admit now that they didn't always like Jimi or consider him as a part of their culture. As for Farrakhan, he talked with both sides of his mouth about Jackson (other times he praised him), as he often does on other issues, depending on the day's agenda, but the NOI were definitely on his side later on during his legal problems.
"militants called MJ a "Tom",Black militants called both Louis Armstrong and Sammy Davis Jr. a "Tom",as critic Robert Christgau pointed out,the only Black entertainer who seemed to be in the "white world" ,who didn't get called a "Tom" was Chuck Berry."
I'm aware about Sammy Davis Jr., it started when he married a white woman at the time when interracial marriage was unfortunately controversial among both Whites and Blacks. I wouldn't be too sure about Chuck Berry never being called a "Tom", he started out as a local Blues/Jazz guitarist and then quickly got famous with a country song, I'm pretty sure some in the Blues scene gave him shit for selling out at the time. The thing about Chuck is, he was very thick skinned and as long as he made the money, he didn't give a fuck about who thinks what about him, at all, and of course, he has an exceptional charm at times that would make even people with sincere reasons to be mad at him, to still love him...just ask Keith Richards! So he just wasn't an easy target, in that sense.
No proof the DNC "ordered" Elizabeth Warren to do anything ,I don't think anybody can order her,"
By order, I mean, really ask her, and in return, she would be on everybody's good side. Sure, she could've chosen to say no, but that would also upset some very important people, so it would be a risk to her political career, at the very least.
"did not endorse anybody during the primaries for that reason,if she did you and other sandersnistas would be calling her a "sellout'',I think Biden would have ran ,and won ,if not for his tragedy. "
Who said she was going to endorse Hillary, if she was going to endorse anybody?! And while a tragedy definitely makes everything much harder, I'm pretty sure that Biden didn't run because if he did, it would mean Hillary would have to sit out, since a 3-way competition with Sanders would mean Sanders getting the nominations (since Biden has more in common with Hillary than with Sanders), and they certainly wouldn't allow that to happen!
Jul 17 17 6:04 PM
You are entitled to like or dislike anybody for any reason (rational or not) you wish,but you cannot make up "facts'' to fit your agenda."
The same goes to the people who say "OJ did it!" Legally there is no proof of it, just like there is no legal proof to anything I'm saying about the DNC behind the scene stuff, but at the same time, common sense still suggests...
"I don't agree with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on every issue ,I agree with her on over 90% of the issues and that's more than good enough for me,"
I don't even know if I agree with her on 70% of the issues, but it's not only about that, it's also about what kind of a person she is. For instance, I agree with Anthony Weiner on way over 90% of the issues, but I wouldn't want him to be in a high position because he...has issues! If the politician is fucked up in the head and/or is guilty of serious morally wrong stuff, such as arresting innocent people, including kids, old and sick people for smoking weed and promoting the war on drugs by using our tax money...it doesn't matter how much they are "right" on abortion, gay rights, women rights or some other commons sense issues, no more than it matters to me that Hitler was on the right side on animal rights or even possibly some economic stuff!
"you seem to be asking for a perfect fit in a off the rack world,that isn't reality ,she has been opposed by Democrats, Republicans, and Socialists ,and she's defeated all of them ,every single time."
Oh no, I'm not asking for anything close to perfection. Bernie is not perfect (his views on the middle-east conflict for starts), Warren is definitely far from perfect...let's face it, the whole "Pocahontas" stuff and the unintentional birth to the "trans-racial" movement is embarrassing. But those are two of the choices that I could settle for and say, you know what they aren't perfect, I don't always agree with them but that's a fair compromise!
There are many rich and successful liberals,who are gay and straight alike,and they are the reason the proletariat in the country still has a fighting chance,Bruce Springsteen has said he has lived in some of the poorest neighborhoods in this country and in some of the richest neighborhoods in this country,and he said in both the poor and rich neighborhoods he has met some of the nicest people you' d ever want to meet, and he added that in both the poorest and richest neighborhoods he's met some of the biggest assholes you would not want to meet."
I completely agree.
Literally minutes after Trump won the EC,these rich liberals put their money where their mouths were and immediately made generous donations to the ACLU and Planned Parenthood."
I know that and I have never said all (or even most) rich people are evil. I'm not anti-rich or even anti-capitalist per se. I'm pro-fair.
There are exclusive Polish and Jewish ethnic events where I live, nobody makes a big deal about it. "
That are college-related and/or public-funded?! I'm not talking about private events by whatever groups. If the NOI want to have all-Black events or the KKK want to have all-White events, I don't care! I have never heard about exclusive Polish events in America, and while there are plenty of Jewish events, I have never been to an exclusive Jewish event where only people of the Jewish ethnicity are allowed! Non-Jews are always welcome to attend Synagogue, nobody is asking you what's your race or religion when you go there. And if there was ANY public/tax-funded event in America that's Jew-only, where non-Jews would be asked to leave the campus, I would be absolutely against it, fuck that shit! If racists and nationalists want to organize events on their own time and money, whatever, but not on my money and certainly not as a part of college education.
"I think there is more than enough common ground for us to stand on, but we have to compromise and co-exist as well."
Again, the Democrats include everybody from Chuck Schumer to Linda Sarsour...all kinds of people who have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN COMMON, except for hating Donald Trump. That's enough common ground to unite to win elections, but never to actually unite.
TimeHasCome wrote:"I don't think the O.J. case was ever a slam dunk for the prosecution, but even then, there was more evidence in that case than your Sanders/DNC fantasies have."
Let me put it to you this way, there is a small chance that I'm wrong, there's also a small chance that OJ didn't kill anybody nor pay somebody else to do it, but let's face it, he PROBABLY was involved in that murder, physically or otherwise. Not enough evidence to convict him? Bad job by the prosecutors? Sure, but it's still a relatively safe bet that he did it.
Likewise, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that, while individual politicians can always find a personal reason not to run for president, there are also other factors always involved, and it's PROBABLY not just a coincidence that Hillary didn't run against anybody challenging or well-known and that nobody else besides Bernie and two completely unknown Democrats, had the desire to run!
"A key witness lied under oath in the O.J. case, but at the least they had a key witness,you don't even have that."
If a political party didn't involve orders and threats of political consequences in order to make all members behave themselves, it wouldn't be a major political party. A very disciplined unity is the one thing the Democrats had going for them. Democrat congressmen act more united than Republican ones, which is why the Republicans can't even pass a health care despite having a majority everywhere. The Democrats had to unite behind somebody! Splitting the partisan vote would allow Bernie to win (just like Trump did). The fact is, Biden was almost ready to announce that he's joining the run until literally last minute, and then he didn't show up. Are you willing to bet big money that it was totally just a personal decision and nothing else? I'm not.
"You said nothing about public-funded,etc.,even then,why not ?"
Anything that's related to public education, funds or our tax money in any way should NEVER have anything to do with any racism or bigotry. Can colleges have "all-White" or "all-European Americans" day too?! WTF! This is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964! I don't want my taxes to go towards funding any racist ideology, any segregation or any divisions based on race. There is no room for compromise here.
"Should men be allowed to a all-women event?"
Depends on the event, lol! But that's not the same thing at all. We have separate bathroom for men and women, but we don't have separate bathroom for different races anymore! So why should we have public funded events where only one race can attend? What kind of shit is that?
When I was a kid The Democrats had both George McGovern and George Wallace,and they didn't have near as much in common as Democrats do today."
Yeah, I can't form alliances with people like Linda Sarsour or George Wallace (at least until he changed his ways and apologized), I have certain morals.
I'm talking about what happened in the day. not what people who weren't even born back then think today.
Did you know that in private Michael Jackson talked in a normal man's voice? That he swore like a sailor? That he and Lisa Marie Presley had a normal sex life? All of that is true, but he deliberately used a "soft" voice, etc.in public , because he saw that masculine Black men like James Brown and Chuck Berry never had Elvis/Beatles like fame, no matter how good they were musically , so he took the public persona he took, that persona left him open to the bullshit charges of child molestation and some of the court of public opinion buying into that, but I digress."
I'm absolutely aware of that. Little Richard has also been there and done that before Jackson, as a matter of fact.
Who said Warren was going to endorse Sanders if she would endorse anybody?"
She has more in common with Sanders than with Hillary, politically.
I believe Biden, and your fantasies about Hillary and the DNC are not reality, and even if they were reality : So fucking what? Who gives a shit?"
I do. If Biden ran for elections, he would've almost certainly beat Trump, and while he would be inferior to Sanders as a choice for president, I would certainly prefer it to what we have today.
Wanna change it?Join the Democrats and work your up to be able to change it,that's they only way you Sandersnistas are going to make your changes,and I bet they will turn out to be disasterous if you do."
I have yet a hear anybody left of center give a legitimate reason for opposing Hillary,I can see why some might prefer somebody else (not me,but I can see why others might feel that way),but stupidity and sexism are still the only reasons I can think of for opposition of her amongst the left , especially after she got the nomination. "
People don't usually fall into the boxes of left and right, most people are more complicated than that. Some people very well may have mostly liberal views but still don't see themselves as a part of the left. And independent people are just as entitled to their views as liberals and conservatives.
TimeHasCome wrote:" Again,you are not entitled to make up your own facts.
Saint Bernard ran, and Trump is now president, those are facts."Saint Hillary ran and Trump is now president, because SHE lost to him...those are also facts. If she didn't run, Trump would most likely not be president today, and we all know it.
Also, Bernie was as nice of an opponent as Hillary was ever going to have. He refused to talk about her more sensitive topics that could've possibly led to an early downfall (emails, benghazi) and he absolutely endorsed her and supported her to presidency as soon as he realized he wasn't getting the nomination, even though he isn't even a real Democrat, he didn't owe her anything and had not much in common with her or or most of the DNC establishment. Jill Stein offered him her position in the green party when he lost the nomination, means he could ran third party and (unlike Stein) REALLY cost Hillary, but he refused! He is no Nader and you know that.
"You even said it depends on the event, for one who is progressive, you sure are buying into a lot of conservative hype.
"Opposing to racism and divisions based on race on public time and money is "conservative"? Too bad not everybody can be a "liberal" like George Wallace and Louis Farrakhan! Seriously, bro?!
If FDR and Churchill said "I can't ally with Stalin,I have morals",the world would be under Axis control.
"Wait a minute...I never said anything about foreign policy. Stalin was a monster indeed, but he was the leader of the most powerful country on earth at the time, the only possible way to defeat the Nazis as you said! It was a life/death situation. Besides, I would still ally with Stalin over a Hamasnic like Linda Sarsour, as bad as it may sound!
"I think Little Richard (who Black militants also didn't like) gave Michael Jackson the idea for the less than masculine persona, MJ was more successful.
Look at the top selling recording artists for every decade ,from the 1890s to the 1910s it was Len Spencer,in the 1920s it was Rudy Vallee ,in the 1930s it was Bing Crosby,in the 1940s it was Frank Sinatra,in the 1950s it was Elvis Presley,in the 1960s it was The Beatles ,in the 1970s it was Elton John,in the 1980s it was Michael Jackson,in the 1990s it was Garth Brooks,in the first ten years of the 21st century it was Eminem."Good points! Although the Black militants attitude towards Little Richard is more complicated than that, it's more of a love/hate relationship. On one hand, they weren't too happy that somebody with his stage act and image became a such major force in their culture, and in the early years they probably called him a "clown" a "faggot" and all the rest. And also, just like with Chuck and Fats, they didn't appreciate that most of his audience (at least since the 1960s) was white and that he made many millions by entertaining white people. On the other hand, they do use him in their agenda of "Blacks invented everything!" "Elvis didn't invent Rock'n'Roll, Little Richard, Fats Domino and Chuck Berry are the REAL deal!" "White people ain't got shit, if it wasn't for Little Richard inventing American music as we know it today!" I guess same thing goes to their relationship with Michael Jackson.
Another thing is, Black artists used to get in major troubles is for sleeping with White women, in fact, the law enforcement was so brutal and racist that they would bait them with white girls that were underage but didn't quite look that young, just to get them in prison (or at least to be able to bribe them for some very very big money, as happened to some people I know), and many clubs wouldn't allow Black artists with reputation of sleeping with White women. So in Richard's and Michael's case, it was assumed by many that they weren't into women at all, white or otheriwse, so they got more opportiutnies that way...and often, even more white (or otherwise) women than other R&B artists, at least in Richard's case!
Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton are friends ,friendship can trump common politics ,"McCain and Ted Kennedy were friends too. Doesn't mean they would endorse each other politically, either.
",plus,she said early on she wouldn't run if Hillary ran, because Hillary had the better chance of being president and she wanted to a woman (preferably Hillary) to become president.
"She also said during the nomination election that she is cheering for Bernie, but didn't exactly endorse him either. Who cares about "man" or "woman", it's about who's better for the job, ALWAYS! Gender shouldn't matter, one way or the other.
"Sisters are doin' it for themselves, and even the cult of Saint Bernard can't stop that:"This is what's wrong with the Democrats, they are stuck with putting people into boxes and groups for their politically correct theater...it is irrelevant to me what is the race, gender or sexual orientation of a person, the person's biological factors don't matter to me, what matters to me is if they are right for the job or not and what's the content of their character! Hillary being a woman neither scores nor takes away any points from her, no more than her being white or not, no more than her being straight or lesbian, I just don't care and neither should anybody else.
Linda Sarsour is also a woman. Maggie Thatcher was also a woman, Ayn Rand was also a woman, Carly Fiorina is also a woman, Ann Coulter is also a woman...well, maybe, sort of! Just because somebody was born with a vagina does not mean I'm going to vote for them. That also won't be a factor why I wouldn't vote for them. People should vote based on who will be a better leader, who will be representing their views better, and most importantly who will beat the Republicans in the real election! I can write you a whole book about reasons not to vote for Hillary, but there was exactly ONE BIG reason to vote for her, which was the reason why I did, is because the Republicans/Trump are EVEN WORSE!
"Superdelegates might become decreased ,but they still are not being done away with, so I'm happy,and that is what is called compromise, and that is how politics works well. "They are cut by 2/3, it's a YUUUGE victory for Bernie and a good start, in my opinion! I'm starting to believe that Bernie may really give it another try in 2020...things are starting to look that way, he's very involved in politics, the polls showing that he would beat Trump by a big margin in 2020, and "Bernie for 2020" merch is being sold everywhere...remember, Trump didn't win nominations at his first try either, sometimes it's not that first but the second take that makes it!
No one (especially me) regarded Hillary as a saint, that's one of the many ,many reasons why I don't regret supporting her, sometimes it does take balls to be a woman:"You don't regret supporting her? Hello, she lost to Donald fuckin' Trump, of all people!
"Little Richard said "Black man/white woman " fears were why he developed that persona, I'm sure the same was true for MJ as well."Yeah, but I think Jackson's behavior and mental issues were also caused by childhood abuse.
"And when I said "Saint Bernard" ,I didn't mean that as a slam against Bernie Sanders himself,I meant it as a slam against the Sandersnistas who refuse to see any flaws in him (outside of some policy disagreements ),once again,I think Bernie Sanders unintentionally divided the Democrats ,as this video (at 4:24) proves:"If pressuring the Democrats to be REALLY liberal and NOT a Republican-lite party means dividing the Democrats, then indeed it's a cancer that had to be cut out, perhaps to save the Democratic Party. Allowing the Dems to stay completely in the pockets of Wall St., Goldman Sachs, big corporations, war industry, war on drugs industry, big pharma and big lobby groups is not the answer, people are sick and tired of that shit! We don't need a second party like that, we already have the Republicans for all of the folks who enjoy being raped by the 1% and the establishment, what we need is for the Democrats to be a REAL alternative, and not just on abortion and gay rights but on everything else too!
Allies are allies, not friends ,if we don't work together against the common enemy ,the common enemy will work together against us.
"True, but I also hate the Linda Sarsour types more than I hate Trump or the average republicans. If I saw her in a fight with a KKK member, I would help neither one, they are the same to me. In fact, I'm more willing to ally with the Republicans to destroy the Hamasnics, the BDS lobby and all of those assholes! I'll ally with LOTS of people against Republicans, but not with Islamists, because I consider them to be a bigger monsters than Republicans.
"McCain and Ted Kennedy weren't in the same party."But they were very good friends. And again, this is one of the reasons why I'm not a partisan, I want the freedom to agree and disagree with others based on my own morals and values and not based on what the party tells me to do.
I agree with Sarah Silverman (who supported Bernie) that Hillary Clinton was probably most qualified person to ever run for president, so there is no logical reason to vote against her, especially against a fuckhead like Trump. "Sarah Silverman is a fine person who means well and she usually says a lot of very true stuff, but she is also not a source of wisdom and sometimes she's being silly and/or goes too far...this is one of those times. Hillary is FAAAAAR from the most qualified person to ever run for president, the American people didn't think so 10 years ago and they didn't think so last year. She lost the election to the most UNQUALIFIED person to ever run for president! America didn't vote for Trump, they voted against Hillary. If it was Dennis Rodman instead of Trump, he would've been President too.
"No,Hillary is not perfect ,I don't agree with every single thing she's ever done,but as I previously said :There is no way she could ever be worse than Trump,not even if she burned down five orphanages on Christmas Day."I agree and that's why I voted for her, there's no way she could be even worse than Trump, as mediocre as it would be.
2/3 cut just gets rid of the dead weight, superdelegates still exist and still can overturn a mistake voters make, and I'm glad of that.
"2/3 of the cancer being cut out is a damn good start. Next step is to remove the other 1/3. Even if it's not removed, it would mean that next nomination election, Bernie wouldn't need to win by a HUGE landslide of pledged delegates in order to have a chance, unlike last time, which would encourage more democratic participation, and this time (especially if other reforms are done), he just might get it!
Bernie Sanders will never be president ,he may become a force ,but he will never be president."May become a force? He's been a force all this time! As for him never being president, NEVER SAY NEVER, the polls are saying that he has a pretty good chance at this point in 2020, and all he has to do is agree to run for elections, which seems to be the case from what I understand! Don't forget that last time, he started as an almost unknown, with only 2% of the Democratic vote and 3 times more of superdelegates all against him than he will face next time, nobody took him seriously, and yet from 2% he went up to almost 50%. At this point, he will start with a minimum of 40+% support and after fixing some mistakes (like being nicer towards Israel, which he already has been lately, and being more convincing to Black voters), he can get the nomination even if most of the leftover super-delegates will vote against him! And guess what will happen if that happens? You will be supporting him as much as me and the Sanderistas, against Trump, and you know it!
No,I don't regret supporting someone who would probably would have one of out greatest presidents ever over someone who is already one of our worst presidents ever.
Little Richard also had childhood abuse.
If the Democrats really were "Republican-lite", I wouldn't be one.
I used to feel the same way you did,I got older and saw the reality of life, you will too as the years go by.
I am for what's good for my ideology , I care about that more than I care about individuals, I don't have to hang out with anybody I don't want to hang out with, the same is true for you, being allied on a cause and hanging out are two vastly different things.
Actually, "the American people" did think Hillary was most qualified to be president, by over 3 million votes.
I can say with 99.9% certainty that Trump will be the last president born before 1950.
I'll vote for Sanders if I have to, but it would have to get very bad for me to support him for the nomination , and I don't think it will get near that bad.
TimeHasCome wrote:"No,I don't regret supporting someone who would probably would have one of out greatest presidents ever over someone who is already one of our worst presidents ever."
Wasn't talking about the general election...yeah, at that point it was too late for anything else, so even I voted for Hillary. I can't imagine her being one of the greatest, but she wouldn't be among the worst either. But I was talking about supporting her run from the very start.
"Little Richard also had childhood abuse."
Oh, he certainly isn't what most would call a normal guy, either! In fact, funny thing is, it was probably better for the public to assume he was simply this happy, flamboyant, funny super-gay non-threatening dude that everybody loves, than to know about what was actually going on in the hotel rooms on his tours, he would certainly not be invited on national tv and all of those big events and family tv shows. He knew it would be the end of his career if they bust a party with a bunch of Black dudes high on drugs having an orgy with white women! But because of his image, the law enforcement, people in power or even the media didn't ever care to go after him and his personal life at all, they all already "knew" just by looking at him, and figured "why go after the fool and bust his party just to find out something that wouldn't shock a single person? It's not like he's a threat to anybody anyways, leave him alone!"
Also, that way, he was also able to protect the privacy of his normal relationships, as the media didn't know about either his marriage or about his other long-term girlfriend, until much much later. His image allowed him to get away with A LOT that others wouldn't, let's just say.
"If the Democrats really were "Republican-lite", I wouldn't be one."
Some are, some aren't. I didn't say ALL Democrats were.
I used to feel the same way you did,I got older and saw the reality of life, you will too as the years go by."
WHAT reality of life? That we have to allow the Democrats to do to us many of the bad things that Republicans do to us, just because they are overall better?
"I am for what's good for my ideology , I care about that more than I care about individuals, I don't have to hang out with anybody I don't want to hang out with, the same is true for you, being allied on a cause and hanging out are two vastly different things. "
Ronald Reagan allied with the Taliban, Bin Laden and Saddam Husein against the "enemy" USSR, and it was successful too. What good did it do for America, again?
Actually, "the American people" did think Hillary was most qualified to be president, by over 3 million votes."
That's not the rules of the game, bro! I didn't invent the rules, and I'm actually in agreement with you about them, but that's how it goes right now. The majority of most states voted against Hillary. Both Hillary and Trump got about 25% each of the ENTIRE American voting population. I don't think most Americans consider either one of them most qualified, it's just that Trump gave them false hope and entertained them, while Hillary didn't even bother with either.
On the other hand, Bernie has a great stage presence and gave Americans ALL kinds of hope, even more than Trump tried to, you may argue that some of it was false and I'll agree, but he just sounds very very convincing and the perfect image and voice to get the populist and independent vote that was fed up with both political parties.
"I can say with 99.9% certainty that Trump will be the last president born before 1950."
I can say with about 75% certainty that he's not. I'm willing to almost safely assume that Hillary is finally out (even then, I wouldn't even risk $100 betting on it, unfortunately, but hopefully in that case, at this point, the DNC will have the sense to take the car keys from the drunk), but Biden said that he's strongly considering 2020, Warren is probably going to run, and then of course there is Bernie! 80 is the new 60! Don't ever underestimate the old farts!
"I'll vote for Sanders if I have to, but it would have to get very bad for me to support him for the nomination"
Oh man, you should consider giving him a chance! He's got a big momentum and if he's nominated, he will crush the Republicans and could be that sword that will end conservatism. He can unite the left-wing better than anybody can because the ones you call "spoiled brats" or whatever, are all about him, independents are all about him, and he's (while not perfect) is good enough for any other democrats to be worthy of support against Trump, even for you!
You know just as well as I do that he would be (at the very least) a good president and certainly much better than any republican president since Lincoln, and if he has somebody like Warren as vice, we could be safe of any fears we may have about his old age, so why let some disagreements you may have with his politics stand in the way of unity, when he's one of the very few, if not the only person who can unite such a diverse audience? If you believe the left-of center unity like you said and are willing to sacrifice and compromise to get it, I really don't think Sanders is a very heavy price. I know you prefer Hillary and I'm not trying to change your mind, but considering what we have today, I don't see why you couldn't settle for Sanders.
", and I don't think it will get near that bad."
But what if nobody else gets the response that Sanders gets or that Obama used to get? We can't afford to lose 2020. We need somebody who will definitely beat Trump.
TimeHasCome wrote:"I felt she would have made the best president out of the all the potential nominees,I still feel that way."
She was certainly better than all Republican nominees, I will give her that much, but that doesn't say much at all. We need to do better than that. And even if I was to agree with you, it still doesn't matter because she lost! You guys had it your way and it failed. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different result.
GonzoTheGreat2 wrote:TimeHasCome wrote:"I felt she would have made the best president out of the all the potential nominees,I still feel that way."
She was certainly better than all Republican nominees, I will give her that much, but that doesn't say much at all. We need to do better than that. And even if I was to agree with you, it still doesn't matter because she lost! You guys had it your way and it failed. The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different result.
As GWB said: "if you do not succeed at once, try, try again."
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.