Kamala Releases Her Agenda For Black Men

[JamesJabdi]

you must not have watched yesterday’s interview with charlemagne or today’s with fox news.

You the same guy who said Kamala campaign tops that of Obama in 08 .....you live in a delusional world.

 

[Voice of Reason]

"Indians" are people that belong to certain NA tribes that were harmed on this land.

Nah Native Hawaiins aren't apart of that group and they get specifics.

We need to delineate so we can get those same benefits.

 

[In The Zone '98]

stop what?

i think she is a black woman. she looks just like my mom when she was younger.

you don’t speak for me. when are yall going to stop parroting eugenicist and physiognomic talking points about black lineage?

Every criticism against her isn't because she is a woman

It's annoying

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

stop what?

i think she is a black woman. she looks just like my mom when she was younger.

you don’t speak for me. when are yall going to stop parroting eugenicist and physiognomic talking points about black lineage?

You haven’t verified yourself as black so it remains to be seen if you actually are especially with your previous rhetoric on here.

 

[I Really Mean It]

You the same guy who said Kamala campaign tops that of Obama in 08 .....you live in a delusional world.

look at the impressions of her appearance on fox. fox had to cut the interview short because brett baier was getting bodied.

 

[In The Zone '98]

You haven’t verified yourself as black so it remains to be seen if you actually are especially with your previous rhetoric on here.

Lol, how hard is it to show your arm

Everybody should've been in that thread

 

[Thavoiceofthevoiceless]

Lol, how hard is it to show your arm

Everybody should've been in that thread

Especially someone like him whose been banned many times before for racist and Neo-Nazi rhetoric, yet calls themselves black.

Its not a major ask at all either.

 

[Tair]

Nah Native Hawaiins aren't apart of that group and they get specifics.

We need to delineate so we can get those same benefits.

That's my whole point. When we boil our issues and policy prescriptions down to race, any policy based on that can and will be challenged on the basis of violating the CRA '64 (14th amendment). That is what Republicans are winning on now.

 

[TripleAgent]

Black only policies aren't viable and don't work because they violate the constitution, so they can be sued out of existence.

LINEAGE

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Nah Native Hawaiins aren't apart of that group and they get specifics.

We need to delineate so we can get those same benefits.

But the U.S. government still acknowledges Native Hawaiians as an Indigenous people due to their historical ties to the Hawaiian Kingdom, which was overthrown in 1893, with the support of the U.S. government. That distinction is key to understanding their claims against the U.S., which are grounded in Indigenous rights and sovereignty, compared to ours, which are more focused on civil rights struggles and policies addressing racial inequality, rather than land rights or self-governance.

Establishing a government office similar to the 'OHA' is possible, but it would require serious political advocacy, organizing, and widespread support. Unfortunately, that level of effort isn't currently being driven by the figureheads of 'FBA' and 'ADOS.' Instead, one of them is draining money from other Black people for his own personal ventures, so he can line his pockets. And advocating for Trump.

 

[Voice of Reason]

But the U.S. government still acknowledges Native Hawaiians as an Indigenous people due to their historical ties to the Hawaiian Kingdom, which was overthrown in 1893, with the support of the U.S. government. That distinction is key to understanding their claims against the U.S., which are grounded in Indigenous rights and sovereignty, compared to ours, which are more focused on civil rights struggles and policies addressing racial inequality, rather than land rights or self-governance.

Establishing a government office similar to the 'OHA' is possible, but it would require serious political advocacy, organizing, and widespread support. Unfortunately, that level of effort isn't currently being driven by the figureheads of 'FBA' and 'ADOS.' Instead, one of them is draining money from other Black people for his own personal ventures, so he can line his pockets. And advocating for Trump.

Nope you are wrong

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Nope you are wrong

Nope. I'm right.

Throwing up a video and just saying 'I'm wrong' isn't an argument.

 

[General Mills]

There really is no difference. Umar is a scammer but he’s on point when it comes to speaking on black empowerment and a black agenda.

The aforementioned entertainers are not “scammers” but they don’t know shyt about politics.

She shouldn’t be speaking with any one of them. They want to reach the black community so they reach out to scammers and entertainers

I see a slight difference. One group of people are unqualified to speak on politics professionally. They only get to voice their opinions on a national stage because they are household names.

Umar also is unqualified to speak on politics professionally. He is a so called school psychologist who has not worked in that capacity in over 2 decades. He gives lectures all around the country giving his opinion but he is no more qualified to speak on politics than any other minor celebrity


He also has the extra burden of being a actual scammer who scams the people he professes to fight for

He is the master of every subject apparently. Politics. Racism. The African Diaspora. The school to prison pipeline. Snow Bunnies. c00ns. But he can’t get a single hvac installed in over 5 years.

 

[Tair]

LINEAGE

I agree.

Looking at the Supreme Court ruling on Affirmative Action will give insights into how we need to move going forward:

Summary of Justice Roberts opinion (SC majority):

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, begins his analysis of the legality of the universities’ affirmative action programs with a brief history of the Equal Protection Clause, which “prohibits distinctions in law by race or color” by state actors. The Court acknowledged that even after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, governments engaged in pervasive racial discrimination during the post–Civil War era of legal segregation. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Court held these practices to be unequal and violative of the Equal Protection Clause. Since then, the Court has held that for a race-based classification to survive constitutional challenge, it must pass strict scrutiny, which considers whether the government’s interest in using race is compelling and whether the law is narrowly tailored (i.e., necessary) to achieve that interest. The Court observed that a race-based classification will rarely pass strict scrutiny. It nevertheless recognized that in certain limited situations, including “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute” and “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot,” it could serve as a compelling interest for race-based government action.

The majority then turned to the application of these standards in higher education admissions, recounting its “deeply splintered decision” in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), which involved the University of California, Davis’ set-aside admissions program, and allowed for the use of race in admissions only as “a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file.” Subsequently, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), the Court found that the educational benefits that stem from a diverse student body are a compelling state interest but that a school could not establish racial quotas, insulate members of certain races from the normal admission processes, or otherwise seek to admit a specific percentage of a racial group simply because of its race. Moreover, Grutter held that race-based action should not involve illegitimate stereotyping or be used as a negative factor to disadvantage racial groups that were not the beneficiaries of the race-based preference. In the instant decision, the Court emphasized that Grutter imposed a limit on race-based admissions programs; specifically, Grutter reasoned that racial preferences would no longer be necessary (and hence constitutional) within 25 years of the decision (i.e., by the year 2028). Addressing Grutter’s so-called “sunset provision,” the Court observed that “[t]wenty years later, no end is in sight,” but the use of race in admissions programs “at some point … must end.”

Applying these principles to Harvard and UNC’s admissions programs, the Court determined that both were unlawful under the Equal Protection Clause.

some of Justice Kavanaugh's opinion I found interesting:

Besides, SFFA asks, if it is diversity the schools are after, why do they exhibit so little interest in other (non-racial) markers of it? While Harvard professes interest in socioeconomic diversity, for example, SFFA points to trial testimony that there are “23 times as many rich kids on campus as poor kids.”

SFFA contends that both Harvard and UNC could obtain significant racial diversity without resorting to race-based admissions practices. Many other universities across the country, SFFA points out, have sought to do just that by reducing legacy preferences, in- creasing financial aid, and the like.

At trial, however, Harvard resisted this proposal. Its preferences for the children of donors, alumni, and faculty are no help to applicants who cannot boast of their parents’ good fortune or trips to the alumni tent all their lives. While race-neutral on their face, too, these preferences un- doubtedly benefit white and wealthy applicants the most.

These classifications (he's talking about "race") rest on incoherent stereotypes... Meanwhile, “Black or African American” covers everyone from a descendant of enslaved persons who grew up poor in the rural South, to a first-generation child of wealthy Nigerian immigrants, to a Black-identifying applicant with multiracial ancestry whose family lives in a typical American suburb. See id., at 15–16.

Links:

summary

U.S. Supreme Court Ends Affirmative Action in Higher Education: An Overview and Practical Next Steps for Employers

www.sidley.com

to read the full decision (Justices opinions):

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

 

[Tair]

Nope you are wrong

From Kavanaugh's AA opinion:

Consider, as well, the development of a separate category for “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.” It seems federal officials disaggregated these groups from the “Asian” category only in the 1990s and only “in response to political lobbying.” Bernstein Amicus Brief 9–10. And even that category contains its curiosities. It appears, for example, that Filipino Americans remain classified as “Asian” rather than “Other Pacific Islander.” See 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 1732.