Oldrunningguy wrote:
BREAKING: CHAOTIC SCENE JUST BROKE OUT AT THE WH:
Trump explodes at reporter Peter Alexander and threatens to investigate NBC after he presses him about reports he’s keeping the $400M jet from Qatar. This is insane.
Who cares?
-
03
-
Oldrunningguy wrote:
South African President Ramaphosa: “I am sorry I don’t have a plane to give you.”
Trump: “I wish you did. I’d take it.”
What an absolute sh*tshow.
Again - a funny joke!
02 -
agip wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
It takes a liberal to have their head buried so fat up their own ass they can't see the truth.
African-Americans have gotten worse in almost every metric.
Graduation rates, single motherhood, crime...
for the record, in 1960 median african american income was around half of whites.
not sure exactly what it is now, but that gap is a lot less than 50%.
african americans are doing vastly better economically now than in 1960.
Beyond the sheer bizarreness of a former national leader describing his own country as a racist hole, Obama is just plain wrong. Evidence shows that it is simply not true that non-white Americans can’t make it in the US.
This claim is quickly disproven by a look at the Census Bureau’s lists of household income by ethnicity. The wealthiest population group in the US is not white Americans, but rather Indian Americans. This group brings in a median household income of $142,000 annually, in comparison to just under $75,000 for Caucasians. The second-richest group is Taiwanese Americans, who pull down $119,000 per year for each household. In fact, most of the top 10 highest-earning groups (and all of those consistently averaging six figures per year) are racial minorities – Indians, the Taiwanese, Filipinos ($101,000), Pakistanis ($102,000), Sri Lankans ($97,000), Iranians ($96,000) and Chinese Americans ($93,000).
In contrast, one of the poorer groups listed is white Appalachian Americans, at $50,000 per home per year. On the other hand, black immigrants tend to do fairly well, with the Guyanese, Ghanaians, Barbadians, Trinidadians and Nigerians all coming in at above the $70,000 per year mark. Jamaicans ($66,000) and other West Indians ($64,000) also come close. Nigerian immigrants are one of the best-educated groups in the US, ahead of both Asian and white Americans.African Americans do quite a bit worse. However, the median black household income as of 2021 – an Appalachia-like $47,000 – still ranks higher than the median household incomes for the UK, Austria and Italy. In any case, the high earnings of African and Caribbean immigrants demonstrate that African Americans’ low performance cannot be due to racism. Rather, it is largely down to the fact that black households tend to have fewer people in them.
The black single-motherhood / father-absence rate, at least at the time of birth, currently sits at a staggering 77 per cent. Simply put, a family consisting of a single mother and infant will earn less lucre than one that includes a husband, wife and employed teenagers.01 -
Rea11y 0bvi wrote:
Rea11y 0bvi wrote:
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your post but the bolded text seems "off" to me - at least, off in the sense of not appropriately connecting with what I quoted and my post's meaning.
Agip posted: "If democracy survives trump, Dems will have to bend a little and throw the gays, etc under the bus."
To which I replied with the poem.
Agip's "the gays" are the poem's "Communists".
And the people "coming for you" have nothing to do with someone choosing to "(fly) the largest rainbow flag in the neighborhood" or not to. The people "coming for you" are the Trumpettes as they consolidate power under a god-king.
Sorry, neglected to bold the text.
My guess is that the three of us basically agree.
1 - Your poem was about very bad people coming for certain people and other people not standing up for them.
2 - My “large flag” comment is about just how hard one advocates for oppressed groups in situations not as grave as described in #1.
3 - I believe that Agip was referring to #2 in his statement, but using the phrase “throw under the bus” COULD be taken as referring to more of a #1 situation/action.
00 -
trump2028 ~# wrote:
The black single-motherhood / father-absence rate, at least at the time of birth, currently sits at a staggering 77 per cent. Simply put, a family consisting of a single mother and infant will earn less lucre than one that includes a husband, wife and employed teenagers.
That is by far the biggest issue in the black community. It's not "racism" or white people. It's not anything "systematic." It's not a lack of opportunities. Do better men, pick your mates better women.
13 -
agip wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
It takes a liberal to have their head buried so fat up their own ass they can't see the truth.
African-Americans have gotten worse in almost every metric.
Graduation rates, single motherhood, crime...
for the record, in 1960 median african american income was around half of whites.
not sure exactly what it is now, but that gap is a lot less than 50%.
african americans are doing vastly better economically now than in 1960.
Go ask the 70+% of black kids with no father if they'd rather have mom making $5k more a year or having a father and see what they say.
04 -
BillionairesForHire wrote:
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Democrats much prefer to take these bribes in secret and then lie about them.
Boeing took a contract to produce 2 Air Force 1 planes in 2018 for $3.9 billion.
So far they've spent $2.4 billion to make these aircraft that aren't worth anywhere near $1 billion in value and they are already 3 years behind schedule.
Can you please explain to us how this Boeing contract that is behind schedule is a bribe and who was bribed? How does it relate to Boeing plane being gifted to Trump, other than the word Boeing?
Come on, I think that you’re being disingenuous. It’s LONG been accepted that THE best way to address big and longstanding military contracting problems is for presidents to accept huge, unprecedented, inappropriate gifts from oil kings.
40 -
Nnonequalsweek1001 wrote:
BillionairesForHire wrote:
Can you please explain to us how this Boeing contract that is behind schedule is a bribe and who was bribed? How does it relate to Boeing plane being gifted to Trump, other than the word Boeing?
Come on, I think that you’re being disingenuous. It’s LONG been accepted that THE best way to address big and longstanding military contracting problems is for presidents to accept huge, unprecedented, inappropriate gifts from oil kings.
I actually think Trump may be onto something. Using sanctions, military threats, etc. to try and stop horrible regimes from gaining power in the world has not proven to be effective. But if you run a grift where you pretend like you are going to do whatever these regimes want in exchange for massive bribes in the form of aircraft, crypto deals, etc., you will eventually run up such a huge grift bill for these regimes that they will collapse financially, causing a popular democratic uprising to overthrow corrupt monarchies. 12 dimensional chess . . . .
22 -
Nnonequalsweek1001 wrote:
BillionairesForHire wrote:
Can you please explain to us how this Boeing contract that is behind schedule is a bribe and who was bribed? How does it relate to Boeing plane being gifted to Trump, other than the word Boeing?
Come on, I think that you’re being disingenuous. It’s LONG been accepted that THE best way to address big and longstanding military contracting problems is for presidents to accept huge, unprecedented, inappropriate gifts from oil kings.
It is funny, though, because while I can pretty easily remember a good handful of well-publicized, badly over-budget and behind-schedule military hardware programs over the decades, I’m having a hard time matching them all up with the corresponding president who got a massive gift from a foreign government in an apparent attempt to fix it.
Weird. But I’m sure that they’ll come to me.
30 -
Precious Roy wrote:
Nnonequalsweek1001 wrote:
Come on, I think that you’re being disingenuous. It’s LONG been accepted that THE best way to address big and longstanding military contracting problems is for presidents to accept huge, unprecedented, inappropriate gifts from oil kings.
I actually think Trump may be onto something. Using sanctions, military threats, etc. to try and stop horrible regimes from gaining power in the world has not proven to be effective. But if you run a grift where you pretend like you are going to do whatever these regimes want in exchange for massive bribes in the form of aircraft, crypto deals, etc., you will eventually run up such a huge grift bill for these regimes that they will collapse financially, causing a popular democratic uprising to overthrow corrupt monarchies. 12 dimensional chess . . . .
"Russia has infiltrated the White House" - Congrats on the most ridiculous statement of the year.
44 -
This quoted post has been removed.
That'd be quite a revelation. I'd actually be surprised. But have no doubt that gnarly, eddy, adolt, and a host of others are the same person.
62 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Did you forget how this started?
I asked one of these anti-woke crusaders if it’s bad for students today to learn that lynching didn’t become a federal crime until 2022.
You then stepped in and said that only a few black people were lynched and that white people were actually lynched more.
Then I posted the actual historical data showing that black people made up the very large majority of all lynching victims and that 3265 people were lynched over 58 years, to which you replied that it was not a significant number over that time frame.
I then asked if a similar number of American deaths from terrorism over 30 years was significant enough to you or not.
The issue in question here, which you have missed or chosen to ignore, isn’t what is now a largely symbolic vote on the Emmett Till Anti-lynching Bill, decades after reforms baked into the Civil Rights Act and the national spotlight on the issue helped end the era of lynching, but rather did those deaths at the time merit federal intervention, the same way the deaths and risk of death by terrorism today merit federal intervention today?
Is there something wrong with teaching that black people were lynched and were terrified of being lynched for stepping out of their subjugated place in society for decades, and is it wrong to learn about what the long term effects were when we speak about the modern state of black people in the US today, both in terms of socioeconomic status and policing? How much potential generational wealth burned up in Tulsa in 1921 and why isn’t every high school student in America learning about it?
The problem with it is that the intention isn't to educate it is to indoctrinate and keep racism alive so you can exploit it for politics.
It is isn't a coincidence that even the black Republicans are called racist by the democrats.
The state of black people in the US today is largely a product of Democrats destroying the black family and doing everything they can to teach young black kids that 100% of the problems in their lives are caused by white people.
Democrats have been a cancer on the black community.
It’s indoctrination to selectively teach about all that happened on our way here.
You’ve got ignorant racists who think that black people are just shiftless and largely incapable of advancing in society and who have no clue of centuries of work in subjugating them. From slavery to share cropping to Plessy v Ferguson to the Klan to lynching to massacres like Tulsa to Jim Crow, the government at varying levels was working to tip the scales towards the people in power.
Black veterans were denied GI Bill benefits.
Black home buyers were red listed and also forced into inferior facilities with far fewer opportunities for education.
Black citizens didn’t have the protection of but did feel the threat of law enforcement.
The effects of what was once legal racial subjugation are still felt today.
Black people on average receive criminal sentences 20% longer than others:
Black people, on average, have a more difficult time acquiring funding for their businesses:
And MAGA led governments don’t want kids to learn about history because they’re worried it will make them feel bad
LBJ and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 destroyed black families by, what? Making sure that public businesses couldn’t refuse them service?
I’ve been down this road with you before, where you’re going to say that none of the facts that I’ve cited matter and that what the evil Democrats’ plan has been since 1933 to get black people hooked on government services and handouts and thus the Democratic Party. Except that’s not really the case, is it?
In September 1932, Robert Vann, the editor of the Pittsburgh Courier, a leading Black newspaper for the first half of the 20th Century, made an endorsement of FDR, saying, “turn Lincoln’s picture to the wall. The debt has been paid.” This was after three years of non-intervention from the Hoover administration and Hoover went so far as to refuse to be photographed with black people until a month after Vann’s endorsement of FDR.
But even after the implementation of the New Deal, many of the programs didn’t benefit black people. Farmers were paid to not produce, so farm owners in the south got government subsidies that they didn’t distribute to their black sharecroppers. Black businesses couldn’t afford to participate in the National Recovery Administration and black applicants were bypassed for white ones in the New Deal’s job programs. It wasn’t until after a lot of direct petitioning from letters, as well as prodding from Eleanor Roosevelt, that FDR and some of the Democratic Party started to listen to the actual pleas of the black community began to actually bring on black voices and perspectives into the government, including Vann, Eugene K. Jones, Robert Weaver and Mary McLeod Bethune. And despite much resistance in their departments and little direct contact with FDR, except for McLeod Bethune, they ended up making substantive differences for black people across the nation. The WPA got education and job opportunities out to more black people, agricultural relief came from resettlement programs and for the first time, anti-discrimination clauses went into federal contracts. That is why these black leaders then made the case to their communities that FDR must be re-elected if they’re going to continue their progress.
Now go ahead and tell me why all that is BS and FDR and the Democrats were really bad for the black community.
61 -
TheAdultInTheRoom wrote:
It takes a liberal to have their head buried so fat up their own ass they can't see the truth.
For the record, this is a classic example why I have joined the ranks of level-headed participants who almost never read this discussion thread anymore.
Aside from the fact that this person is utilizing the most inaccurate screen name in the LRC community, regardless of your political leanings, what do you hope to accomplish with petulant, vulgar attacks like this?60 -
Precious Roy wrote:
Nnonequalsweek1001 wrote:
Come on, I think that you’re being disingenuous. It’s LONG been accepted that THE best way to address big and longstanding military contracting problems is for presidents to accept huge, unprecedented, inappropriate gifts from oil kings.
I actually think Trump may be onto something. Using sanctions, military threats, etc. to try and stop horrible regimes from gaining power in the world has not proven to be effective. But if you run a grift where you pretend like you are going to do whatever these regimes want in exchange for massive bribes in the form of aircraft, crypto deals, etc., you will eventually run up such a huge grift bill for these regimes that they will collapse financially, causing a popular democratic uprising to overthrow corrupt monarchies. 12 dimensional chess . . . .
it's a version of the 80s cold war strategy that worked against the USSR: the US started a very expensive arms race that the USSR couldn't afford, and let it drive them into collapse and revolution when the price of oil fell below a certain level.
Cool, I think trump is onto something and we should welcome more bribes and emoluments to him as a way to impoverish the world and make trump richer.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.30 -
Precious Roy wrote:
I actually think Trump may be onto something. Using sanctions, military threats, etc. to try and stop horrible regimes from gaining power in the world has not proven to be effective. But if you run a grift where you pretend like you are going to do whatever these regimes want in exchange for massive bribes in the form of aircraft, crypto deals, etc., you will eventually run up such a huge grift bill for these regimes that they will collapse financially, causing a popular democratic uprising to overthrow corrupt monarchies. 12 dimensional chess . . . .
Again. Trump is unorthodox but you can’t deny the results.
04
5 posts were removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.