Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man part II

[Kutnupe14]

BLM Activists Suggest We Should 'Start Killing' All White People | The Red Elephants

A shocking interview from the George Floyd memorial in Minneapolis reveals how many Black Americans think about White people in the US. During the collection of interviews, journalist and filmmaker Ami Horowitz asked several people who were attending the memorial about their thoughts on burning...

theredelephants.com

It's right here for you to see.
But just like Biden's policy website, you'll refuse to look because it doesn't suit your narrative and you can claim ignorance.

Well if 13% of the population is able to wipe out the majority population, while at the same time killing themselves in appalling numbers, then I can only suspect that Darwinism is at play.

 

[Tombs]

Well if 13% of the population is able to wipe out the majority population, while at the same time killing themselves in appalling numbers, then I can only suspect that Darwinism is at play.

So your argument is that because they are a minority they can't conduct a genocide?
Hello, I'll take what is apartheid for $200.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The meaning of federalism has changed over time. During the first decades of the republic, many politicians held that states’ rights allowed states to disobey any national government that in their view exceeded its powers. Such a doctrine was largely discredited after the Civil War. Then dual federalism, a clear division of labor between national and state government, became the dominant doctrine. During the New Deal of the 1930s, cooperative federalism, whereby federal and state governments work together to solve problems, emerged and held sway until the 1960s. Since then, the situation is summarized by the term competitive federalism, whereby responsibilities are assigned based on whether the national government or the state is thought to be best able to handle the task. So a lot has changed since our country started and so have the meanings. One could say that this current Federal Government is operating way outside it's constitutional constraints.


You better read the Magna Carta again you are way off.

You can’t argue “things have changed over the years,” and then cite a 800+ year old document and expect its meaning then, should remain constant today.

 

[jamil]

Well feel free to explain your position. Im not telling you how you think. Im sharing with you non disputable historical facts. Jury of your peers originally meant anyone who wasnt the King. What do you mean leftists changed our system of government?

No. It meant that accused nobles would have juries made up of nobles. So not just anyone. But the purpose was that it would be "peers", not the king. So I think this isn't a good argument. I think a better argument was the one where you brought forth that only white male land owners could serve on juries. That's obviously not fair.

Here's an interesting thought. What unintended classes are we making now? In most areas the jury pool is selected from registered voters. So that's kinda restricting jurors to the class of people who register to vote. That's changing but still a lot of jurisdictions pull jury pools from registered voter lists.

 

[DadSmith]

You can’t argue “things have changed over the years,” and then cite a 800+ year old document and expect its meaning then, should remain constant today.

It was used to frame our constitution. The constitution doesn't change except for amendments added. If you do not read it and understand it in the language used in its day then you falsely interpret its meaning.

 

[jamil]

Well if 13% of the population is able to wipe out the majority population, while at the same time killing themselves in appalling numbers, then I can only suspect that Darwinism is at play.

You seem to be approaching this like a person who's looking to win an argument on the internet. You'll choose what you think are catchy quips to avoid having to deal with the actual subject. The problem isn't that white genocide is around the corner. It's that a growing number of people are beginning to mainstream the idea. That means it's getting to be okay to say it, where it was once (rightly) socially unacceptable. Just a few years ago that kind of talk would have resulted in social censure. But it appears to be acceptable to people on the left that other people on the left say it with impunity. That's a problem. If I'm to take you seriously, and not just some guy trying to score points on the internet, I'd like to see you acknowledge that.

 

[DadSmith]

I highly recommend everyone read this book.

Amazon product ASIN 0916308367

The U.S. Constitution: A Reader|eBook

Featuring 113 primary source documents, The U.S. Constitution: A Reader was developed for teaching the core course on the U.S. Constitution at Hillsdale College.Divided into eleven sections with introductions by members of Hillsdale's Politics Department faculty, readings cover:...

m.barnesandnoble.com

Hillsdale College Bookstore

bookstore.hillsdale.edu

 

[Tombs]

You seem to be approaching this like a person who's looking to win an argument on the internet. You'll choose what you think are catchy quips to avoid having to deal with the actual subject. The problem isn't that white genocide is around the corner. It's that a growing number of people are beginning to mainstream the idea. That means it's getting to be okay to say it, where it was once (rightly) socially unacceptable. Just a few years ago that kind of talk would have resulted in social censure. But it appears to be acceptable to people on the left that other people on the left say it with impunity. That's a problem. If I'm to take you seriously, and not just some guy trying to score points on the internet, I'd like to see you acknowledge that.

No kidding, no one is claiming there's ****ing gas chambers and camps.
We're pointing out that this is ON THE MINDS of the people seeking authority over the public.

And saying a minority can't oppress a majority is insanity, unless the person wants to deny the existence of South Africa.

 

[jamil]

You can’t argue “things have changed over the years,” and then cite a 800+ year old document and expect its meaning then, should remain constant today.

The Magna Carta is important in terms of understanding the root of how our government came to be, and the principles behind it. It's age has no real bearing on that. There are some timeless principles that may be translated to whatever is the age of discourse. What he said about federalism is true. But I don't think all that has much relevance in the topic of peers.

 

[DadSmith]

The Magna Carta is important in terms of understanding the root of how our government came to be, and the principles behind it. It's age has no real bearing on that. There are some timeless principles that may be translated to whatever is the age of discourse. What he said about federalism is true. But I don't think all that has much relevance in the topic of peers.

I'm trying to point out how our government including the justice system has changed from what it should be to where it is now. That's why I brought it into this debate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You seem to be approaching this like a person who's looking to win an argument on the internet. You'll choose what you think are catchy quips to avoid having to deal with the actual subject. The problem isn't that white genocide is around the corner. It's that a growing number of people are beginning to mainstream the idea. That means it's getting to be okay to say it, where it was once (rightly) socially unacceptable. Just a few years ago that kind of talk would have resulted in social censure. But it appears to be acceptable to people on the left that other people on the left say it with impunity. That's a problem. If I'm to take you seriously, and not just some guy trying to score points on the internet, I'd like to see you acknowledge that.

Baloney. Stupid people say stupid things. That’s always been the same. When a random White person is caught on video saying something stupid, I’m like “well, they’re stupid,” and I keep moving. I certainly don’t say, “some random dude made a video about killing black people, that means the White folks are organizing to kill us!” I could post ad nauseam White people saying dumb things. Never minding the fact that this forum would burst into a chorus or “he’s baiting,” if I did so, in tit for tat fashion, akin to VAST amounts of the opposite position being propagated, but difference is, I don’t think that type of talk is representative of White people on whole, part, or even scratching the surface.

 

[Tombs]

Baloney. Stupid people say stupid things. That’s always been the same. When a random White person is caught on video saying something stupid, I’m like “well, they’re stupid,” and I keep moving. I certainly don’t say, “some random dude made a video about killing black people, that means the White folks are organizing to kill us!” I could post ad nauseam White people saying dumb things. Never minding the fact that this forum would burst into a chorus or “he’s baiting,” if I did so, in tit for tat fashion, akin to VAST amounts of the opposite position being propagated, but difference is, I don’t think that type of talk is representative of White people on whole, part, or even scratching the surface.

Except that this group of people have acted on those crazy words to massive consequences before.

I don't take it as "crazy talk" anymore.
Before they started doing this, yeah it was just "crazy talk."

 

[kickbacked]

The meaning of federalism has changed over time. During the first decades of the republic, many politicians held that states’ rights allowed states to disobey any national government that in their view exceeded its powers. Such a doctrine was largely discredited after the Civil War. Then dual federalism, a clear division of labor between national and state government, became the dominant doctrine. During the New Deal of the 1930s, cooperative federalism, whereby federal and state governments work together to solve problems, emerged and held sway until the 1960s. Since then, the situation is summarized by the term competitive federalism, whereby responsibilities are assigned based on whether the national government or the state is thought to be best able to handle the task. So a lot has changed since our country started and so have the meanings. One could say that this current Federal Government is operating way outside it's constitutional constraints.


You better read the Magna Carta again you are way off.

I think you better reread it if thats what you want our justice system to be.
Also pretty incredible that the left changed all that.

 

[jamil]

Baloney. Stupid people say stupid things. That’s always been the same. When a random White person is caught on video saying something stupid, I’m like “well, they’re stupid,” and I keep moving. I certainly don’t say, “some random dude made a video about killing black people, that means the White folks are organizing to kill us!” I could post ad nauseam White people saying dumb things. Never minding the fact that this forum would burst into a chorus or “he’s baiting,” if I did so, in tit for tat fashion, akin to VAST amounts of the opposite position being propagated, but difference is, I don’t think that type of talk is representative of White people on whole, part, or even scratching the surface.

Stupid people have always said stupid things and in a properly functioning society they get rebuffed for it. When people say bat **** crazy things and they're cheered on by segments of society, that leads to escalating acceptance.

There was a time and region that it was socially acceptable to talk about killing Blacks. It was not a properly functioning society then. But that kind of talk, and the actions which came after, became more fringe over the last several decades because it became socially unacceptable to say such things, and of course doing such things. Again, I'm not worried about being genocided. I'm worried the nation is ripping apart as the bat **** crazy talk moves into mainstream. A sitting US congress woman threatened violence if she didn't get the verdict she wanted. That's ****ing crazy.

And all you want to do is blow it off like it's not happening.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think you better reread it if thats what you want our justice system to be.
Also pretty incredible that the left changed all that.

Anarchy it seems to me. I can’t wrap my head around these “jury of your peers,” beliefs. Can some give me a hypothetical ? Let’s say a less affluent Black guy from the Southside of Chicago is accused of beating a White businessman he got into a fight with. What peers sit on his jury?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Stupid people have always said stupid things and in a properly functioning society they get rebuffed for it. When people say bat **** crazy things and they're cheered on by segments of society, that leads to escalating acceptance.

There was a time and region that it was socially acceptable to talk about killing Blacks. It was not a properly functioning society then. But that kind of talk, and the actions which came after, became more fringe over the last several decades because it became socially unacceptable to say such things, and of course doing such things. Again, I'm not worried about being genocided. I'm worried the nation is ripping apart as the bat **** crazy talk moves into mainstream. A sitting US congress woman threatened violence if she didn't get the verdict she wanted. That's ****ing crazy.

And all you want to do is blow it off like it's not happening.

And this one?

Gohmert suggests ‘violence in the streets’ after judge rejects bid to force VP Pence to overturn Biden’s win

Updated at 8 p.m. with appeals court siding against Gohmert. East Texas congressman Louie Gohmert suggested that “violence in the streets” may be the only...

www.google.com

I’m more versed in American history, apparently. ‘Cause I’m not scared, and neither should you be. Now if it was the late 60s and 70s, you might have a valid point. Have not been exposed to the climate of those times? Not talked to anyone who lived though it. Ask them if they thought things were worse then or now... when cities actually DID burn.

 

[jamil]

I think you better reread it if thats what you want our justice system to be.
Also pretty incredible that the left changed all that.

We have a conflict of visions I think. Not that I think juries have to be totally biased towards the accused. Justice is balanced. But I want a more federal system. I want most of the laws written by the people closest to me where I can hold them most accountable. It's okay if Colorado wants to legalize MJ. The fed should mind their own ****ing business, for example. And I don't even smoke that ****. But I think if a state decides their people should have that right, let 'er rip and the rest of us will see how that works out. I do think incorporation of the BoR is a positive thing overall, though it has some negatives. But what I like about it is that it does require a sane boundary of what states can or can't do. So there is a limit to federalism. A state in the US should not be allowed to tyrannize it's people.

 

[jamil]

And this one?

Gohmert suggests ‘violence in the streets’ after judge rejects bid to force VP Pence to overturn Biden’s win

Updated at 8 p.m. with appeals court siding against Gohmert. East Texas congressman Louie Gohmert suggested that “violence in the streets” may be the only...

www.google.com

I’m more versed in American history, apparently. ‘Cause I’m not scared, and neither should you be. Now if it was the late 60s and 70s, you might have a valid point. Have not been exposed to the climate of those times? Not talked to anyone who lived though it. Ask them if they thought things were worse then or now... when cities actually DID burn.

Gomert doesn't have the power to make good on those promises of violence. The right has no institutional power. The left has demonstrated all throughout the past year that it does. It has the ability to make riots on demand.

I lived through those times in the 70s. It was a bad time. We don't have the fringe commie groups blowing **** up like we had then. But then we didn't have the constant rioting violently across the country every night for several months like we did last year and even still.

There were protests and many turned violent then. It wasn't widespread as it is now. Another difference in the 60/70s. They were all fringe who were doing that ****. This is becoming more mainstream. A few years ago, I thought the same things you're saying now. That yeah, this is getting pretty bad, but the early 70s were worse. 2020 was a turning point. This **** is getting mainstream. I'm not sure if you're just trying to blow it off or if you're naive.

 

[DadSmith]

I think you better reread it if thats what you want our justice system to be.
Also pretty incredible that the left changed all that.

I want our justice system to have impartial jurors as stated in the 6th amendment. We do not have impartial jurors anymore. One of the reasons is because they are not a person's peer who is on trial. As it is now the prosecution fills the jury with a jury that is far from impartial. In that respect they are violating the 6th Amendment.

 

[jamil]

Anarchy it seems to me. I can’t wrap my head around these “jury of your peers,” beliefs. Can some give me a hypothetical ? Let’s say a less affluent Black guy from the Southside of Chicago is accused of beating a White businessman he got into a fight with. What peers sit on his jury?

I think I might have started this part of the conversation. I wasn't saying that one must have a jury who is made up of people just like him/her/zer/otherkin.

To answer your question, I think it'd be fair to have some Black people on the jury. Some white people. Some less affluent people overall. Maybe some affluent businessmen? A cross-section. Not all Black. Not all white. Not all rich. Not all poor. But hopefully at least a few people who understand the person. And maybe a few people who understand the alleged victim. Hopefully the lawyers involved would hash that out to get that kind of makeup on the jury.