The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Well thank god that the republicans once again saved us from tyranny.

From what I remember, it was Reps and also the lack of Dem will that "saved" the day.

Earlier this year, Senate was not in play. Now it is and I would love to see a sweep in Nov. It'll be an interesting to see what the Dems would be able to push through in the first 2 years - immigration, gun control, gerrymandering, healthcare, increasing SCOTUS etc.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Earlier this year, Senate was not in play. Now it is and I would love to see a sweep in Nov. It'll be an interesting to see what the Dems would be able to push through in the first 2 years - immigration, gun control, gerrymandering, healthcare, increasing SCOTUS etc.

They're the Dems, so they'll trip over themselves, pass a half dozen half measures and not get a lot done so they get rolled in 2022.

SI

[JPhillips]

They won't get anything done without abolishing the filibuster and it's always safe to assume they won't change process for fear of being called radicals. Biden's term will end up looking a lot like Obama's second term.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

That should be a felony

It is. No one arrested of course. Virginia GOP approved of the crime afterwards.

[JPhillips]

There's no point in arguing with people still committed to voting for Trump.
In 2020 if you vote for Trump it doesn't necessarily mean you're a white nationalist, but it does mean that you look at the white nationalism, the bottomless corruption, the incompetence with the virus, the threats to democracy, etc. and think, yeah, I can live with that.

When the inevitable happens if he's re-elected, it isn't the fault of Democrats. Your eyes are open now, and you're choosing Trump knowing what that means.

[thesloppy]

Yeah, at this point I think it's pretty dishonest to break down Trump & Biden in terms of personality & policy while entirely ignoring all the long-term damage being done to crucial government agencies & international standing.

....someone can certainly still say they value Trump's policies over his personality AND the last vestiges of a working government, but they should have to be honest about it.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by henry296

I think the affluent people who want to keep my taxes and capital gains low and think Trump is bad but I want GOP policies group is pretty big. I don't think the majority of them see that as a nationalist policy, just voting for policies that benefit me.

I think this is true for a significant number of Trump voters, and it evades most folks, including the ones on this forum who see anyone who votes for Trump as a KKK surrogate.

[JPhillips]

I, at least, have been pretty clear that not all Trump voters are white nationalists, but by now its clear that voting for Trump means voting for a white nationalist.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think this is true for a significant number of Trump voters, and it evades most folks, including the ones on this forum who see anyone who votes for Trump as a KKK surrogate.

Not everyone who votes Trump is a KKK surrogate, but everyone who is a KKK surrogate supports Trump.

[thesloppy]

Qualify it however you like, but at this point if you vote for Trump you are actively supporting a racist & racist policies. Can anyone deny that?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by henry296

I think the affluent people who want to keep my taxes and capital gains low and think Trump is bad but I want GOP policies group is pretty big. I don't think the majority of them see that as a nationalist policy, just voting for policies that benefit me.

Yes and no. The sane people I know who support Trump are not actively racist and I wouldn't call them racist. But they are oblivious - willfully so, in a lot of cases - about things that in essence align with the fringe/extreme elements in the party. On BLM, one guy completely downplays the issue of policy brutality against minorities, saying that we're only talking about 100 incidents over a couple of decades, that routine profiling/differing treatment doesn't happen (was woefully unaware of several recent incidents I rattled off), and that nearly every incident could be avoided if they just stop resisting arrest. I questioned him on why he thought they had a tendency to resist arrest, and it devolved into the typical "criminals gonna criminal" explanation and if you've haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of if you just comply - and then proceeded to tell me that both Breanna Taylor and George Floyd had criminal histories.

So yeah...

[JPhillips]

Trump's being clear on how he'll steal the election.

“We're going to have a victory on November 3rd the likes of which you've never seen,” Trump told a rally in Fayetteville, N.C. “Now, we're counting on the federal court system to make it so that we can actually have an evening where we know who wins. Not where the votes are going to be counted a week later or two weeks later.”

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Qualify it however you like, but at this point if you vote for Trump you are actively supporting a racist & racist policies. Can anyone deny that?

Instead of absolutist hyperbole, could you please list specific policies Trump has implemented that are explicitly racist? Not tweets, snippets from speeches, praise from racists, but concrete, specific policies that he has implemented as President?

Specific policies, like criminal justice reform, empowerment zones in economically distressed communities, the $360 million grant to HBCUs.

[larrymcg421]

Don't feed the troll by answering disingenuous questions.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Instead of absolutist hyperbole, could you please list specific policies Trump has implemented that are explicitly racist? Not tweets, snippets from speeches, praise from racists, but concrete, specific policies that he has implemented as President?

Specific policies, like criminal justice reform, empowerment zones in economically distressed communities, the $360 million grant to HBCUs.

Implementation certainly shouldn't be the standard for harmful policies. Why should you get any credit for intentions that other people prevented?

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | The White House

Trump Administration’s Proposed Rule Would Perpetuate Racist and Discriminatory Housing Practices | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/u...-haitians.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/09/p...ies/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1HX2X4

DHS Ends Temporary Protected Status For Hondurans : NPR

Draft DHS Report Called for Long-Term Surveillance of Sunni Muslim Immigrants – Foreign Policy

HUD Suspends Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Indefinitely - NH&RA

Race in college admissions: Read the Trump administration’s statement on reversing policies | PBS NewsHour

Trump administration stays EE0-1 Pay Data Rule | Economic Policy Institute

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ef_story.html

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump's being clear on how he'll steal the election.

The only hope is that he saying the quiet part so loudly that people will actually try to vote early as opposed to by mail.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Instead of absolutist hyperbole, could you please list specific policies Trump has implemented that are explicitly racist? Not tweets, snippets from speeches, praise from racists, but concrete, specific policies that he has implemented as President?

Specific policies, like criminal justice reform, empowerment zones in economically distressed communities, the $360 million grant to HBCUs.

Welcome to the club of being called names from the more radical left wing & loud elements on this forum. When the attacks get personal, feel free to dish it out to them in kind (just give Ben a warning) but I suggest just ignoring them because they'll call on their gang members to pile on.

On any discussion of racism, I also suggest you get clarity on definition of racism - the ADL-version or the much broader definition (which is more like bigotry & discrimination).

Good luck.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

The only hope is that he saying the quiet part so loudly that people will actually try to vote early as opposed to by mail.

It actually makes you wonder why Barr and McConnell and whoever else is orchestrating the plot to steal the election is giving Trump the details. He’s making their job a lot harder.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Welcome to the club of being called names from the more radical left wing & loud elements on this forum. When the attacks get personal, feel free to dish it out to them in kind (just give Ben a warning) but I suggest just ignoring them because they'll call on their gang members to pile on.

On any discussion of racism, I also suggest you get clarity on definition of racism - the ADL-version or the much broader definition (which is more like bigotry & discrimination).

The only person that I called a racist is Donald Trump. I think it's ridiculous to suggest a racist practically entirely focused on immigration policy ISN'T passing explicitly racist policy, but OK let's go with that: If you vote for Donald Trump you are actively supporting a racist focused on immigration policy.

[Ksyrup]

God Democrats are so stupid...

Sanders knocks McConnell: He's going against Ginsburg's 'dying wishes' | TheHill

Did anyone bother to ask Scalia what his dying wish was?

[PilotMan]

I wish we knew what trump or mcconnell's dying wish was.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Don't feed the troll by answering disingenuous questions.

And you know they are disingenous how? Where's the line between that and someone who disagrees with you/us/whomever so profoundly that they don't share core assumptions?

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Implementation certainly shouldn't be the standard for harmful policies. Why should you get any credit for intentions that other people prevented?

Fully agree here, which is part of why I do think Trump is probably racist. However, some of the items list don't make that case at all. I.e., Islam is not a race. You can have differing opinions on what makes for better housing and admissions rules without being racist. Etc.

Originally Posted by KSyrup

the only people who see Trump, at worst, as simply "distasteful" are the same people who thought Obama was (did!) destroy America. And that's not living in reality.

It's having a different persepective on the impacts is all it is. Some people think what Obama did is a lot worse, and what Trump did isn't nearly as bad, as what this board in general thinks of those things. It's not a case of fantasyland, it's a case of different priorities and what issues you consider important.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

The only person that I called a racist is Donald Trump. I think it's ridiculous to suggest a racist practically entirely focused on immigration policy ISN'T passing explicitly racist policy, but OK let's go with that: If you vote for Donald Trump you are actively supporting a racist focused on immigration policy.

My comment was not directed at you at all. It was the post above addressed to VV.

EDIT: there is no doubt Trump & Miller are racists (and you can toss in numerous other derogatory categories for Trump).

FWIW it is unfair to label all his immigration policies as racist (or at least the ADL definition). You have to look at the policy, the context, comparable policies of other nations etc. The high-level policy of reducing illegal immigration is not racist (it's sound policy IMO), however the rhetoric and some lower level actions are. The high-level policy of going more to merit based immigration and reducing family based immigration is not racist, however his rhetoric can definitely be viewed that way.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Fully agree here, which is part of why I do think Trump is probably racist. However, some of the items list don't make that case at all. I.e., Islam is not a race. You can have differing opinions on what makes for better housing and admissions rules without being racist. Etc.

I don't think many can deny Trump is racist. It's well documented, goes back decades, and his actions and words throughout his presidency have been filled with racial division. I don't think you can eliminate bigotry from racism either. They're different things, but both are about hatred and creating division from people that look and act like me.

It's also easy to overlook racist intent of certain policy decisions that aren't racist on the surface. Trump and his administration have attacked low income housing programs created specifically for minorities, has attacked regulations and policy regarding college entrance for minorities, and eliminated US support for the UN's committee on racial discrimination. Those are some of the more obvious policy decisions, but there are many more than blur the lines of racism.

If we were to include bigotry with racism and just focus on policy born from hate we have dozens and dozens of examples that target people with disabilities, legal and illegal immigrants, Puerto Ricans, victims of sexual assault, and the LGBTQ community.

The man is filled with hate and I do think it's disingenuous to ask for racist policy examples to divert away from a lifetime of actions and words. Trump is racist. He has a white nationalist as his primary policy advisor and has openly courted white supremacists throughout his presidency. If you're rationalizing a vote for Trump that way then you're lying to yourself or willfully ignorant. Either way, it doesn't change what Trump is.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

And you know they are disingenous how? Where's the line between that and someone who disagrees with you/us/whomever so profoundly that they don't share core assumptions?

Just my judgment based on his posting history and his press release type statement after the question. I don't believe he's interested in asking serious questions. I don't believe he doesn't know what policies of Trump would be considered racist.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It's also easy to overlook racist intent of certain policy decisions that aren't racist on the surface. Trump and his administration have attacked low income housing programs created specifically for minorities, has attacked regulations and policy regarding college entrance for minorities, and eliminated US support for the UN's committee on racial discrimination. Those are some of the more obvious policy decisions, but there are many more than blur the lines of racism.

I'm not in favor of overlooking it so much as I am in not assuming it, because that's a two-way street. It's the same approach that has led to some on the right calling liberals traitors - the whole 'if they were merely stupid they'd be in favor of the national interest once in a while' line of thought. That kind of assumption always ends up hoisting the person propounding it eventually.

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't think you can eliminate bigotry from racism either. They're different things, but both are about hatred and creating division from people that look and act like me.

Look at the way much of this board discusses evangelicals, Trump supporters, etc. Are you really arguing that racism isn't worse than that? There is a massive, fundamental difference between a religion (or any other set of beliefs) and a race - namely that people choose the first one, but they don't choose the second which is all the moral distinction in the world. Not to mention that there are intelligent, educated people that don't think Trump is racist. A lot of the examples used to demonstrate otherwhise - not all, but a lot - tend to be loaded, exaggerated, etc. as is par for the course with politicians. So no, it's not an inherently disingenous question. Some people just think that much differently.

[Brian Swartz]

......

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

......

I concur

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Fully agree here, which is part of why I do think Trump is probably racist. However, some of the items list don't make that case at all. I.e., Islam is not a race. You can have differing opinions on what makes for better housing and admissions rules without being racist. Etc.

I think we are largely in agreement here, so I don't want to push hard, but arguing about what individual policies technically qualify as explicitly racist in a bubble only distracts from the fact that we're talking about a racist who is focusing legislation on reducing immigration and ending affirmative action programs. People shouldn't actively support that & also ignore/deny it entirely.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not in favor of overlooking it so much as I am in not assuming it, because that's a two-way street. It's the same approach that has led to some on the right calling liberals traitors - the whole 'if they were merely stupid they'd be in favor of the national interest once in a while' line of thought. That kind of assumption always ends up hoisting the person propounding it eventually.


Look at the way much of this board discusses evangelicals, Trump supporters, etc. Are you really arguing that racism isn't worse than that? There is a massive, fundamental difference between a religion (or any other set of beliefs) and a race - namely that people choose the first one, but they don't choose the second which is all the moral distinction in the world. Not to mention that there are intelligent, educated people that don't think Trump is racist. A lot of the examples used to demonstrate otherwhise - not all, but a lot - tend to be loaded, exaggerated, etc. as is par for the course with politicians. So no, it's not an inherently disingenous question. Some people just think that much differently.

I get what your'e saying, but I've watched first hand what this administration has done to my in-laws. My wife is white/Japanese and her step dad is white. He's gone from proud patriotic GOP supporter to borderline openly racist comments and when he's called out on it he uses my wife's mixed race as proof he couldn't be racist. It's frustrating to watch people you didn't agree with on policy but could talk to become impossible to have any discussion with because they've embraced racism and hate. Some may be ignorant of the racism and hate, but there are many more that see it as a welcome side effect to Trumpism.

As for religion, I don't think it's entirely choice. If you're a white person raised in America you're far less likely to be Muslim or Hindu and if you grow up the middle east in a strict Muslim home you're unlikely to become Christian. Fate, circumstance, and luck play as much a role in someone's choice of religion (or lack thereof) as they do in many other parts of our lives that we're often not willing to admit. We're still choosing to hate people because they're different than us.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think we are largely in agreement here, so I don't want to push hard, but arguing about what individual policies technically qualify as explicitly racist in a bubble only distracts from the fact that we're talking about a racist who is focusing legislation on reducing immigration and ending affirmative action programs. People shouldn't actively support that & also ignore/deny it entirely.

Your diplomatic tone is noted and it does you credit. At the same time, I do still think even the examples you list here are not as clear-cut as it appears to my understanding that you think they are. People are opposed to affirmative action for more reasons than racism; some just think it's bad policy. Reducing immigration is the same way. I've had discussions with people who want immigration increased for profoundly racist reasons - i.e. because they want migrant workers to do for cheap work they wouldn't be caught dead doing, and so on.

I salute and embrace the common ground we've found to whatever extent it exists, but I do maintain the umbrella of racist policies is cast way too wide generally, and I think that does apply here.

[GrantDawg]

Racist thinks he is racist. White nationalist love him for a reason.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ISiddiqui]

In 2020, people are arguing if Trump is a racist?! And others are saying well Trump may be a racist but his policies aren't - what do they think his motivations are for those policies?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

[Butter]

We've had this discussion before. One of these mental giants that loves to hear themselves talk argues that you can't ascribe any particular intent to Trump's policy because he doesn't explicitly say the intent.

It's quite laughable the mental gymnastics people go through to attempt to be impartial about this racist motherfucker who's running our country into the ground while some faux- intellectuals want to argue his "intent".

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

In 2020, people are arguing if Trump is a racist?! And others are saying well Trump may be a racist but his policies aren't - what do they think his motivations are for those policies?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

My understanding is Google is available for everyone. Maybe there's a discussion to be had interms of looking past it for a greater payoff, but just denying that Trump is personally racist or that the Trump WH has enacted racist policies is not worth spending any time on.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

God Democrats are so stupid...

Sanders knocks McConnell: He's going against Ginsburg's 'dying wishes' | TheHill

Did anyone bother to ask Scalia what his dying wish was?

MOAR CHEEZEBURGERS

[Flasch186]

I'm not finished with Season 2 at all but...

Trump = Homelander

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Butter

It's quite laughable the mental gymnastics people go through to attempt to be impartial about this racist motherfucker who's running our country into the ground while some faux- intellectuals want to argue his "intent".

What I think is laughable is that you still think this while I've repeatedly said that:

** I think Trump is a racist
** Since he first emerged as a candidate in '16, that I wouldn't support him for dogcatcher
** That I didn't vote him, won't, wouldn't, and think that would be a reprehensible choice.

My argument is that people support the mentioned policies for a variety of reasons. Racism certainly is among those for some. Polling indicates it's a small amount of it and that a lot of it is for other reasons. And as long as we keep blaming it all on racism and don't face the other causes in a straightforward manner, a host of important issues in our society will remain unaddressed. Those are related both to the specific policies mentioned, but also the overall level of support Trump and others of his ilk get.

To put it another way, my objection isn't so much Trump per se, it's assumption of unknowable motives while not accepting the consequences of that tactic being turned on causes we favor, and calling things racist which aren't necessarily such.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by stevew

MOAR CHEEZEBURGERS

I would want to try some meth myself.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

I would want to try some meth myself.

Its overrated

[JPhillips]

Barr declared NYC an anarchist jurisdiction yesterday as a first step towards withholding all federal funds. Is there any doubt this is just a strongarm tactic to get NY to drop investigations and lawsuits against Trump?

[JPhillips]

They have been busy little beavers.

In a stunning declaration of authority, Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, this week barred the nation’s health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, from signing any new rules regarding the nation’s foods, medicines, medical devices and other products, including vaccines.

Going forward, Mr. Azar wrote in a Sept. 15 memorandum obtained by The New York Times, such power “is reserved to the Secretary.” The bulletin was sent to heads of operating and staff divisions within H.H.S.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

They have been busy little beavers.

Proving the anti-vaxxers right might be the GOP's greatest* accomplishment.











*When I say "great," I mean immense; I use it in the pejorative sense.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

To put it another way, my objection isn't so much Trump per se, it's assumption of unknowable motives while not accepting the consequences of that tactic being turned on causes we favor, and calling things racist which aren't necessarily such.

"unknowable" LOL

If a group makes policy against a specific group or groups consistently, you should believe what they're telling you with the policy in the absence of explicit statements.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Proving the anti-vaxxers right might be the GOP's greatest* accomplishment.











*When I say "great," I mean immense; I use it in the pejorative sense.

Two, four, six, eight: Their grasp of science is not very great.

SI

[JPhillips]

The real question is who in the Trump admin knew about this and encouraged it.

William B. Crews is, by day, a public affairs specialist for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. But for years he has been writing for RedState under the streiff pseudonym. And in that capacity he has been contributing to the very same disinformation campaign that his superiors at the NIAID say is a major challenge to widespread efforts to control a pandemic that has claimed roughly 200,000 U.S. lives.

Under his pseudonym, Crews has derided his own colleagues as part of a left-wing anti-Trump conspiracy and vehemently criticized the man who leads his agency, whom he described as the “attention-grubbing and media-whoring Anthony Fauci.” He has gone after other public health officials at the state and federal levels, as well—“the public health Karenwaffen,'' as he’s called them—over measures such as the closures of businesses and other public establishments and the promotion of social distancing and mask-wearing. Those policies, Crews insists, have no basis in science and are simply surreptitious efforts to usurp Americans’ rights, destroy the U.S. economy, and damage President Donald Trump’s reelection effort.

“I think we’re at the point where it is safe to say that the entire Wuhan virus scare was nothing more or less than a massive fraud perpetrated upon the American people by ‘experts’ who were determined to fundamentally change the way the country lives and is organized and governed,” Crews wrote in a June post on RedState.

“If there were justice,” he added, “we’d send and [sic] few dozen of these fascists to the gallows and gibbet their tarred bodies in chains until they fall apart.”

[cuervo72]

Ah, I see the article at DB now. Seems like a quality fellow, eh?

Crews is now a die-hard supporter, and his writings on the coronavirus have been, to say the least, inflammatory. Wearing masks to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, he wrote last month, is “a political statement” akin to “wearing the red ribbon when AIDS was a huge deal, and we were supposed to believe that you can have an epidemic without having casual transmission of a virus (sorry, in most areas of the world’s landmass outside a San Francisco bathhouse, butt sex is not considered ‘casual’).”

According to his LinkedIn page, Crews has worked as a press officer at NIAID since 2007. That LinkedIn page is associated with streiff’s Gmail account, and its “connections” include a number of RedState’s founders and its former editor, Erick Erickson, many of whom are also friends with Crews on Facebook.

Hrmph.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

I think this is true for a significant number of Trump voters, and it evades most folks, including the ones on this forum who see anyone who votes for Trump as a KKK surrogate.

If you are voting for Trump in 2020 you are ok with White Nationalism. Full Stop. Maybe the way you (collective you, not "you" Vegas Vic) are ok with White Nationalism is to delude yourself that this somehow isn't true, but Trump and the people he caters to are so openly white nationalist, that voting for trump for your own financial interests absolutely means that you are accepting that you're okay with anything that happens to brown people (and women - looking at you supreme court - and trans and LGBT people) in order for you to make an extra few percent on the market.

Maybe I'm saying exactly what you're accusing those on this board of. I'm not suggesting every trump voter belongs in the KKK, but I don't think there's even a shred of doubt in anyone's mind exactly what Trump wants to do regarding race in America and anyone voting for their own wallet is so ungodly selfish that ... man, I just don't know. I don't care what label we put on someone still voting trump in 2020, but "decent human being" is one that we have to remove.

[albionmoonlight]

Also, if the GOP wanted someone to implement GOP policies but who wasn't an open White Nationalist, they could have nominated that person in 2016 or 2020. Twice now, the party has said "This is our Guy."

I am sure that there are some who identify as "I am Republican, but I dislike Trump." But there aren't that many of them.

(And I imagine this board is likely to attract a disproportionate number of them.)

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Welcome to the club of being called names from the more radical left wing & loud elements on this forum. When the attacks get personal, feel free to dish it out to them in kind (just give Ben a warning) but I suggest just ignoring them because they'll call on their gang members to pile on.

On any discussion of racism, I also suggest you get clarity on definition of racism - the ADL-version or the much broader definition (which is more like bigotry & discrimination).

Good luck.

While ignoring the post with 11 links provided as an answer to his original question.


The reason that this gets frustrating from the left's point of view is that the same 2 or 3 things are all brought up by every disingenuous "TRUMP 2020" commenter** on every forum as a response to every post about any sort of topic regarding decency in america. It's disingenuous 99.9% of the time and responding to the direct question just results in a goalpost moving "oh yeha well fuck you, trump 2020" that doesn't actually address any facts.

Vegas Vic almost certainly isn't doing that, but he did latch on to a couple of the "talking points" - on this forum with no background regarding past debates, its unfair to make that attack. But that is where the kneejerk reaction may come from, fair or not.


** Part of my self education regarding race has been to strongly diversify my followings on TikTok (which I do use b/c my mental age is 12 ) and on Twitter to include a number of activists and advocates for LGBT rights and for Black Scholars, historians, and folks who are just more educated than me on the way systemic issues have affected black people in the last 30 years or so. So I see threads on a daily basis like this. But again, FOFC isn't twitter.

There are people on the forum who I consider 100% disingenuous and I choose to not respond to their comments, ever. It's pointless. I've obviously waffled back and forth on the prolific poster that is Edward64, but am replying today Llikely because we are just talking about the way discussion takes place sometimes, and not the content/policy of the actual discussion itself.

Anyway, just catching up and found the way the discourse has gone here to be worth a comment.