vantexan

Well-Known Member
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.
A topic, sure. Most people were busy trying to make a living. No machines making everything easier back then. Work was often backbreaking. And took longer. Sun up to sundown. College was for elites. But as I pointed out when machines started coming along that could do the work of 30 men it was much more a topic.
 
Last edited:

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
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.
You said people didn’t object to slavery back in the good old days. You wrote it as if white people were the only people. Sorry if pointing out that black people objected to slavery makes you mad.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
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.”

Three different theories, some contradictory, that the jury decided were all equally true. You can't intend and not intend to kill someone at the same time.

I was aware of the sentencing thing, which is why I would have expected a guilty on maybe one or two charges, if not a hung jury. I gave these knuckle dragging troglodytes way too much credit. I keep doing that with leftists, I keep lowering the bar of my expectations for them, and they always manage to limbo under it.
 
Last edited:

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
Three different theories, some contradictory, that the jury decided were all equally true. You can't intend and not intend to kill someone at the same time.

I was aware of the sentencing thing, which is why I would have expected a guilty on maybe one or two charges, if not a hung jury. I gave these knuckle dragging troglodytes way too much credit. I keep doing that with leftists, I keep lowering the bar of my expectations for them, and they am way manage to limbo under it.
What exactly is contradictory?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
You said people didn’t object to slavery back in the good old days. You wrote it as if white people were the only people. Sorry if pointing out that black people objected to slavery makes you mad.
Again you try to frame things in a way to suggest racism. You can't discuss how things actually were. I've already pointed out there were slave rebellions. Nat Turner's probably the biggest outside of Haiti. You need to realize that both blacks and whites were born into that system. People thought it was perfectly natural to own slaves. It wasn't like a bunch of fat old white guys were smoking stogies in a back room plotting to keep slavery going. Laughing how they got one over on the darkies. It just was what it was and it took time to convince people otherwise.
 

refineryworker05

Well-Known Member
You keep pushing your bizarre conspiracy theory about a system of secret racists. You need to get a grip.
Racism is not secret and never has been. Whenever black people exercise political power, a lot of Americans feel threatened by that, accuse black people of violence, of mob rule, of cheating and they pass laws specifically to limit or combat that political power. This is done legally and quite out in the open.
 

refineryworker05

Well-Known Member
No, we see a man that was subduing a person resisting arrest while high as a kite on fentanyl being locked up even though there is a lot of reasonable doubt as if his knee was what killed that man and the court rooms/prosecutors dirty tactics in not letting the jury be fully informed but instead propagandized to by lots of emotional testimony of POLICE ARE THE PROBLEM!
I’ve survived every encounter I’ve had with police because I understand you don’t try to fight them, you have your day in court. Floyd should of told the officers while he was going on about I can’t breathe that he had taken opiates, I guarantee you they wouldn’t of prone restrained him if he was honest with them and really wanted medical attention.

if you don’t agree with Chauvin’s tactics that absolutely fine, charge him with excessive force. That should be an easy slam dunk, most people could hop on board with.
Human beings will justify anything, and your whole post was a justification. The question remains why aren't the police upset with Chauvin's conviction? most elected republicans aren't upset with Chauvin's conviction either. But republican media, pundits and many voters are outraged by his conviction. I don't think that's because republicans care more about protecting cops from unfair convictions than the police care about protecting cops from unfair convictions. I think its because for many republican voters, the conviction of Chauvin is evidence of black political power and this power makes republican voters feel threatened.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
Again you try to frame things in a way to suggest racism. You can't discuss how things actually were. I've already pointed out there were slave rebellions. Nat Turner's probably the biggest outside of Haiti. You need to realize that both blacks and whites were born into that system. People thought it was perfectly natural to own slaves. It wasn't like a bunch of fat old white guys were smoking stogies in a back room plotting to keep slavery going. Laughing how they got one over on the darkies. It just was what it was and it took time to convince people otherwise.
I doubt it took much convincing for black people to object to being owned like property.
 

refineryworker05

Well-Known Member
Again, this thread is weird.

Objectively the police are not upset about Chauvin's conviction. Most elected republicans are not upset with Chauvin's conviction.

But a lot of republican media and republican voters are extremely angry about Chauvin's conviction. There is a reason for that anger and it's not because republicans want to protect the police more than the police are motivated to protect the police.

My explanation is that a lot of Americans but especially republicans see the conviction of Chauvin as an expression of black political power and this is what is angering republican voters.
 

tonyexpress

Whac-A-Troll Patrol
Staff member
The hard left believes black people don't have the ability to be educated about it. They're not even smart enough to obtain IDs. So they must be accommodated.
Yet, you voted for the guy they control?smh

Jim Crow on steroids... wtf.

Burgess Owens slams Biden's 'disgusting and offensive' claim that Georgia voting law is 'Jim Crow on steroids'


“President Biden said of the Georgia law, 'This is Jim Crow on steroids.' With all due respect, Mr. President, you know better. It is disgusting and offensive to compare the actual voter suppression and violence of that era that we grew up in with a state law that only asks that people show their ID,” Owens, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, said Tuesday during a Senate judiciary hearing called “Jim Crow 2021: The Latest Assault on the Right to Vote.”

Owens then turned his attention to the Democratic Party as a whole, characterizing it as using scare tactics from the 1960s and saying that the party was behind the “intimidation of black Americans” by the Ku Klux Klan.

“This is the type of fear mongering I expect in the 1960s. Not today. And by the way, literacy tests and protests were … initiated by the Democratic Party. The intimidation of black Americans by the KKK was initiated by the Democratic Party,” he continued.
 

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
Again, this thread is weird.

Objectively the police are not upset about Chauvin's conviction. Most elected republicans are not upset with Chauvin's conviction.

But a lot of republican media and republican voters are extremely angry about Chauvin's conviction. There is a reason for that anger and it's not because republicans want to protect the police more than the police are motivated to protect the police.

My explanation is that a lot of Americans but especially republicans see the conviction of Chauvin as an expression of black political power and this is what is angering republican voters.
I think a lot republicans are just fascists and take offense to agents of the state being held accountable. They want the state to have the freedom to kill citizens.
 

refineryworker05

Well-Known Member
See people have a misunderstanding of how racism works. . People even racists always come up with reasons and justifications. The republican voter reason is that oh Chauvin was railroaded. Ok well how was he railroaded? Well the mob, the threat of violence made the jurors convict him and made the state bring the case against him in the first place, ok who was threatening violence? Oh Black protestors, BLM, Maxine Waters, etc. Again they are telling you they are upset that black political power got this man put on trial and convicted. This is what upsets them and so they invent that he was convicted by "mob rule", that the jurors were intimidated, that something illegal or wrong happened during the trial. This is always the response white racists have towards black political power. They cheated.
 

refineryworker05

Well-Known Member
I think a lot republicans are just fascists and take offense to agents of the state being held accountable. They want the state to have the freedom to kill citizens.
I don't think that's it. I think they see state violence to control and constrain black Americans as necessary and good for the health of American society. I think for republicans police violence is necessary to control what they see as the violent and dangerous black race.
 

refineryworker05

Well-Known Member
I think a lot republicans are just fascists and take offense to agents of the state being held accountable. They want the state to have the freedom to kill citizens.
I think on policy the average republican voter is very reasonable. I am being serious. What radicalizes republicans is that they see other Americans as a threat to America. so they are terrified by those Americans having political power. This is the thing that warps republican voters policy preferences they want the government to hurt or limit those Americans they hate and fear.
 
Top