UNDlaw80
-
Posts
1,011 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by UNDlaw80
-
-
2 hours ago, TheFlop said:
C'mon man, don't give more credit to rednecks then they deserve. You really think that the shaved head balding leather wearing wanna be bikers are doing anything more than looking for the fight/party? The difference is that the white racists/supremacists get covered.....the "street crime" issue gets minimally covered and even that is blamed on white guys aka systemic racism.
On the entirety? Yes, white supremacists are more ideologically and politically driven than the gangland thugs in Chicago, hence the potential risk for terrorism, threat to institutions and our way of life. That said, the overall terrorist threat is low all across the board.
Nonetheless, their political threat isnt limited to terrorism. Just wait till election day when these inbreds start ‘monitoring polls' like the Donald called for his supporters to do. That’s gonna be a blast in certain areas.
-
1 hour ago, TheFlop said:
Now smooth over the probabilities to account for the fact that white people are still the majority ethnic group in this country.
White supremacists are labeled terrorists while inner city black gang members shooting up the city non-stop ala Chicago = random street crime. Somehow creating an environment where anyone that crosses over to the next block wearing the wrong color isn't labeled terrorism. Nice.
C’mon, don’t be difficult, you know the difference. Thugs in Chicago aren’t aiming to affect national policy, sway national public or policy via violence. Hence the difference between ‘terror threat to the United States’ and street crime.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
What do you disagree with? White fragility is on the new york times best seller list and being quoted by and posted on facebook pages and instragram pages across the country all summer.
I don't have any vitriol and I certainly wouldn't blame minorities if I did. I do blame white liberal and their white guilt for thinking they are helping. They aren't.
I disagree that it's the prevailing thought.
Nonetheless, if others think this is the case, be my guest. Just don't use it as justification to blame minorities/outsiders....which is what Trump is doing in many instances.
Btw, my comment wasn't aimed at you personally.
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
You may say that being white doesn’t make me racist and I agree, but that isn’t the prevailing thought in our country right now.
My comment about racial resentment from white people wasn’t flippant, I’m seeing many well intentioned, liberal white friends being disillusioned in their effort to make a real difference on the racial inequality front when they are being told that regardless of what they do or say, they can’t help but be racist. This is the entire premise of the book white fragility. It’s a circular logic that ultimately always ends with white people are always racist.
Its an incredibly unhelpful and dangerous doctrine that has gained a lot of traction.
I disagree entirely.
That said, if you believe this is the case, the vitriol should be aimed at the 'white liberals' causing the problem; not the immigrant/minority group. Trump is primarily doing the latter.
Being labeled racist is no justification for responding in a racist manner.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
Two things can be true at the same time. Outside of your expectedly arrogant patronizing to start your thought, I don’t disagree with what you’ve said above.
That, however, doesn’t in anyway negate the current thought among left leaning folks that being white in and of itself makes a person guilty. Read the book white fragility if you haven’t already and you’ll see that white people, regardless of the way you were brought up are innately having racism attributed to them. Terms like unconscious bias aren’t being applied to other ethnicities. The prevailing thought in the social sciences is that racism is a white persons perversion. Being a white person in our country is the only ethnic position to be in where people openly can have a discriminatory opinion about you and it’s socially accepted.
No, being white, in and of itself, doesn't make you racist. A person's actions make you racist.
That said, I agree that racist whites are more apt to be called out for racism than racist blacks. Double standard?...certainly. But I tend to believe this is because racism, in it's entirety, affect blacks/Hispanic/minorities more than it does whites. Tyranny of the majority. But that's just my opinion.
Regardless, this double standard is no justification for racism or dislike towards other groups.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, TheFlop said:
Mine's newer. Gang members infiltrating the military.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10%3famp
No way! Difference is, white supremacists are the greatest terror threat this country faces.
DHS - White supremacists are the deadliest domestic terror threat facing the U.S., listed above the immediate danger from foreign terrorist groups.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236
-
42 minutes ago, Bison06 said:
What’s leading to white racial resentment is being called a racist merely for having white skin.
C'mon, you're smarter than that. Quit trying to justify racism.
Racial/ethnic resentment, negative attitudes toward the outsider and opposition to changing demographics has been the norm in this country since our inception. Every new immigrant group that rocked the boat was thoroughly **** on by 'traditional America' out of fear of change. Look at the Irish, Italians, Jews, Chinese, etc. etc. Today those groups are the Latinos and the exploding black population.
What we’re currently experiencing is par-for-the-course. History repeats itself. That said, it doesn’t make it right or ethical.
-
1
-
-
House panel releases FBI memo on white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement.
A House panel released a 2006 FBI intelligence memo that highlights concerns by the agency about the threat of white supremacists trying to infiltrate law enforcement.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, UND1983 said:
Somewhat similar to how blacks come together in hatred of other races.
Right, but black supremacist and black nationalist groups aren’t garnering anywhere near the traction white supremist groups are nowadays.
This isn't rocket science - America is culturally changing which is giving rise to white racial resentment. Trump is feeding this frenzy with his dog whistle rhetoric. If Trump knows anything it’s PR. He knows exactly what is hardcore base wants to hear, hence his reluctance to thoroughly denounce and disown white nationalism every single time he's asked about it.-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:
Also, the lie-meter on Trump was off the charts.
Man, he really does not appear to want another tetm.
-
Biggest takeaway from that disaster of a debate?.... Trump telling white supremacists to ‘stand by’.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:
Brazil is entitled to do what Brazil wants with their own country. After all, it belongs to...Brazil
In theory they do. In practice we have the power to make them do what's in our interests. Ruthless, but that's how it works.
-
The loser of this debate is Chris Wallace. What a ****show of interruptions.
-
1
-
-
-
9 hours ago, zonadub said:
This is for a guy who was arrested NINE times; was a convicted drug dealer; held a gun to the stomach of a pregnant lady while his five buddies robbed her home; did prison time three different times totaling about eight years and obviously didn't learn from our penal system And America is memorializing him by painting murals of the guy on the sides of buildings like he's a hero? Unbelievable!! You got to be kidding me.
And to pour salt in the wound, Pelosi presented his brother a folded American flag flown over the Capitol in his honor in a beautiful tri-cornered presentation case. A flag that should be reserved to honor those who have served America with honor. (think fallen soldiers and first responders)Don’t get me wrong, I am not justifying George Floyd’s death at the hand of a police officer, but what is wrong with this picture?
C'mon, you can't be that oblivious.
George Floyd has effectively been transformed into a symbol. (Based on what happened to him) he was the right guy at the right time. He was a rallying point.
When people 'take a knee' for George Floyd they are taking a knee for what he symbolizes, which is the need for equality.
This is nothing out of the ordinary. There exists many 'great' individuals throughout history who were total POS in their personal lives, yet we iconize them as they’ve become symbols of the ideals we cherish.
-
1
-
-
Ha! Just read Trump deducted $70,000 for styling his hair and $100,000 for Ivanka's hair and makeup artist. My God the comedy just writes itself. The costs of maintaining personal appearance are not deductible. Writing off a hair transplant is entirely illegal.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, JohnboyND7 said:
What happens if you are an executive at Company A and also Company B, and Company A hires company B for X amount of money...who later pays that money to the executive who works for both? Genuine question and not saying that happened here.
Impossible to say without knowing more specifics. That aside, almost all companies have an internal conflict of interest policy that prohibits such a scenario. Shareholders are keen on this. Keep in mind, decisions typically need to be approval by the board of directors. This prevents any single individual from personally benefitting from a transaction. This is business ethics 101. Plus, your scenario is entirely illegal for a public company, or a private company who uses government funds or contracts. (Was the Trump Co. also using government money to fund the Vancouver and Hawaii projects? I don't know). Then there's state laws, laws governing certain types of businesses, etc.
As it pertains to taxes, according to the IRS, the fee arrangement must be an ordinary and necessary part of operating the company. The Trump co. funneling an extravagant amount of money to Ivanka (who also happened to be a Trump co executive) for 'consulting fees' in a construction project is anything but ordinary and necessary. Good lord, that's just blatant shenanigans. If someone owning a small business did the equivalent the IRS would come down like a hammer. But letting illegality slide for the upper 1% is what the IRS does best.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Sioux>Bison said:
What’s your point??? Trump had no control over his business in 2017 so his sons decided to hire their sisters consulting firm? What’s the big deal! It’s their business that they can hire and OU whoever they want!
what isn’t in these tax returns are the Russian payments that Trump was supposedly hiding! So much for that bombshell nothing burger.....
No, they can’t hire whoever they want.
The $747,622 figure came from Ivanka's financial disclosure when she joined the White House in 2017, meaning she was still a company executive when this deal went down. Or as the NYT wrote, Ivanka "had been an executive officer of the Trump companies that received profits from and paid the consulting fees for both projects,".
You cannot be a co-executive (inside the company) and an outside consultant. That consulting-fee arrangement is not legal.
-
3
-
-
In addition to being under investigation for money laundering, this coming out is probably a good reason why Parscale went on his suicidal rampage. His fingerprints are undoubtedly all over it.
-
2 hours ago, Walsh Hall said:
For anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject, how did things de-escalate after the Kent St. shooting and the turmoil of that era? From what I have seen and read, that seemed like a complete tinderbox ready to blow.
Tin soldiers and Nixons coming...
It was a tinderbox. Things erupted everywhere after Kent State. But, life goes on, and things eventually leveled-out within a few weeks.
The difference between now and then? Nixon wasn't fanning the flames, nor 'trolling' protesters at every opportunity. Trump is doing so and it prolongs, eggs-on and exacerbates problems.
Sweet Jesus, I can only imagine the 1960s if Johnson/Nixon acted like Trump. Wow.
-
58 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:
He does make for a good avatar against the American liberal march leftward.
I wouldn't call his voters inherently stupid, although many on both sides are stupid.
Its not really speculation on some of it. He has said he has a goal of getting rid of the Hyde Amendment. And his refusal to answer about the Court seems pretty obvious about his intent, likely doesn't want to scare off independent voters.
Biden/Obama have a specific unity in mind that seems to be rather similar to Donald's, its a "my way or the highway" approach. Barry had his famous lines about "clingers."
I dont think the dude is a commie or anything, but his entire campaign has sort of been structured to lead people to think of some "return to normalcy" but I dont see where that normalcy is supposed to be. If you can't straight up say "we arent adding seats to the Court, that's insane" then you aren't a unifier. If you can't promise that, then you aren't bringing stability, you are practically begging about 25-30 states to consider leaving the Union.
Policy has always been divisive. This is nothing new. In and of itself, our current state of divisiveness doesn't stem from policy. It stems from Trump's intentional use of rhetoric to fan the flames of pre-existing divisions. We have a reality TV star as president who doesn't even pretend to represent the entirety of the nation. He's pitting us against ourselves for his own benefit.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
No the establishment Rep would not have picked Judges like he has. Too many of the Establishment are spineless.
How so? Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are typical republicans.
-
2 minutes ago, Nodak78 said:
He was elected primarily to pick judges and justices, and get the gov't regulations off the backs of small businesses so this country could prosper. He accomplished that. 3 justices on SC. awesome. unleashing energy to create jobs. I would say Biden is the conman. Hunter's money and the rest of the Biden family gaining riches off Daddy's name.
Any other Republican would have done the same.
-
40 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:
I dont see how Biden brings any sort of stability. He's expressed a willingness to expand the Court, getting rid of the Hyde Amendment, etc.
Both of those things fan division more than anything Donald Trump has done; at best, Biden MIGHT slow down some of the unrest in cities because I suspect those folks don't actually care about police brutality, but simply have a beef with who sits in the Oval Office.
That's all speculation at this point. Fact is, not since the civil war have we been this divided; and I lived through the turmoil of the 1960s. We at least had common ground as it pertained to discussion. We don't even have that anymore. This all blew-up tenfold under Trump, he set the tone. Unlike Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, not once has he espoused anything resembling national unity.
-
1
-
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/trump-chapter-11-novel-57bc8f775f9b58cdfd8091dd.jpg)
2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)
in Community
Posted
Everybody involved in these riots are cowards and ***holes, across the board.
That said, it does take a special kind of scaredy-cat to show up at a brawl with a firearm. Top to bottom this seems to be the radical right's mode of operation more so than the radical left's.