President Trump Conviction

Maybe.

There's a similar case that so much money and resources were invested on investigating Bill Clinton because he was Bill Clinton. John Edwards likewise. Hunter Biden likewise. Maybe the phenomenon you identify isn't stacked against Republicans in particular.

 

I agree on Clinton. Very serious allegations against him that were investigated by the Special Prosecutor (sexual assault aside). All that anyone could come up with was the intern issue and that wasn't illegal (unethical but). So, they got him on lying about it. News pointed out at the time that is not uncommon. They have several examples of people who are not convicted of what they were investigated for but convicted of lying to the FBI and so on.

So, I get why Republicans were upset about the ridiculous impeachment of Trump. Rather than running the country and dealing with issues of real importance to people, they spent their time on political drama. Millions of dollars spent investigating Russian Collusion based on some fake dossier (and ended up a costly embarrassment). But the Republicans started it with Clinton.

 

I'm talking about modern times. The descendants of the southern Democrats who supported Woodrow Wilson are now southern Republicans who are furious that Confederate monuments are being taken down. I have no idea why people keep bringing up racist southern Democrats from the early 1900s thinking it's a good counterpoint when today's southern Republicans are the ones defending their segregationist and pro-slavery ancestors. They switched parties, but they're the same people. I live in Texas, and every Confederate defender I've come across has been a Republican, right Libertarian, or a member of the conservative Constitution Party. The governor of Mississippi, who wants to further promote the celebration of Confederate Memorial Day, is a Republican.

 

It was the Republicans who ended slavery, brought about women's suffrage, and helped come along side to pass the Civil Rights Act. Was it not Eisenhower who sent the National Guard to Little Rock to ensure desegregation of the schools (Democrat Governor trying to oppose it).

I believe out of the 21 Southern Democrats opposing Civil Rights legislation only one (Strom Thurmond) became Republican.

 

@sanantone

What evidence do you have that Trump is a White Supremacist?

 

https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2009/09/debunking-the-myth-of-the-nixon-southern-strategy/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/shapiro-debunking-the-southern-switch

 

The Southern Strategy, which really took off in the 1970s and saw the most success during the Reagan administration, is well-documented and even spoken about by Lee Atwater, who worked for the Reagan administration. The South progressively became red over a period of about 30 to 40 years. LBJ correctly predicted that Democrats would lose the South because he signed the Civil Rights Act. The South even created the Dixiecrat Party in the 1940s to separate itself from the rise of liberal Democrats.


Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy#:~:text=Under%20the%20Southern%20Strategy%2C%20Republicans,conservative%20voters%20in%20the%20South.

Former Governor Rick Perry also talked about how the Republican Party's quest to win over the South led to the embrace of racism and making the party less appealing to people of color.

Because our schools don't teach history well, what is left out was that the Republican Party was almost as racist as the Democratic Party. The abolitionists were just one sector of the Republican Party, not the entire party. The Republican Party pretty much abandoned Black people after Reconstruction ended. It might surprise some to know that, when Black people could manage to vote, many of them voted Democratic during Jim Crow. Both parties were racist, so they chose the party that would best represent the working class. Lincoln was a racist and wanted to send all Black people back to Africa. He had no serious plans to end slavery until the Civil War. It was a strategic move, not a moral one.

 

Lee Atwater, who actually worked for Reagan, is more credible than the grifter that is Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro is a married man who doesn't even know that vaginas are supposed to produce secretions when a woman is aroused. Ben Shapiro has no problem with denigrating Black people, but when someone criticizes Jews or Israel, he all of a sudden believes in racism.

 

I didn't say that Trump was a white supremacist; I said that a representative was a white supremacist.

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

Trump uses eugenicist and Southern Strategy dog whistles. Anyone who is educated on the American eugenicist movement that inspired Nazi Germany can pick up on the terminology. With that knowledge, it becomes harder to believe that Trump wasn't involved in his properties discriminating against Black and Hispanic applicants.

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case

It is also hard to believe that he's anti-racist when he did this.

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1992/10/19/Trump-Plaza-loses-appeal-of-discrimination-penalty/1911719467200/

 

A lot of this criticism is rooted deeply in the belief that everyone is driven solely by a singular identity characteristic. A man can never be fair to a woman, a white person can never be fair to a black person, etc. People are complicated. There are a lot of Republicans that have been "never Trump" Republicans. Just because someone has "coded" a certain way doesn't mean they are incapable of weighing evidence and providing a reasoned verdict.

 

Shapiro is intellectually sharp. UCLA BA and Harvard JD. Excellent debater.

What did he say to denigrate black people (in context)? He usually backs up what he says with statistics and logic.

Not sure I get the whole secretions thing but I am glad he excites you. Is it his mind or looks (both).

 

Then, there should be no problem with Democrats being on the jury. Manhattan is very blue, so that's who they had to pick from. Many Black people have faced all White juries.

 

I agree. You can't just point to a singular identity characteristic and call it "unfair" - unless we can find 12 bloated, over-privileged billionaire grifters to sit a jury, Trump can NEVER be judged a jury of his "peers".

 

I don't know why you thought it was appropriate to direct this at a woman. The conversation ends here.

 

And there has been much criticism of jury's convicting black people when the jury is all white.

In this case you have a very polarizing and disliked figure who was judged by a Democratic party judge who contributed to a stop Republicans campaign, a Democratic party prosecutor, and an apparently majority if not all Democratic party jury. And even included at least one juror who said they didn't like his persona.

From the outside that doesn't look good.

It is like a civil rights protester trying to get Justice in the south when the judge is a Democrat who contributed to segregationist causes, prosecutor is a Democratic prosecutor who is friends with klansman, and an all white jury of Southerners. May simply as Rich pointed out be a matter of law criminal proceedings but the optics aren't good. May arrive at a fair judgment based on the evidence but the optics aren't good.

 

You brought it up and now you play the victim. I'm sure it ends here because you got checked.

 

I'm referring to a comment that Ben Shapiro made, which demonstrated his lack of knowledge of basic anatomy and physiology and sexual reproduction. Responding with an out of left field comment about how some man sexually excites you is not checking anyone. It was dumb and gross.

 

Bull. You brought it up and it was confusing in the context of what we were discussing. You apparently decided to go off on some obscure ad hominem in relation to Ben Shapiro. I could say your ad hominem was gross. You got checked and now going to virtue signal and be the victim. Sorry but I'm not buying it. In fact, it is rather annoying.