Kamala's Racial Identity Discussion

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
40,704
Reputation
20,835
Daps
127,545

UpNext

Superstar
Joined
Aug 23, 2019
Messages
4,495
Reputation
1,512
Daps
16,549
That doesn’t mean shyt. Most Black people come degree or not, don’t do the work to study Black people, intricately, and our movements.

All of that education and I have yet to hear you bring up a single black trained scholar in any of your arguments. Not one time. So Idon’t give a fukk how many degrees you have, you’re not in it
Bruh I have no idea what you're rambling about.


You said the video I posted was uneducated, I mentioned the credentials of the person who was in the video. Political Science degree from UCLA with a Law Degree from Loyola discussing legal policy.

The person I posted in the video is a "black trained scholar".

I didn't mention my pedigree (I will say my school when I graduated was rated higher than UCLA in my field of study tho), but thanks for letting me know that if I wasted my time doing it that wouldn't mean shyt either.

:dead:
 

NYC Rebel

...on the otherside of the pond
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
68,370
Reputation
10,588
Daps
230,763
Bruh I have no idea what you're rambling about.


You said the video I posted was uneducated, I mentioned the credentials of the person who was in the video. Political Science degree from UCLA with a Law Degree from Loyola discussing legal policy.

The person I posted in the video is a "black trained scholar". :dead:
I thought you were talking about yourself.

Let me look into what you said.

If it's about the truancy law, the more I learned about it, the more I disliked it. I'm happy Kamala realized how shyty it could get too and tried to change it to where issues could be dropped if their child shows up to school frequently.
 

Gritsngravy

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
8,287
Reputation
627
Daps
16,754
why does every election put me in a moral dillema? why do our candidates always suck?
Cause either party got no policies to run on

And I got to point this out but one of the reasons Cornell west was running was to get people talking about said policies, to get the conversation going but of course media shut him out and bytch ass nikkas on this forum called Cornell a grifter scammer and republican operative

Not only did Kamala not say a damn thing all year and is being hidden by her party, not only have the republicans said anything the whole year, but Biden haven’t said anything all tucking year until the debate where they couldn’t hide him anymore

Like how is it that both parties seem like they didn’t prepare for the election at all but yet a vote for third party is a vote for republican and vice versa

Mfs is playing games with us and it really bothers me that people don’t see the shyt, just going along with it, I don’t even want to talk about the shyt with people in real life no more cause they drank the koolaid, and the crazy part is these the same folks four years ago and 8 years ago will sit up there and tell you how the system is bullshyt but this election just like the last two is life or death and you have to vote for one particular side or you a c00n and an idiot

Like at what point do we try something different
 

Gritsngravy

Superstar
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
8,287
Reputation
627
Daps
16,754
McCain / Palin was a horrible choice and Kamala if elected is almost certainly going to have a more progressive agenda than Obama did. :dead:


McCain got his ass kissed a lot because he was a war hero and a "maverick" who occasionally sided with Democrats and wasn't as bad a person as some Republicans. But he was a rich guy who consistently screwed over poor people, a massive warmongerer, and he backed almost every bad thing that Reagan did outside of trying to override Civil Rights legislation. Not to mention the fact that he picked SARAH PALIN to be his VP in a massive pander to the far right. He would have been terrible for the country as a president.

Not to mention that he was a huge proponent of legalizing illegal immigrants and was realtively liberal on LGBT, which I thought were your two big issues. :skip:
Progressive agenda?
So you saying dems aren’t rich folks who fukk over poor people and warmongers who also backed everything they so called opposition put out?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,891
Reppin
the ether
Not a lie, Brahmin Indian Kamala Harris has in fact gone on record saying truancy would be something she'd look into if she ever became President.

How can she be a "Brahmin Indian" when she's not even Hindu? Kamala's mom had already broken all of her Brahmin caste's rules by marrying a non-Indian (thus rejecting her culture and destroying the genetic lines of caste purity), not to mention that she converted to Christianity and started eating meat which is strictly forbidden by her Brahmin caste. There's an old 2003 interview where Kamala's mom mentions that in marrying Donald Harris, she had broken a 1000-year bloodline of purity. Everything her mom fought for in joining the Black civil rights movement and teaming up with a bunch of Marxists is against Brahmin ideology. Kamala has identified as Black Baptist her entire life, attends church regularly, swore into office on a Bible. She recognizes her cultural heritage, but she's never identified as Hindu nor woud Brahmins acdept her as one.


"The ritual purity of the Brahmans is maintained through the observance of numerous taboos, many of which relate to diet and contact with lower castes. Most Brahman castes are strictly vegetarian, and their members must abstain from certain occupations. They may not plow or handle any impure material, such as leather or hides"





In 2019 this is what she said in an interview with Angela Rye


Harris's comments came during an interview with Angela Rye, a lawyer and liberal political commentator. Rye asked Harris if she would "extend the [anti-truancy] program on a federal level, or try to figure out ways to address truancy on a federal level?"

"Yeah," Harris responded, "but as president it would be really doing it through the Department of Education. I did it through the mechanisms I had, because I wasn't running the city, I wasn't running the county. I wasn't running the state."

Rye pressed her, asking, "do you think the Department of Education is more suited to handle truancy issues?"

"Yeah, I do," Harris said.


The Free Beacon is a right-wing newspaper, you just believed their bullshyt without checking the interview yourself? Kamala NEVER mentions that California law in the interview, she's talking about her own anti-truancy programs that she ran as D.A. in San Francisco, where she helped reduce truancy by 30% without putting a single parent in jail. The Department of Education doesn't have any control of criminal law and wouldn't be able to make any law jailing parents for truancy, she's just talking about them implementing programs to try to reduce truancy among children.




I'm going to need someone to dig a little deeper in that given Brahmin Indian Kamala Harris's history on truancy laws. I'm also going to need timelines on what you're referencing when you say she'll drop the issue altogether. Was this at a later date than that 2019 Angela Rye interview?

The Angela Rye interview was in August 2019. She had already definitively said that the attempts to jail parents were wrong and she wouldn't pursue such a law as president back in April 2019.



"Sen. Kamala Harris on Wednesday expressed “regret” over the “unintended consequences” of a 2011 California truancy law, which she supported as the state attorney general and which she said led to the criminalization of parents.

The presidential hopeful said in a clip posted by the podcast “Pod Save America” that it was “never the intention” that parents of children who missed too much school would be criminalized.

“My regret is that I have now heard stories that where, in some jurisdictions, DAs have criminalized the parents,” Harris said. “And I regret that that has happened and that, the thought that anything that I did could have led to that, because that certainly was not the intention, was never the intention. Never was the intention.”


Harris said the criminalization of parents happened “in other jurisdictions, not under my watch ever. I had no control over that.” The senator added when she was district attorney of San Francisco, from 2004 to 2011, “we never sent a parent to jail.”



Harris said she would not support a similar truancy law if she becomes president.





That's out her mouth in the interview that she went to jail.

She went "to" the jail to have her booking photo taken and be charged. She was never jailed.

At least you admit your past claims that she was convicted, jailed, and that she had the conviction on her record to hurt her job prospects were all false.




Also, Brahmin Indian Kamala was the Attorney General at that time and states-wide truancy laws were her pet project.

Wrong yet again. The law was passed in 2010, Kamala was still just D.A. of San Francisco at the time (though she was running for Attorney General).

Kamala pushed for the law as the San Francisco D.A., but it was also officially endorsed by the California District Attorneys Association, the California State Parent-Teachers Association, and the California Teachers Association. It passed 58-17 in the Assembly and 23-13 in the Senate with strong bipartisan support and was signed by a Republican governor.


Like I said already, I don't support the idea at all and I'm not a fan of her time as prosecutor. But I'm also far-left on prosecution compared
 
Last edited:

that guy

Superstar
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,517
Reputation
692
Daps
18,243
Yes, the price for my vote is that the person running for President doesn't support or will enact draconian, regressive laws and policy that will harken back to Jim Crow. How terrible is that? I like my Presidential candidates to be about the rule of law and actual progress. Oh the humanity.

:mjlol:
It’s actually very terrible. It sounds good to get daps but it makes no sense.

1. You’re giving democrats a free pass to not be proactive and progressive with policy, in order to do something that’s already inherently a given which is to not be republicans. Isn’t the fact that they don’t enact “draconian & regressive” laws what separates them from the republican party? That’s like saying “my expectations for the ravens this season is to not be the steelers”

2. How can you say you like your candidates to be about rule of law and progress when you just said not supporting project 2025 is “enough”

3. If democrats know that all they have to do is not be as bad as trump, what incentive do they have to take risks with progressive policies that actually move the country forward?

Being a political shill for democrats is actually one step away from being a Republican because you allow mediocracy from the democrats and attack voters with real democratic values who believe the standard should be higher than “lesser of two evils”
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,666
Daps
203,891
Reppin
the ether
Progressive agenda?
So you saying dems aren’t rich folks who fukk over poor people


Dems in power choose their positions about 50-50 weighing what the middle class wants and what the rich want (as opposed to Republicans, who 100% follow the rich - there's actually a political study on this exact topic). If their constiuencies in the middle class / rich want to help poor people, they'll do it, but that's not common. Dems in 1990s-2010s specifically were dominated by neoliberals who push capitalism and the global agenda and were especially close to Republicans-lite.

However, starting in 2016 and especially 2018-2020, there's been popular pressure pushing Democrats further to the left and somewhat more in support of the poor. As I noted back in 2019, Kamala was running on a fairly liberal agenda, though she hadn't been nearly as liberal when she was a DA/AG. Biden in 2020 was running on a MUCH more liberal agenda than he had legislated as a senator from the 1970s-2000s. Though he didn't govern quite as liberal as he ran, he still governed significantly more liberal than he used to be, even more liberal than Obama goverened when Biden was his VP.

I think Kamala, similarly, has been feeling that push from the left and will govern even more liberal than Biden.




warmongers who also backed everything they so called opposition put out?


This isn't true. The majority of Dems vote against the Republican tax cuts for the rich, increased military spending, authorizing the War in Iraq, etc. However, you are right that SOME dems vote for some of those things, and that sometimes included dems with power (like Hillary voted to authorize the Iraq War). And they deserve to take shyt for that when they do so.
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
40,704
Reputation
20,835
Daps
127,545
Look. I'm not @that guy. I'm make my voting decision based on policy. If I want my politician to hold a certain position, then 1st, I come up with issues that need fixing, then 2nd, I either support groups who agree with me or I go to my politician/candidate and tell them this is what I want for my vote. What I don't do is wait for any politician to invent an agenda for me and hope that they read my mind right.

Trump is a guy who has already broken a few Constitutional laws. He's supporting a policy plan that will take America and Black people in America especially backwards.

Now if you have some policy you want your politician to vote on or pass as law, then I hope you put the proper people in power. Otherwise, you're just howling at the moon and being mad that it doesn't howl back.

To put it another way, get your money up.
 

NYC Rebel

...on the otherside of the pond
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
68,370
Reputation
10,588
Daps
230,763
It’s actually very terrible. It sounds good to get daps but it makes no sense.

1. You’re giving democrats a free pass to not be proactive and progressive with policy, in order to do something that’s already inherently a given which is to not be republicans. Isn’t the fact that they don’t enact “draconian & regressive” laws what separates them from the republican party? That’s like saying “my expectations for the ravens this season is to not be the steelers”

2. How can you say you like your candidates to be about rule of law and progress when you just said not supporting project 2025 is “enough”

3. If democrats know that all they have to do is not be as bad as trump, what incentive do they have to take risks with progressive policies that actually move the country forward?

Being a political shill for democrats is actually one step away from being a Republican because you allow mediocracy from the democrats and attack voters with real democratic values who believe the standard should be higher than “lesser of two evils”

You continue to post without mentioning anything about Project 2025?

You have never reviewed it.
 

that guy

Superstar
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
5,517
Reputation
692
Daps
18,243
You continue to post without mentioning anything about Project 2025?

You have never reviewed it.
Why do you keep spamming project 2025? Is that all your political discourse consists of?

I don’t care about project 2025 because I’m not voting for republicans
:dahell:

What are your objectives for a Kamala Harris presidency? Try to answer that without mentioning another party.
 
Top