Wales2004

3 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

 

Um, one of my former colleagues was physically assaulted in Paris and called an ethnic slur slur in French.

That is quite blatant and it it anything but minor.

 

I myself as a student in London, had a rando white British guy literally grab me by force and fortunately one of my flatmates pulled the guy away from me and started yelling at the guy.

 

Another of my flatmates, a Bangladeshi guy was followed and intimidated by two White guys while he was walking home one night. They literally surrounded him two, one on each side, standing shoulder to shoulder with him- speeding up their pace as he sped up his pace.

 

I had one or two odd incidents in Spain but mostly men getting fresh, nothing like a someone I knew-she was called a "junglebunny" by someone using a very casual tone.

 

These are real incidents and not examples of being hypersensitive.

 

I'm glad you can laugh at what happened to you but it's not the same for others.

Part of my family moved to London from Jamaica and my mother underwent a lot of racial abuse from white and black people, so please don't mistake my telling of my own personal experiences as my being dismissive of anyone else's.  All I meant to convey is that we can sometimes live in the same places and not be subject to the same experiences. I learned to brush off people trying to tell me who or what I was because that worked for me and I would say the people who have been the most aggressive towards me have been other black people. Hence, I don't tend to generally use a racial lens to view some things. I have learned that my opinion and how I choose to handle things works for me and that racism and other things are not and will never be one size fits all.

My mother lives in Italy and says racism has been heightened there since a greater influx of immigrants are constantly arriving.

I don't think that I in any way said other people were being hypersensitive, but I am sorry you took how I refer to myself as a reference to others because that's not the case at all.

Clarification: I went back and re-read what I wrote and when I wrote: My experiences with racism have been minor, but if I go by how people react to such things nowadays I would be mentally broken over that. I realize that although I know what I mean, it could easily be read as being dismissive to someone else. I see my mother's experiences and others who have experienced what I see as "real racism" that can adversely affect a person's life or result in pain, suffering or even death.  I don't deem whatever I've experienced in the way of racism as anywhere on that level as I can easily brush off people assuming that I should fit their stereotypes, or that I'm a complete idiot, or being amazed that I can construct a grammatically correct sentence.

So I am very sorry about that because I did not mean to imply that anyone's experience with racism is something minor.

56 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

From friends of color who have had less than positive experiences during their visits to France, I do know that there are many problems that are similar to problems that exist in the U.K. and the U.S. but I applaud the fact that the French did not fall for the fake news and hacking attempts that many in the U.S. were bamboozled by (readily, if you ask me).

Racism and/or forms of discrimination based on light/dark skin tones exist all over the world in places where that sort of thing is encouraged/taught by individuals who embrace that sort of thing. The thing is that people can be unaffected by it despite its existence.  My friend and her sister took a trip to France several years ago and had no such encounters. If asked, they'd be totally oblivious on that. In fact, my friend has never experienced anything she would categorize as racism here. OTOH, she says her sister complains a lot about it being an issue because she's dark. I have only seen photos of her and she doesn't appear to be noticeably darker than my friend.

My experiences with racism have been minor, but if I go by how people react to such things nowadays I would be mentally broken over that.  I grew up with a lot of insecurities but race was barely a thing for me. Then again, I've had people tell me that I'm not black for the silliest of reasons that I found upsetting because I was hypersensitive about it when it happened (in some instances). Now the whole thing is laughable.

TrumPutin is already trying to smear Sally Yates by tweet implying that she leaked info after informing the non-existent WH Council (s/b Counsel).

Both committees are led by Trumpkins who aim to stall and misdirect, so Warner, Schiff, Swalwell, et al., have their work cut out for them but they will be persistent. They've already essentially said that there are impeachable offenses but the info is classified. If that is the case, then the republicans who have been and are being complicit in trying to hinder this should be considered in the same vein as the perpetrators.

Lindsey Graham has shown that he's a bunch of talk because as much as he and John McCain had to say about Russian interference, you'd think he would want to get to the bottom of this collusion. Instead, he targeted Susan Rice in another effort to cause a distraction and have the ignorant mob carry on as if she'd committed high treason.

I still think that the IC may end up getting this done since some of the TrumPutins have probably committed money laundering, racketeering, and other offenses for which they can be more easily charged as a start.

52 minutes ago, marceline said:

That's an intelligent and nuanced approach. That's not what Feinstein is doing. She's putting out a simple talking point and IMO it's a good one. #13WhiteMen

It might work for some people but it doesn't work for me and that's fine because we're not all going to agree on anything.

I don't really care whether it's 13 white men or black men or any men, as long as they are trying for everyone--especially for those who need it most, but they obviously aren't.  And the women in their outer circle don't seem to be any better than they are.

I would like to see a diverse group of true advocates for the people and not just diversity for the sake of diversity.

I am not up on the political terminology of these days and I'm probably better off remaining simple minded but in an attempt to learn what identity politics is, I came across this:

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/07/stop-blaming-identity-politics-with-liberals-like-these-who-needs-the-right-wing/#comments

I understand that some people may strongly believe that figuring out why people voted the way they did will help in future elections but while some may have been driven by hate, others had different reasons and probably not the kind that can be useful.

Politicians willfully divide people because it's more advantageous to have everyone in blocs. Harmony would wreck everything.

I still don't get the whole need to focus on the wwc, but that's because I don't understand what anyone took from them that wasn't take from the working class in general. Why would I want to be a member of a party that implies that the wwc are supposed to have greater advantages than any other people in the working class, which is really what focusing on them because they've been abandoned (in favor of what I don't know), sounds like? This kind of thing makes party polarity a necessity.

Maybe I'm having a non-partisan meltdown.

I am glad that those from the U.S. far-right involved in the online attempt to damage Macron failed.

Paul Ryan was smirking comfortably on ABC where he knew he could ramble on without answering George Stephanopoulos on that farce being just a tax cut for the wealthy. I would have shut him down the moment he didn't say "yes" or "no." He let him go on about Obamacare this and that because the answer to most questions about his healthcare plan is always something negative about the AHCA. The only "positive" thing he can say is that they kept their promise. I guess the devil must be really happy about that.

Dianne Feinstein said something about thirteen white men and while I believe that their should be a diverse group of people involved (as in people who represent or are cognizant of different situations), there has to be a better way to get this point across. I think one of the problems is the assumption that everyone in any labeled group is all on the same page. Just, for instance, sticking women on a panel does not mean that issues affecting certain women will be addressed. All women (no matter the race or other background factors) do not have the same problems and may be oblivious to certain things or flat out don't care if they are not personally affected.

Here's a special kind of immigrant visa that doesn't get talked about much in the media:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-a-beijing-ballroom-kushner-family-flogs-500000-investor-visa-to-wealthy-chinese/2017/05/06/cf711e53-eb49-4f9a-8dea-3cd836fcf287_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_kushnerchina-751am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.11aa01ac3d7d

Hacking in the French election probably comes as no surprise but these participants may:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/06/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-hack-french-election-marine-le-pen.html?_r=0

Or maybe it's just fake news.

https://www.apnews.com/c89882d368d84695b5cffeab5fbecf2b/Trump-team's-curious-query-tripped-concerns-about-Flynn

I guess Jason Chaffetz can still be counted on to try to distract from TrumPutin:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/05/house-oversight-panel-iran-deal-investigation-238049

Who gave TrumPutin lessons on selective application of the Constitution?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/05/trump-historically-black-colleges-financing-unconstitutional-238061

4 hours ago, rhinohide said:

In hindsight I do realize white privilege played a huge role in my resistance to accepting how much the party had changed. Oddly, when I first became politically aware, most people in my circle were Democrats, but they were that "good ol'" southern democrat variety. 

I hope you won't feel as if this is putting you on the spot but I've come to realize that people don't always mean the same thing when using the same phrases/terms, and I am really curious what "white privilege" means to people. I know that some people take it literally and refute having any sort of advantage at all.

One of our family friends was born and raised in Compton, CA and she happens to be white. She is annoyed by people claiming she had any sort of advantages growing up since her family was poor and struggled. She's probably in her late fifties-early sixties and still doesn't see herself as having any sort of a racial advantage. It wouldn't be her fault if someone favored her over another person because of some sort of racial bias. That's not something over which she has control. What she can control are her own biases and whether or not she is complicit in the unfair treatment of other people.

Here's a little Trumpkin AHCA repeal humor:

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-supporters-celebrate-imminent-loss-of-their-health-insurance?intcid=mod-latest

I still don't see why anyone voting in favor of that tax cut for the rich today would celebrate since they knew the senate wouldn't rubber stamp it.

What I hope happens is that once the CBO score comes out and the details (since none of them have actually read the thing), that it is DOA.

I doubt that senators want to do the work on it that should have been done so maybe they can just kill it and force it back to the House. I would love their beer party to fizzle in their faces. The best part of this is how many of them chose making TrumPutin happy over the concerns of their constituents and how that's going to look when he's out the door.

I strongly believe they have enough information to impeach him and this is all about some of it being sensitive/classified and how to find a way to get him out that doesn't compromise the IC.  Whatever it is that made Comey and co. unable to reveal the collusion prior to the election needs to be addressed and fixed so that this sort of thing does not become the norm.

24 minutes ago, JaneAusten said:

No all the dems voted no

The graphic shows 192 no and 1 nv

I don't know who these people are that vote for Darrell Issa and his ilk are but I look forward to the turning tide. People whose hatred outweighs their common sense are lost causes but there are surely people who will wake up.

27 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

When I was in London in the 90s, some South Asians still referred to themselves as Black, although that was changing.

I do know that several years ago someone with that background headed one of the black police organizations. I don't know whether the guy considered himself black or close enough or whether it was a case of non-white police officers having the same types of grievances regarding discriminatory practices.

The idea that there are black people who "pass" for white should also shoot down the color factor and how some people are used in print and tv ads because they appear to be "racially ambiguous." 

But you can see how once upon a time some people passed for white because they found it necessary for survival. Nowadays, people would probably pass for black if they found it trendy.

I will say that the English seem like that pyromaniac who starts a fire and then blends into the crowd as though he's just another bystander. You see how much trouble they've historically caused and then they wash their hands off it and pretend to be ultra civilized.

Just now, Juliajms said:

Even though this could suck for me, I'm kind of glad.  People with jobs and money tend to have more power than poor people, so let this bill mess with everyone's insurance, so they (we) have to wake up already.

I look forward to the CBO score. Their little victory dance (if they pull this off) will come back to bite them later and the fact that they didn't heed the warning of not passing something that cannot get through the senate.

20 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I notice the media is going wild about the Susan Rice story again. 

The media is being idiotic if they want to be complicit in using Susan Rice as a ruse to overshadow the impending testimony of Sally Yates. Imagine Lindsay Graham thinking grilling Susan Rice is more important than getting to the bottom of TrumPutin's activities. Imagine Lindsay Graham obsessed with that instead of doing something about his leader who praises murderous dictators.

10 minutes ago, Khan said:

You know, it's funny.  People are CLEARLY upset with Obama for reasons that have everything to do with skin pigmentation; and yet, from what I've been told (and, I think, have mentioned here before), your racial or ethnic identity is defined by your mother.  So, technically, Obama isn't REALLY our first Black president, because his mother was White, which makes him the same.

I've only heard about Judaism being matrilineal.

Race is not definitive enough imo. It can't be about skin color because there is no plausible reason that any Indian darker than I am (and there are plenty of those) should not considered black, but instead is Asian. Also the idea that intelligence, athleticism, etc., stem from melanin is absurd. The belief that twins from the same two parents can each be considered of different races based on their skin tone, should be enough to make people stop and think about how silly racial classifications are.

American politics thrives on racism so what ever would America do without it?

59 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

In the House, people will be making notes on who votes yes as it may make for an effective strategy to vote some of them out in 2018.

It's slightly ironic that Trump/Bannon wanted a vote the first time around in order to target those who opposed it. "Wiping out" BO is so important to these people that they would rather choose this form of political suicide and abet treason. One boilerplate ad is needed about each of these people that were willing to let millions of people suffer/die while they shielded themselves and their staff members. And when TrumPutin is finally out, they can throw in how they were complicit in a cover-up just to get their repeal.

Jason Chaffetz ought to be caching a whole lot of flak over his plans to go after BO's pension because of that $400 thou speaking engagement. He's a very sick individual who might just be exploring a run at the WH. It used to be that BO was this symbol of WH possibilities but the times have radically changed and...

3 hours ago, DRW50 said:

I'm not surprised Chris Cilizza wrote that. I imagine CNN hired him in large part for this purpose. He's very good at reminding us Democrats are losing.

I think they also want him be a low key defender of Trump. He says this about Ivanka Trump being booed:

You can hate Donald Trump's views on and treatment of women -- and lots of people do! But, to expect Ivanka Trump to publicly condemn her father or his record on women's issues is a bridge too far. It's impossible for us to know what Ivanka Trump does (or doesn't do) to influence her father's views behind the scenes. And, because of that -- and the fact that she is his daughter! -- booing her for defending her dad is poor form.

But I think he's missing that defending her father is not the same as claiming that his record is something it isn't. Nobody told her to lie about her father's "accomplishments." I don't expect her or anyone else to go out and bash their parents. She can surely make a speech or statement without referencing her father's non-existent advocacy of women's issues. This makes Chris Cilizza contemptible.

It's odd that they suddenly want him and are using 2010 as a possible reason. He's been quite loyal to TrumPutin but that probably means little to them and he's already served his purpose or at least WikiLeaks has. But it's also possible that the IC might hope to use this to get him to talk.

More of Trump selling the health and welfare of the majority of the nation for  cash in his pockets:

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/dow-chemical-endangered-species

12 hours ago, Roman said:

can someone...ANYONE....explain to me.....why Jeffrey Lord is employed and allowed to speak to anyone via television? I just saw this man defend the crap he said this morning...comparing Trump to MLK....and Don Lemon got so pissed off he yelled at the man and called him stupid. 

Don Lemon's just playing his role. They manufacture all of this to get social media buzz which they think will in turn lead to higher ratings. Apparently there's nothing like twitter outrage these days.

I don't get why scoring points on twitter means so much to people when it changes nothing in reality. All this nonsense about "owning" people and "winning" and the rest of the hyperbole is not for me. I'm in the Jack Webb just the facts ma'am lane. None of those people screeching and carrying on with the back pats on CNN's panels are solving anything at all. They may as well kick it up a notch and have a CNN panelists awards show with such categories as who scored the most points on twitter, who got owned, and who starred in the most posted gif image.

Meanwhile the stress of the job requires more Mar-a-Lago downtime for the "winning-est" laziest President in U.S. history.

So far up to 36 ISIS members were killed by the big bomb and U.S. forces accidentally killed 18 friendly soldiers a couple of days or so ago. Is it me or does it seem excessive to use a major bomb to kill 36 people?

16 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

If this is true don't they realize casually chatting about it on Twitter before anything happens isn't the best idea?

I don't think it matters. We've had members of Congress and the Senate saying that Trump was going to be impeached or resign which is a much bigger deal. They know that evidence exists, no matter how carefully some of them try to word it. The issue is how to get this done. My mother, who lives in Italy, has called me two days in a row over Trump. Today she told me that included in the dossier they were given on Trump, are pictures that Obama saw. Trump knows that Obama saw the pictures and yet he made those accusations because he must be confident that Obama won't say anything, but he's of course, not the only one who saw them so Trump is just...

I'm glad that Mike Pompeo called out WikiLeaks for what it is. Democracy Now! chose to have Julian Assange on when they should have known that he would play the why on earth would Russia want Trump to win game, by making out as if Trump Towers needs to be plastered all over Russia in order for Putin to favor Trump in the election. I don't know if he ever gets asked why they don't leak Kremlin information and why they didn't leak anything on the GOP, because he couldn't possibly sit there and say that Russia does nothing evil and the GOP is devoid of corruption.

One of these days CNN is going to wake up and find out how late they are to the impeachment party. While the most of the media gets distracted by Trump's war games, the investigation marches on. I'm pretty sure now that they have evidence of the TrumPutin election collusion and it's now a question of how many are caught in this thing.

From TrumPutin's wonderful world of treason: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia?CMP=share_btn_tw

Mar-a-Lago membership has its privileges (poor refrigeration): http://www.miamiherald.com/entertainment/restaurants/article144261894.html

12 minutes ago, Roman said:

I never feed the trolls, but I must say this....

Isn't it the HEIGHT of hypocrisy that, the very same people who say "these celebrities need to just STFU and stay in Hollywood" are the same ones coming in here posting articles when they say something they agree with? 

I now return you to this political thread calling out buffoonery and hypocrisy, already in progress....

Not only that but when they think you should take the tweet of someone who does not get that the object of his hatred actually requested something she had a right to request, seriously. If they think her actions should be considered criminal then they should request policy modifications to exclude the NSA from being able to request and obtain access to that type of information. But instead they want to pretend that it's illegal to support the fabrications of their ignorant leader.

CNN needs to re-brand and own up to just having a little news on the side. They can just have an anchor read some news at the top of the hour and devote the rest to their insipid panel discussions yapping.

4 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Not surprised but still disgusted. Trump says he will likely just gut what's left of the ACA to force Democrats to work with him on a replacement. 

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-may-withhold-cost-sharing-reduction-payments-to-force-democrats-to-negotiate-obamacare-repeal

Well since he put his great negotiating plan on record for the media to broadcast, there shouldn't be that much public confusion about who is responsible for it.

Part of the media narrative on Bannon is how he threatened GOP Congress members and they didn't like it and how it backfired and has now contributed to his being on the outs. Now you have the main idiot making more severe threats in order to "force" Democrats into doing themselves in by trying to hold vital healthcare hostage in order to make them complicit in gutting it. He's yet again showing how desperate the media are to normalize him because to pin everything on Bannon as though Trump is some innocent puppet reeks.