Bitcoin Forum

I feel like the democrats buried this in the past to protect his career.

Theres a near 100% chance that photo was seen by everyone in that yearbook.  Who is the other person in the racist photo? Who was the editor? Who was the faculty member who oversaw the publishing of that book?  Who else was in the yearbook, knew about the photo and never exposed it?  

We need to find all of these people and out them on the internet.  It is very important that POC know if their healthcare providers are 35 year KKK sympathizers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/us/politics/ralph-northam-yearbook-blackface.html

Of course. Just like that ANTIFA guy who brought a gun to school and drew it on the police who shot and killed him.

He didn't go to the school to shoot people up. He was carrying. It was a custody dispute over his kid. He was asked to leave. He didn't. He got into a scuffle, drew a gun on the police and was killed.

I bet you if he was an NRA member wearing a MAGA hat this would have been front page news.

https://youtu.be/z3HkIyekLpM

Same line of thinking I had though, I don't understand why this sort of thing had to come up now. It was without a doubt a horrible thing to have in a yearbook then, imagine all the times' someone was going through their yearbooks in the past years (I know some people do it every so often) and thought, 'oh, this isn't alright'

People that knew him knew about it. He knew he did it, and he knew that it would probably haunt him at some point. I just don't know why it took this long to come out, or what triggered it to come out. As he has been in politics for some time now, it could've been used to hurt him before.

Some of his political opponents knew about the photo for several months but were unable to publish it because they were unable to verify the photo.

It appears that someone decided to roll the dice with the photo after his comments defending the killing of babies.

Is this where you damage control and limp wristedly condemn these people because you were forced to by being exposed so you don't look hypocritical?

1 day after apologizing, he is now saying its not him and he has no idea how the photo got there.  Wow.

I have no idea what this means or who it is directed towards. 

Same thoughts here. This is a medical school yearbook, possessed by what I would assume was every member of that graduating class. There is no way in God's green Earth that this wasn't an open secret among the alumni; and given the nature of opposition research, beyond the shadow of a doubt someone had this. Dems gambled and lost with this one; Ralph is burnt in the public and needs to gtfo LOL. There are too many other people qualified for the job, both Republican and Democrat (although I'm rooting for the Dems short term).

Now, as a black person, I'm not offended by this one bit; honestly I think the shit is a bit funny. To be clear, its racist as fuck and he isn't deserving of the office, but in my eyes It is perfectly fine to wear whatever the fuck you want to a private event.

You also have to look at this in context. I'm more concerned at the fact a school would publish some shit like this in a publically accessible yearbook that was duplicated, and then distributed. Ralph is like, fucking Sambo black in a top hat standing next to a fully costumed White Knight. It's like a bad joke setup ( a minstrel and a Klansman walk into a bar 😂) Clearly this was ok among the people that he associated with; this is a pretty good example of institutional racism in that this wasnt a deal when it happened. It was funny enough to put in a yearbook. Guess it's not so hilarious any more 😉

I defend the right of white people to put on shoe polish and look like a damned fool because at the end of the day, if I want to powder up like a ghost and wear overalls and fake rotten teeth. I will. I reserve that right, if you will. No intention to use it, but damned if it will be taken away from me. But I do understand the repercussions of doing something like this in the public eye. You reap what you sow; this is why I have no problem with freedom of speech. Society has mechanisms in place to self regulate shit like this already (shaming, loss of livelihood, shunning). This is a perfect example of that.

Bye Ralph! Soft shoe right on out the fucking door and dont let it hit you in the ass on the way out 😂🤣

I see, so blackface is acceptable, but smirking while wearing a MAGA hat in public is deserving of death threats and harassment of children is it?

Its a major strawman.  Not one person ever defended the death threats made on Covington kids. You only know about deaths threats from some fringe elements and act like its the media and mainstream left that made them.

Yezzir. They are all fine as long as you are willing to accept the consequences of your public actions. I would argue that being at an anti abortion rally is an inherently political act; there are no children here good sir. I see protesters. Just like I see immigrants in detention, not just kids in cages LOL. There are grown fucking men and women in cages as well, they are equally important to me as the kids.

Children dont have to worry about reproductive rights, should they? Dont you think that's a bit of an adult topic? Let me find out I am practically more conservative than you 😏 you damned hippy 😂

Wearing a MAGA hat is a political statement at the moment. Just like wearing a BLM shirt is. Or a pussy hat. I'm black and my life matters a fucking lot in my opinion, but I'll be damned if I wear a shirt like that out in my hyper rural, North Carolina, conservative community. If I did, ultimately I would hold myself responsible because I know exactly what the fuck would happen should I attempt some foolishness like that. Pick battles you can win, or at least influence in some way. Lost causes are an inefficient use of time.

Also, please requote me, I changed the last post you responded to a bit.

Oh is it? I thought the MAGA hat according to you is some racist symbol. So the MAGA hat is a racist symbol but actual blackface is not? The very fact that many people are making death threats by definition means people are defending the death threats on the Covington kids. In fact your buddy here just did. It is not just the fringe elements, but also elements such as yourselves backing up this narrative of justified retribution for... for what exactly no one has been able to detail... but they were wearing MAGA hats and they are white so they must be guilty of something right? The mainstream media is ABSOLUTELY complicit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DqgAzhuRVc) as they not only reported lies, they they doubled and TRIPLED down reporting even more fake stories about these kids in the hopes to distract from the fact the original report WAS A LIE. Don't worry this will all be proven in court (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPC566yq5E0). This is what a real journalist does when they report false information here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZw69BGrQT0).




The consequences of WHAT ACTIONS. Why not hold this person who shares your political values responsible for his actions wearing actual blackface? Why is it these boys are held responsible for ???, and the media, the left, and everyone calling for attacks and harassing these kids are not responsible for their incompetence, threats, and actual crimes? So, they are politically engaged in an opinion you do not agree with, so that justifies these attacks on them how? Crossing the border illegally is a crime, that is why they are in cages, this is not an argument.

I disagree with your baseless slander against certain regions, but for the sake of argument lets say there is a K.K.K. town U.S.A. That town and the people in it still have to obey the law. Now while you might be well advised to not go there, if you chose to do so YOU WOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT to, and if people committed crimes to prevent you from doing so THEY should be held responsible for THEIR actions. Your reasoning is invalid, and this is the definition of double standards via the lens of Critical Theory. Some face criminals are more equal than others I guess.

Many actions, both wearing the hats, and even being at an event like this in the first place.  

Again, many conservative voices shit on these kids as well, very publically. You seem to keep forgetting that.

And again, I view these political protesters as just that. You offer up your opinion, the public decides how to respond to it. Just like this forum.

I didn't know I was slandering anybody. I'm just pointing out some inconvenient truths. Surely you have the right to say and do whatever you would like, as long as it is within the law. But with that said, go scream nigger in downtown Chicago and see how far those "constitutionally protected rights" get you before someone breaks a foot off in your ass.

There is a such thing as being "dead right".

I try not to play with situations that needlessly endanger my being with no perceivable gain. My fellow community members dont need to know my political affiliation in the first place, they dont pay my bills or fuck me, so they are irrelevant. No need to offend those fine folks; political beliefs are a personal thing, and everyone is entitled to their own. I gain nothing by making what I consider a personal thing known publically. Why antagonize those people like that? I consider that trolling; I would be going against norms for the personal satisfaction of self expression.

And that's why wearing maga hats is pretty dumb at the moment. If what you believe is true, you are literally painting a target on your back so that those "crazed, deranged and violent" liberals (cuz Antifa is on every corner, watching LOL) will direct said craziness and violence on you for your assumed beliefs. Is wearing a non descript red hat really worth that? If liberals are as dangerous as you say, who in their right mind would endanger themselves like that knowingly? All to be able to say "well I let those damned socialist have a piece of my mind!"

A damned fool.

We can go on about this. I still give zero fucks about the Covington sitch. Don't think of me as left or right on this particular topic, I'm more like the Canadian guy that sees this in the paper, goes "meh" and turns to the sport section. It is a non issue to me. No dog in the fight.


Also, you dont read well, are outraged beyond logic, or are intentionally misrepresenting my statements. I clearly condemned him in blackface, and suggested he abdicate the office. Methinks you protest too much.

And how do you apply for asylum, without crossing the border? So you are saying the act of seeking asylum is inherently illegal? One thing to get caught sneaking in, lock their ass up until they are released where they came from. But since you are the moral authority in this conversation, can you tell me why it's ok to detain someone indefinitely that comes here seeking help at a legal point of entry?

You were aware that this is what is happening, right? Crossing the border illegally is indeed a crime. But that's not what all these people are doing. They are presenting themselves to border security, in order to apply for asylum.

And why spend money detaining non citizens? Certainly not to line the pockets of the prison conglomerate, that's just crazy talk. Its because those evil immigrants are raping everyone and bringing in all the drugs LOL. Cant trust those wily bastards 😉

Whataboutism. But it is not the truth. A political opinion in the form of a hat is not equivalent to screaming racial slurs. So because you choose not to share your political views, no one else should have a right to? I love the nice touch of how you simultaneously say it is dumb to wear a MAGA hat because some one might attack you and then talk about ANTIFA like they are a mythical creature and not a designated terrorist organization responsible for organizing many violent acts. You get the gold for mental gymnastics for today.

"And how do you apply for asylum, without crossing the border?" LOL. Could you display your ignorance on this subject any more clearly? There are lots of ways, such as approaching a checkpoint and filling out an application, a US consulate in their nation, as well as various NGOs who I am sure would be more than happy to help.

P.S. If you are going to use Shakespeare quotes don't mangle them and the intended meaning.

Actually, you are displaying your own ignorance. I dont talk about shit I haven't researched, that's how you look foolish ;) Educate yourself, from the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services:

https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-united-states


So again I ask, how is it illegal to cross the border to seek asylum? Me being so uninformed and all that, I'm sure you can set me straight. I thought I was literate, but meh.

And I quit with the MAGA hat discussion. I concede, you win. You aren't arguing with me in good faith, you are talking at me. And I apologize for the long post, FH has gotten on me for double posting in the past, so I try to say everything in one go. I appreciate your patience, sincerely.

Lets just put aside the fact the US consulates are for all intensive purposes are legally US soil and are venues for legally applying for asylum, as are border checkpoints.

Are there any on topic subjects you would like to discuss?

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Notice I'm not using ad hominems to attack you and your demonstrably false statement. I'd appreciate the same, if you will good sir.

Anyway, turns out you cant apply for asylum in consulates, just like the CIS government webpage I linked to said (perplexing, that).

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/how-obtain-protection-us-embassy-consulate.html


Presenting oneself to a border checkpoint is exactly what these people are doing. So for the final time, I fail to see how seeking asylum in that manner is illegal. It's literally the law. But yet they are still being detained indefinitely.


Nope, I'm good. But do swing by my thread about the new abortion law, would love to hear your opinion.

So, once again, what is stopping them from applying at a port of entry? Crossing the border any place other than an authorized checkpoint is a crime regardless of your endless equivocation. You don't seem to know what the meaning of an ad hominem is, so please stop using that term, at least until you understand what it means. This is way off subject anyway. It is almost like you know you can't win a debate about the topic at hand so you need to keep bringing up countless other red herrings to argue about to distract from this. After all, you can't have anyone looking too close at how these double standards are applied to "your team" with zero accountability, and how violence is excused against "the other".

Most of what I've seen on the illegals is they cross the border one way or another; often just walk across at a major city, then take up a job at their buddy's taco joint and don't go back.

All this talk about filling out forms and legal procedures, that's just not how these people think.

I couldn't care less what's in a 35 year old yearbook.

Actually many liberals, including some in the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party were calling for violence against these kids.

I'll admit I was wrong when I see it then.

It is hard to see things when you don't even bother looking...

Like, what is not clear about this? Are you pretending not to understand this to not admit you were wrong? Point of entry = border checkpoint. Any place you can apply for asylum, is within the borders of the US. You cannot seek asylum without coming into the US. They come to the points of entry, we hold them. And apparently, even if they did sneak across the border, they would still be correctly applying for asylum.

This is not fake news. I am purposely using non biased, official sources to point out a fact. What I'm saying is real. You can read it yourself. You speak English fine, what gives? I have never ran up against this type of cognitive dissonance before.

@Spendulus, I thought so myself (the majority of border crossings were out in the desert, next to a random cactus), until I took a look at the actual DHS brief from 2017, via a Washington post article. I trust very little people tell me, so I read the brief myself. To save you some time, start at page 15 if you read it (it's a snoozefest)
The Wapo article is right. More people actually cross "legally" than illegally.
I will say, clearly they dont know who they dont catch, but among those they do have records for, far more come through a point of entry than those that say fuck it and sneak in.

Let me cite the Wapo article and the brief:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0914_estimates-of-border-security.pdf

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/25/most-immigrants-who-enter-the-country-do-so-legally-federal-data-show/



ad ho·mi·nem
/ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
adverb
1.
in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem" (IRONIC!!)


You are in a Northam thread talking with me about this. If you look back, I only mentioned this to show how I dont differentiate members of classes. You refuted me, saying crossing a border for asylum is illegal, and I corrected you, with cited material. LOL, why dont you 'bold' the on topic parts again for us?


Yep. Democrats are sainted angels, and they all smell like roses 🙄

You are purposely conflating the difference between crossing the border illegally and legally going to a point of entry. They are not the same thing no matter how much you equivocate. The point being it is not a requirement to illegally enter the country to file for asylum. Nothing is wrong with enforcing border policy no matter how many appeals to emotion you make about it.

You make claims that more people cross illegally than illegally. Tell me, how do you measure illegal undocumented crossings? Even if you can your argument is invalid. It is like saying most robberies are muggings and not pickpockets, so we shouldn't bother stopping pickpockets.

I am not interested in your virtue signalling about classes. I am interested in having an on topic discussion about this event and how it clearly demonstrates double standards you and others hold as you excuse violence for imaginary face and hat related crimes.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement-en.svg.png

That is not a complete definition... nor was what I said an ad hominem attack. Pointing out your ignorance on a subject with reasoning and supporting evidence is a counter argument at least.

We agree to disagree then. I cant be more clear about this, and I'm clearly not making this up, it's literally from the government, not even Obama era officials. The things I cite directly are literal definitions and facts from the current White House regarding immigration, I understand if there is a disconnect between reality and what the WH regularly says.

I'm done with this. We aren't making ground, and I believe you think I have more personal interest invested in this than I actually do. To be crystal clear, I am for firmer border policy. I am against the wall. I believe that folks that come here seeking asylum should be afforded due process. And I believe those that come here outside of that very simple process (come to the border, turn yourself in) should be deported immediately without due process. They are invading, it is the prerogative of any State to remove those that would subvert legal process to gain entry. They have shown an inherent non conformance with our rule of law by attempting to enter illegally, which is a terrible start to being among us. I am saying, very clearly, that the majority of folks that come here do so legally. And to do that, they would have to walk up to the border, and enter the country at a point of entry. Which is exactly what the majority of the folks in these caravans have done.

The law is broken, is what we should be talking about. But as I have said, I'm done because for some reason, I have failed to provide you sufficient evidence. I believe that the statistics put out by the current administration support my assertion. Not trying to advance any agenda here; I'm not about to sway opinions here. The majority of voices in this forum are conservative. And this forum is obscure; it's a source of information about bitcoin. Not politics. No one comes here to get their political opinions. And I dont affiliate with liberal policies as much as you seem to think. I'm actually a moderate, I know that seems rare nowadays, but the majority of us are. The world is much more grey that black and white.

Please speak your peace, and lets move on from this. No one really gives a fuck what I think concerning this, and my opinions will not sway policy. I'm simply a talking head, and I grow tired of this mental exercise with you.

This was kinda fun, up until we stopped communicating which each other. I am eager to respond to your post in the abortion thread, I will address it a little later after I catch up on my work. Thank you for your attentions and time in our debate, and have a blessed weekend (what little remains!)

I don't see any disconnect, and you yourself cited the facts that I stated from those same government sources. People can apply for asylum at a port of entry. This is a fact. it is illegal to cross the border without authorization at a designated checkpoint. This is a fact. "The majority come here legally" I already addressed. Not only can you not prove this conclusion, it is irrelevant. It is like saying robbery happens more in this town so lets not enforce against robberies in this town. Also where exactly are stats on undocumented illegal immigration collected if it is undocumented? Any numbers you have are at best an estimate. Now if you are done pretending I am being irrational and unwilling to listen to facts, care to discuss the topic?

I have seen more people than I can count that think of themselves as moderates or centrists, but the fact is The Overton Window has moved SO FAR left that former classic liberals are now described as far right. So you being "moderate" could be anywhere between moderate and Mao Tse Tung. While I doubt you are quite that far left, a lot of the rhetoric and talking points you use are in fact far left talking points and policies.

I give a fuck what you have to say. You could sway me. Unfortunately so far it seems you have been operating from assumption then building facts around that to make a case rather than understanding what you are presenting first and going from that position. If you don't want to butt heads with me, I understand, but if you are bringing contrary facts to the table I will integrate them. Unfortunately any contrary facts you have brought are inconsequential to the premise, even of these side issues you insist on diverging off into. I do feel we are still communicating, I just fear you didn't get the result you were hoping for here. Hopefully we can continue a discussion.

Unfortunately I fear this entire scenario is just an attempt at diverting from and ending any discussion of the double standards held for "liberals" and "conservatives" in the media and among some individuals. Wearing a hat in support of the president excuses harassment and threats of violent actions for the other, but openly racist acts on the left are excused with a whimper, not to mention all the violence and other various crimes often attributed to the right every time ANTIFA shows up and attacks for example.