Black Lives Matter has increased racial tension, 55%

[Dashinka 24,687]

22 minutes ago, moxy said:

"Finally, there is no evidence that Clinton was involved in Steele’s reports or worked with Russian entities to feed information to Steele."

 

Again, if you don't like WaPo's conclusion, there are others out there. Google is your friend. But there is no evidence that Hillary Clinton paid a foreign agent for the Steele dossier. I get that this does not fit the Trumpian narrative, but facts matter.

Yeah, that is right, the payments were laundered through a law firm.  Btw, I cannot see the WaPo's link so even if I wanted to read it I could not, but based on our previous conversation, WaPo is not the most trustworthy source.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Dashinka said:

Yeah, that is right, the payments were laundered through a law firm.  Btw, I cannot see the WaPo's link so even if I wanted to read it I could not, but based on our previous conversation, WaPo is not the most trustworthy source.

And that's why I said that if you don't like WaPo, there are others. Google is your friend.

 

Clinton paying for the Steele dossier via a law firm was not illegal. If memory serves, an argument could be made that it violated campaign ethics, but there's been no charge that I know of. (I could be wrong, happy to be corrected)

 

btw, if you're looking for me to defend Clinton's every action, look to someone else. She's far from pure, and as someone who worked with classified information in a previous career, I was absolutely outraged with how she treated classified information. I am no fan, but neither am I going to buy into false narratives just because it would make me feel better.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

11 minutes ago, moxy said:

It's ok. I understand.

You sure? You're having so much trouble with a simple request you're inventing quotes to give rebuttal to. 😂

Edited December 1, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[Dashinka 24,687]

9 minutes ago, moxy said:

And that's why I said that if you don't like WaPo, there are others. Google is your friend.

 

Clinton paying for the Steele dossier via a law firm was not illegal. If memory serves, an argument could be made that it violated campaign ethics, but there's been no charge that I know of. (I could be wrong, happy to be corrected)

 

btw, if you're looking for me to defend Clinton's every action, look to someone else. She's far from pure, and as someone who worked with classified information in a previous career, I was absolutely outraged with how she treated classified information. I am no fan, but neither am I going to buy into false narratives just because it would make me feel better.

Yeah, I stopped using Google, but I suspect the ones I find will not be approved sources.  Regardless, it is quite plain to see the big picture of what the Democrats have accused Trump of doing is exactly what they were doing themselves.

 

https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/28/campaign-colluded-russians-2016-hillary-clintons/

Edited December 1, 2020 by Dashinka

[moxy 1,051]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Yeah, I stopped using Google,

Try Duckduckgo, ever since Google started being evil I've been using it. Highly recommended.

[George Perez 0]

On 11/28/2020 at 9:54 PM, Burnt Reynolds said:

A cute lie, but you literally gave nothing. You just said you weren't going to tell people, that you're not their Wikipedia, and showed a picture of Chauvin/Floyd and said "you don't want to go down that route".. well, I did, and it turns out its you who doesn't. Well there's a shock. 

 

I've concluded that those saying systemic racism is suddenly a thing haven't demonstrated it at all, and are using every negative interaction between people of two differing races as propaganda because race is a sudden cudgel for them to try and beat others into submission with to advance their own ideas in lieu of convincing others rationally. I've seen evidence that police are far too quick to act aggressively (but not toward any specific race, in fact, studies show police these days are far more likely to avoid confrontation with black people specifically, an irrational reaction that can have ramifications for those who actually need the police), and I've seen evidence that blind subservience to police (or any authority for that matter) unequivocally leads to abuse as no authority can handle unchecked power. That's why you don't see me with ridiculous slogans like "blue lives matter". If the idea was to promote people of color being more successful, unequivocally, attacking police forces in urban regions that have a higher ratio of minorities as some sort of systemic racism, by whites no less, makes no sense whatsoever. They've caused several non-white police chiefs of major cities to quit because of this stupidity -- try to actually read their resignation letters. They try and extend olive branches but get ignored because they're not fodder for destructive movements. Furthermore, the incidents we've seen of racism against minority officers, particularly black officers, by "BLM", is further proof of things we already knew, not only that this movement isn't about helping blacks, but that they are a movement of racism and destruction themselves. 

I have read many different studies and articles lately on origin history and anti-racism. Follow this useful link to read interesting and constructive research on Rosa Parks and its role in the civil rights struggle.

People knew this several years ago which is why they wanted nothing to do with BLM (the people involved in its inception were involved in domestic terrorism decades ago), but because of political maliciousness becoming normative, especially in the pixel environment, but also the real world, they are now mainstreamed. 

I absolutely agree with you. Very deep thoughts that respond within me.

[TBoneTX 45,778]

Old thread is now closed to further comment.