This is really insulting but insightful

[Testadura]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JGmKHrWKMQ

[concha]

 

You need to stop fucking with the narrative.

You fucking racist.

 

[paladin4ever]

These people are the worst. And they claim to be so "woke". FOH

[Bormio]

20 minutes ago, Testadura said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JGmKHrWKMQ

One of the best posts on this forum - EVER 

[zulu1128]

The look on that one dude's face when Ami asks if he knows how to get to the DMV lol.

Great video.

[Testadura]

3 minutes ago, zulu1128 said:

The look on that one dude's face when Ami asks if he knows how to get to the DMV lol.

Great video.

Almost every black person I know has eminent common sense and is down to earth.  Sharp witted given the way of the world.  Gets it.  But those kids speak on blacks like their dim children.

A federal Court of Appeals also said in a decision what those kids said.  I couldn't believe it when I read it over a year ago, and how that stereotype, extremely negative in my view, was the rationale for striking down an ID statute.  And I didn't scour for criticism, but I didn't see any.

[World Citizen]

34 minutes ago, Testadura said:

Almost every black person I know has eminent common sense and is down to earth.  Sharp witted given the way of the world.  Gets it.  But those kids speak on blacks like their dim children.

A federal Court of Appeals also said in a decision what those kids said.  I couldn't believe it when I read it over a year ago, and how that stereotype, extremely negative in my view, was the rationale for striking down an ID statute.  And I didn't scour for criticism, but I didn't see any.

Here is a really good link if you have the time to listen.  It's almost an hour but very worth the time.  Carol Anderson breaks down this topic very well.  I would be curious to hear your opinion on what she has to say.  

https://www.c-span.org/video/?467711-3/washington-journal-carol-anderson-discusses-book-voter-suppression&playEvent

More from Anderson.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?419681-4/washington-journal-carol-anderson-discusses-white-rage

 

[Testadura]

2 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Here is a really good link if you have the time to listen.  It's almost an hour but very worth the time.  Carol Anderson breaks down this topic very well.  I would be curious to hear your opinion on what she has to say.  

https://www.c-span.org/video/?467711-3/washington-journal-carol-anderson-discusses-book-voter-suppression&playEvent

More from Anderson.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?419681-4/washington-journal-carol-anderson-discusses-white-rage

 

I will listen to it now.

the summer after my 1st year in law school (1992), I worked in the Hudson County Counsel's Office, and I did some work on supposed suppression:  The JC Mayor supposedly shutting down elevators in high-rise projects with cops patrolling b/w the projects and the voting booths.  That'll dissuade.

[I AM IRONMAN]

Great video...thx for sharing.

Berkeley....is anyone surprised?

[World Citizen]

11 minutes ago, Testadura said:

I will listen to it now.

the summer after my 1st year in law school (1992), I worked in the Hudson County Counsel's Office, and I did some work on supposed suppression:  The JC Mayor supposedly shutting down elevators in high-rise projects with cops patrolling b/w the projects and the voting booths.  That'll dissuade.

That will dissuade.  Great word btw.  The disappointing aspect of this is not the politicians who actively promote suppression (they have been doing it since reconstruction) with state and local laws, but the citizens who have stuck their head in the sand and refuse to entertain the possibility that this is a problem.  It is a sad thing when some people feel threatened if the system were to make it easier to vote.  

The only argument against making it easier to vote is voter fraud and that is such an insignificantly small % (about .001%) that I would be embarrassed to make such an argument.

The unwillingness of the Senate to enact voting protections from foreign influence is another mystery that only Republican Mitch McConnell can explain.  Especially when considering what this country has been through the last 3 + years.  

[Testadura]

1 hour ago, World Citizen said:

That will dissuade.  Great word btw.  The disappointing aspect of this is not the politicians who actively promote suppression (they have been doing it since reconstruction) with state and local laws, but the citizens who have stuck their head in the sand and refuse to entertain the possibility that this is a problem.  It is a sad thing when some people feel threatened if the system were to make it easier to vote.  

The only argument against making it easier to vote is voter fraud and that is such an insignificantly small % (about .001%) that I would be embarrassed to make such an argument.

The unwillingness of the Senate to enact voting protections from foreign influence is another mystery that only Republican Mitch McConnell can explain.  Especially when considering what this country has been through the last 3 + years.  

good video, good points, and really glad you passed it on.  before seeing it, I didn't pay too much attention to some of her issues, though I had read Shelby years ago.

Devil's advocate: the message seems to call for treating blacks as needy and lazy and dim.  whites have to abide the SAME rules but due to xyz reasons, it's harder for blacks to stay quiet in movie theaters--just kidding, but you get the point.  apologists for blacks.  and i agree that poverty and other things do make it harder for blacks to get things and get places, but they're not children or disabled.  The targeting is terrible.  I have no time for bad intentions.

and how did the demographics change, which she keeps saying is the reason why whites are acting so bad?  If thru the normal course, then that's is 100% fine.  If honestly, then that's 100% fine.  But if by sleight of hand--not so fine.  The below NPR and other stuff say is the Immigration Act of 1965 was based in large measure on intentional falsehoods to the public and/or ignorance. 

And remember, in 1901, welfare (which does NOT include entitlements) was either .1& or .01% of our GDP.  Welfare grew under FDR and LBJ.  At the height of the Great Recession during the Obama Admin. (I'm not blaming Obama for the recession), welfare spending as a % of GDP was like 4.8% of GDP--and that was fine.  Welfare and entitlements are about 67% of our yearly budget, and about 30% of our yearly GDP.  But a lot of the unfair immigration took place when there was no welfare to speak of and no entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

50% of Italian immigrants in the early 1900s went back to Italy because they couldn't support themselves AND there was no welfare and entitlements to speak of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."^[26] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix.^[27] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.^[28][29] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia and Africa. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marked the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico.^{[30]  [Emphasis added.]}

Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada. However, in the years 1971–1991, immigrants from Hispanic and Latin American countries made up 47.9 percent of immigrants (with Mexico accounting for 23.7 percent) and immigrants from Asia 35.2 percent. Not only did it change the ethnic makeup of immigration, but it also greatly increased the number of immigrants—immigration constituted 11 percent of the total U.S. population growth between 1960 and 1970, growing to 33 percent from 1970 to 1980, and to 39 percent from 1980 to 1990.^[31] The percentage of foreign-born in the United States increased from 5 percent in 1965 to 14 percent in 2016.^[32]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395

Predictions Based on Ignorance?

In fact, expert after expert testified before Congress that little would change. Secretary of State Dean Rusk repeatedly stressed that the number of new immigrants coming to the United States was not expected to skyrocket. What was really at stake, Rusk argued, was the principle of a more open immigration policy.

* * *

Karen Narasaki, who heads the Asian American Justice Center, finds the 1965 immigration overhaul all the more extraordinary because there's evidence it was not popular with the public.

"It was not what people were marching in the streets over in the 1960s," she says. "It was really a group of political elites who were trying to look into the future. And again, it was the issue of, 'Are we going to be true to what we say our values are?'"

In 1965, the political elite on Capitol Hill may not have predicted a mass increase in immigration. But Marian Smith, the historian for Customs and Immigration Services, showed me a small agency booklet from 1966 that certainly did. It explains how each provision in the new law would lead to a rapid increase in applications and a big jump in workload -- more and more so as word trickled out to those newly eligible to come. Smith says a lifetime of immigration backlogs had built up among America's foreign-born minorities. These immigrants would petition for relatives to come to the United States, and those relatives in turn would petition for other family members. Demand from post-colonial countries in Asia and Africa, she notes, jumped after World War II.

 

[tommygun58]

In 2017 a reporter asked a black couple about voter ID.They explained how hard it would be for blacks to get to a place to get one.The reporter asked them ,why it would take them 3 3/4 years to turn around & walk into the Municipal building behind them.Haven't seen or heard from that reporter since.

[Hardcore Troubador]

5 hours ago, Testadura said:

I will listen to it now.

the summer after my 1st year in law school (1992), I worked in the Hudson County Counsel's Office, and I did some work on supposed suppression:  The JC Mayor supposedly shutting down elevators in high-rise projects with cops patrolling b/w the projects and the voting booths.  That'll dissuade.

1992...Was it Schundler?  Or whomever his disgraced predecessor was?

[World Citizen]

On 2/7/2020 at 1:49 PM, Testadura said:

good video, good points, and really glad you passed it on.  before seeing it, I didn't pay too much attention to some of her issues, though I had read Shelby years ago.

Devil's advocate: the message seems to call for treating blacks as needy and lazy and dim.  whites have to abide the SAME rules but due to xyz reasons, it's harder for blacks to stay quiet in movie theaters--just kidding, but you get the point.  apologists for blacks.  and i agree that poverty and other things do make it harder for blacks to get things and get places, but they're not children or disabled.  The targeting is terrible.  I have no time for bad intentions.

The fact that so much effort has been put into keeping people from voting tells me that they have been successful in what they want to do.  I didn't hear any message about treating blacks as needy or lazy and dim.  I also have no time for bad intentions and any attempt to make it harder for people to vote certainly qualifies.  

 

On 2/7/2020 at 1:49 PM, Testadura said:

and how did the demographics change, which she keeps saying is the reason why whites are acting so bad?  If thru the normal course, then that's is 100% fine.  If honestly, then that's 100% fine.  But if by sleight of hand--not so fine.  The below NPR and other stuff say is the Immigration Act of 1965 was based in large measure on intentional falsehoods to the public and/or ignorance. 

And remember, in 1901, welfare (which does NOT include entitlements) was either .1& or .01% of our GDP.  Welfare grew under FDR and LBJ.  At the height of the Great Recession during the Obama Admin. (I'm not blaming Obama for the recession), welfare spending as a % of GDP was like 4.8% of GDP--and that was fine.  Welfare and entitlements are about 67% of our yearly budget, and about 30% of our yearly GDP.  But a lot of the unfair immigration took place when there was no welfare to speak of and no entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare.

50% of Italian immigrants in the early 1900s went back to Italy because they couldn't support themselves AND there was no welfare and entitlements to speak of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965

The proponents of the Hart–Celler Act argued that it would not significantly influence United States culture. President Johnson called the bill "not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions."^[26] Secretary of State Dean Rusk and other politicians, including Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), asserted that the bill would not affect the U.S. demographic mix.^[27] However, the ethnic composition of immigrants changed following the passage of the law.^[28][29] Specifically, the Hart–Celler Act allowed increased numbers of people to migrate to the United States from Asia and Africa. The 1965 act, however, imposed the first cap on immigration from the Americas. This marked the first time numerical limitations were placed on legal immigration from Latin American countries including Mexico.^{[30]  [Emphasis added.]}

Prior to 1965, the demographics of immigration stood as mostly Europeans; 68 percent of legal immigrants in the 1950s came from Europe and Canada. However, in the years 1971–1991, immigrants from Hispanic and Latin American countries made up 47.9 percent of immigrants (with Mexico accounting for 23.7 percent) and immigrants from Asia 35.2 percent. Not only did it change the ethnic makeup of immigration, but it also greatly increased the number of immigrants—immigration constituted 11 percent of the total U.S. population growth between 1960 and 1970, growing to 33 percent from 1970 to 1980, and to 39 percent from 1980 to 1990.^[31] The percentage of foreign-born in the United States increased from 5 percent in 1965 to 14 percent in 2016.^[32]

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5391395

Predictions Based on Ignorance?

In fact, expert after expert testified before Congress that little would change. Secretary of State Dean Rusk repeatedly stressed that the number of new immigrants coming to the United States was not expected to skyrocket. What was really at stake, Rusk argued, was the principle of a more open immigration policy.

* * *

Karen Narasaki, who heads the Asian American Justice Center, finds the 1965 immigration overhaul all the more extraordinary because there's evidence it was not popular with the public.

"It was not what people were marching in the streets over in the 1960s," she says. "It was really a group of political elites who were trying to look into the future. And again, it was the issue of, 'Are we going to be true to what we say our values are?'"

In 1965, the political elite on Capitol Hill may not have predicted a mass increase in immigration. But Marian Smith, the historian for Customs and Immigration Services, showed me a small agency booklet from 1966 that certainly did. It explains how each provision in the new law would lead to a rapid increase in applications and a big jump in workload -- more and more so as word trickled out to those newly eligible to come. Smith says a lifetime of immigration backlogs had built up among America's foreign-born minorities. These immigrants would petition for relatives to come to the United States, and those relatives in turn would petition for other family members. Demand from post-colonial countries in Asia and Africa, she notes, jumped after World War II.

 

As for welfare- I thought that started with the new deal.  Americans not being excited about immigrants is nothing new. 

We either let people come to this country or we don't.  Today the only thing I truly care about as it concerns immigration is that we treat ALL PEOPLE with the respect and decency that all people deserve.  Even if we say you can't come to this country, we should do so humanely.  What I do object to is separating families and putting them in cages for the sole purpose of discouraging more from wanting to come here.  And for those who truly running from serious danger I wouldn't turn them away.  I do not think we should have open borders btw.  

[Testadura]

3 hours ago, World Citizen said:

The fact that so much effort has been put into keeping people from voting tells me that they have been successful in what they want to do.  I didn't hear any message about treating blacks as needy or lazy and dim.  I also have no time for bad intentions and any attempt to make it harder for people to vote certainly qualifies.  

 

As for welfare- I thought that started with the new deal.  Americans not being excited about immigrants is nothing new. 

We either let people come to this country or we don't.  Today the only thing I truly care about as it concerns immigration is that we treat ALL PEOPLE with the respect and decency that all people deserve.  Even if we say you can't come to this country, we should do so humanely.  What I do object to is separating families and putting them in cages for the sole purpose of discouraging more from wanting to come here.  And for those who truly running from serious danger I wouldn't turn them away.  I do not think we should have open borders btw.  

great post

[Troll]

6 hours ago, World Citizen said:

We either let people come to this country or we don't.  Today the only thing I truly care about as it concerns immigration is that we treat ALL PEOPLE with the respect and decency that all people deserve. 

-Yes 100% agree, and we still let in more today than anyone else....

But Gee...somehow I never thought i would hear you admit that ALL people should be treated decently...

Now how does that work again for those decent law abiding residents ? 

I must have missed the part where you were respecting them...🤔

 

PS: and certainly supporting 'illegal' immigration goes against what you profess here...

[Cat_Scratch]

On 2/7/2020 at 12:38 PM, Testadura said:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3JGmKHrWKMQ

I found it more ignorant than racist. Looks like some people are separated from what it's like to live in a mixed community.

[Bormio]

4 minutes ago, Cat_Scratch said:

I found it more ignorant than racist. Looks like some people are separated from what it's like to live in a mixed community.

Having lived in both the North and the South, there is far greater interaction between blacks and whites in small Southern towns than anywhere in the North.  We shop in the same stores, eat in the same restaurants, go to the same doctors and even now live in the same neighborhoods.  Church remains the most segregated institution and that is more likely due to style of worship.  In the town I resided in Rhode Island, there was a single black student in our high school.

[I AM IRONMAN]

You make the north sound like the south in the 1800's..wenyvto dinner the other night with a nice mix of color in the restaurant.

[Bormio]

4 minutes ago, I AM IRONMAN said:

You make the north sound like the south in the 1800's..wenyvto dinner the other night with a nice mix of color in the restaurant.

Admittedly it has changed somewhat, but African-Americans in the North are largely in urban areas and whites are in suburbs.  Even those barriers have broken down some, but when I moved to a small town in S.C. in 1987, it was unlike any small Northern town I had ever been in.

[Troll]

33 minutes ago, Bormio said:

Admittedly it has changed somewhat, but African-Americans in the North are largely in urban areas and whites are in suburbs.  Even those barriers have broken down some, but when I moved to a small town in S.C. in 1987, it was unlike any small Northern town I had ever been in.

I'm guessing you are not talking about Jersey when you talk 'North'....

You couldn't even separate whole towns as they so intermix.

and forget about black and white when it's all in technicolor...  

just sayin' 

[Bormio]

28 minutes ago, Troll said:

I'm guessing you are not talking about Jersey when you talk 'North'....

You couldn't even separate whole towns as they so intermix.

and forget about black and white when it's all in technicolor...  

just sayin' 

North Jersey is mostly just one urban area now - you are correct.  But I lived in Chester in the late 60’s - and there were no black people anywhere.

[Troll]

Just now, Bormio said:

North Jersey is mostly just one urban area now - you are correct.

Don't tell NOR that....he still classifies Jersey City and such as the 'suburbs'..... and not urban 🤣

4 minutes ago, Bormio said:

  But I lived in Chester in the late 60’s - and there were no black people anywhere.

LOL well that's straight up boondocks ...😲.

I was assuming we were talking 'civilization' 🤣

(This assuming Chester NJ, If it were Chester PA you wouldn't have said that ....)

[Bormio]

15 minutes ago, Troll said:

Don't tell NOR that....he still classifies Jersey City and such as the 'suburbs'..... and not urban 🤣

LOL well that's straight up boondocks ...😲.

I was assuming we were talking 'civilization' 🤣

(This assuming Chester NJ, If it were Chester PA you wouldn't have said that ....)

Chester, NJ - and if you think that is rural ... well come on down South.

[Testadura]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 8:07 PM, Hardcore Troubador said:

1992...Was it Schundler?  Or whomever his disgraced predecessor was?

McCann was the accused along with the Bd of Elections

part of what I said wasn't was part of the suit or public.  I worked with a non-lawyer who was active in the JC Dem party.  he told me that