The Derek Chauvin Trial

[Lineandinitial]

This is what you need to be educating the public about if you truly care about ghetto folk dying in police hands. Teach them how to put the ball in the officer’s court to do the right thing.

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA...........not so fast!!!

 

[El Correcto]

But it wasn't the be all, end all of political discourse. Not like today where Democrats use racism to frame any discussion because they think it gives them an advantage.

It is a pretty important debate that happened through out the history and even boiled over into a civil war.

 

[El Correcto]

....and when the slaves were freed, some of they wanted to stay on the plantation.

Fast forward to today.....we have the Democratic Party.

Hope this helps.

You also had a lot that followed that. Reconstruction, Jim Crow, Civil Rights.

can’t really blame people who have only know slavery and southern hostility for wanting to just remain where the belligerent white folk wanted them to. It was a hostile society to be a free black person in.

 

[vantexan]

It is a pretty important debate that happened through out the history and even boiled over into a civil war.

The North didn't hotly contest it beyond the abolitionists. The concern in the Constitution was counting slaves in a state's population would give slave states unfair influence. So they compromised. Beyond that and a few other debates it wasn't a constant source of strife and wasn't even the primary focus of the Civil War. A lot of people in the North sympathized with the South too. Not saying all of this to defend the South but rather to show how we view the situation today is very much through the prism of current race relations and discourse. They're tearing down statues because they want us to believe literally everything about America is racist and everything about that era was evil. Literally everything.

 

[PT Car Washer]

The North didn't hotly contest it beyond the abolitionists. The concern in the Constitution was counting slaves in a state's population with give slave states unfair influence. So they compromised. Beyond that and a few other debates it wasn't a constant source of strife and wasn't even the primary focus of the Civil War. A lot of people in the North sympathized with the South too. Not saying all of this to defend the South but rather to show how we view the situation today is very much through the prism of current race relations and discourse. They're tearing down statues because they want us to believe literally everything about America is racist and everything about that era was evil. Literally everything.

Stick with something you know. Like delivering Amazon packages.

 

[vantexan]

Stick with something you know. Like delivering Amazon packages.

Show me the protests in the streets and on university campuses back then. Were there black riots back then? Very few. There were a lot more white riots back then after a black committed a particularly heinous crime. Huge white riots. Watch the movie "Rosewood." If I'm wrong show me.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Stick with something you know. Like delivering Amazon packages.

Says the car washer.

 

[El Correcto]

The North didn't hotly contest it beyond the abolitionists. The concern in the Constitution was counting slaves in a state's population would give slave states unfair influence. So they compromised. Beyond that and a few other debates it wasn't a constant source of strife and wasn't even the primary focus of the Civil War. A lot of people in the North sympathized with the South too. Not saying all of this to defend the South but rather to show how we view the situation today is very much through the prism of current race relations and discourse. They're tearing down statues because they want us to believe literally everything about America is racist and everything about that era was evil. Literally everything.

Yes slavery wasn’t that big of deal.... no one really cared tooo much...

Lol what??

 

[vantexan]

Yes slavery wasn’t that big of deal.... no one really cared tooo much...

Lol what??

No, as time went on and inventions like the cotton gin came around more and more people raised objections to slavery because they felt with the machines it could no longer be justified. This was a long wrought out process. People in 1760 weren't objecting to it like they were in 1860. And even Lincoln had to be convinced to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He even debated noted black speaker Stephen Douglas over it. And again, except for abolitionists like John Brown the country wasn't in riots over it the way we saw riots last summer. And John Brown wasn't anything like Antifa. He was devoutly Christian.

 

[Poop Head]

How much political power do you believe blacks had before the 60s?

Just the right amount.

 

[El Correcto]

No, as time went on and inventions like the cotton gin came around more and more people raised objections to slavery because they felt with the machines it could no longer be justified. This was a long wrought out process. People in 1760 weren't objecting to it like they were in 1860. And even Lincoln had to be convinced to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He even debated noted black speaker Stephen Douglas over it. And again, except for abolitionists like John Brown the country wasn't in riots over it the way we saw riots last summer. And John Brown wasn't anything like Antifa. He was devoutly Christian.

I’m just saying because other was going on and people weren’t so connected all the time and at other people’s throats 24/7doesn’t mean slavery wasn’t a hot topic or big issue in America.

 

[El Correcto]

And honesty I don’t give a about the statues. If I want to learn about history I got my phone I don’t need a racist statue in town square with a paragraph about the person’s life.
I just like the statues because they piss off the liberals, put one in my front yard.

 

[It will be fine]

No, as time went on and inventions like the cotton gin came around more and more people raised objections to slavery because they felt with the machines it could no longer be justified. This was a long wrought out process. People in 1760 weren't objecting to it like they were in 1860. And even Lincoln had to be convinced to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He even debated noted black speaker Stephen Douglas over it. And again, except for abolitionists like John Brown the country wasn't in riots over it the way we saw riots last summer. And John Brown wasn't anything like Antifa. He was devoutly Christian.

Ya, I’m pretty sure black people objected to it. They just got murdered if they made a fuss.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

And honesty I don’t give a * about the statues. If I want to learn about history I got my phone I don’t need a racist statue in town square with a paragraph about the person’s life.
I just like the statues because they piss off the liberals, put one in my front yard.

I like them.

 

[El Correcto]

I like them.

I like them when they crush the skulls of commies trying to topple them. That’s the most use I’ve ever seen out of those statues.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Ya, I’m pretty sure black people objected to it. They just got murdered if they made a fuss.

Yeah destroying your property when it makes a fuss was very common. SMH.

 

[Poop Head]

"The soft bigotry of low expectations." Who here thought George W. Bush would be remembered for such an insightful statement?

Great quote. Great president

 

[Box Ox]

News to me.

EXPLAINER: Why is Chauvin unlikely to face maximum sentence?

"Even though he was found guilty of three counts, under Minnesota statutes he’ll only be sentenced on the most serious one — second-degree murder. While that count carries a maximum sentence of 40 years, experts say he won’t get that much. They say that for all practical purposes, the maximum he would face is 30 years, and he could get less.

Here’s a breakdown on Minnesota’s sentencing nuances:

WHY WON’T WE SEE MULTIPLE SENTENCES?

Because all the charges stem from one act, carried out against one person. Multiple sentences are typically handed down in cases when there are convictions for multiple victims, or multiple crimes against one victim.

For example, if a defendant is convicted of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman — two crimes against one victim — a judge would issue a sentence on each count, and could rule that they be served at the same time or consecutively, said former Hennepin County chief public defender Mary Moriarty.

That’s not the case here, Moriarty said. “This case involved three different theories of the same behavior toward the same person.”

 

[vantexan]

Ya, I’m pretty sure black people objected to it. They just got murdered if they made a fuss.

And this is why we can't have an honest discussion. A person must virtue signal every other sentence to prove he's not one of "them." There can be no honest depiction of how life was unless you color it with all kinds of denouncements. Otherwise you're secretly a white supremacist showing your true colors. This is the world y'all are creating as we lurch towards total conformity of what's allowed to be said, what isn't.

 

[vantexan]

And honesty I don’t give a * about the statues. If I want to learn about history I got my phone I don’t need a racist statue in town square with a paragraph about the person’s life.
I just like the statues because they piss off the liberals, put one in my front yard.

Don't worry, if they march on your yard just fly your rainbow flag.