The Tariq Nasheed Thread

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,652
Reputation
19,541
Daps
201,707
Reppin
the ether
:unimpressed:

We're not voting for Crime Bill Biden :camby:


So now you admit it was a disingenuous, bullshyt question.

You started with, "Can anyone say what harm Trump actually did?" Then you're given a massive list of ways in which Trump overtly worked to harm Black communities between 2017 and 2020. Instead of even saying, "Thanks for that list", you deflect to something Biden did 30 years ago that he's personally worked to partially overturn since then....while Trump was literally working to make it worse.

You can just say you love Trump and leave it at that, without having to lie about caring about policies.
 

Kyle C. Barker

Migos VERZUZ Mahalia Jackson
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
27,488
Reputation
9,203
Daps
118,091
Funny how you and like 4-5 other FBA posters like @Cat piss martini @2 Up 2 Down and others denounce Tariq's message in this thread, but the secret Pro-Trump posters are deathly afraid of confronting you directly :russ:


I just want some of these brehs to take a minute and think about the rabbit holes they've been going into lol
 

MrRDU

Superstar
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
5,992
Reputation
516
Daps
25,514
So now you admit it was a disingenuous, bullshyt question.

You started with, "Can anyone say what harm Trump actually did?" Then you're given a massive list of ways in which Trump overtly worked to harm Black communities between 2017 and 2020. Instead of even saying, "Thanks for that list", you deflect to something Biden did 30 years ago that he's personally worked to partially overturn since then....while Trump was literally working to make it worse.

You can just say you love Trump and leave it at that, without having to lie about caring about policies.
I dont give a fukk about either one but I'm still waiting to see where Tariq was wrong. Can I get one specific policy damn?
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,652
Reputation
19,541
Daps
201,707
Reppin
the ether
I dont give a fukk about either one but I'm still waiting to see where Tariq was wrong. Can I get one specific policy damn?


I gave you a long fukking list, how is one policy better? :dahell:

Okay, let's start from the top of the list.


TRUMP'S ADMINSTRATION REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE OR ENFORCE CONSENT DECREES AGAINTS RACIST POLICE DEPARTMENTS

Under the Obama Administration, the Department of Justice enforced consent decrees upon police departments when they were found to habitually violate the civil rights of Black people. Consent decrees against the police departments were issues in Ferguson, Baltimore, Cleveland, Newark, New Orleans, and nine other cities. This is for shyt like racial profiling, excessive use of force, racial bias in use of force, harassment of black civilians, etc. When a consent decree is being enforced, the department must be able to consistently demonstrate that it is no longer practicing the behavior that the DOJ is reprimanding it for, in terms of specifically following through with explicit rules they agreed to, or risks losing federal funding and/or being investigated for breaking federal law.


When Trump came into power, he refused to enforce consent decrees and put out a policy refusing to enact any new ones, thus telling every police department in the country they could do whatever the fukk they wanted to Black people and the feds were not going to intervene.




The decision to scupper consent decrees was taken by Trump’s first US attorney general, Jeff Sessions. As one of his final acts in the post, in November 2018 he released a memo that so drastically curtailed the remit of the agreements as to render them moribund.

Attempting to justify the change, Sessions made clear he believed policing should be left to local and state law enforcement bodies, no matter how brutally they treated black and other minority citizens supposedly under their protection.

“It is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies,” he said.

Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said it was “astonishing the attorney general can simply decide to leave on the shelf a critical tool that would allow us to address this terrible problem”.

She added that Sessions’ decision to abdicate from federal government oversight of unconstitutional policing was in tune with his longstanding opposition to tackling systemic racial discrimination within policing.

Sessions’ approach has been continued by his successor as US attorney general, Bill Barr. “Sessions and Barr embrace the ‘bad apples’ theory of police brutality – they simply won’t accept the concept of systemic discrimination in police departments,” Ifill said. “This is catastrophic. Prosecuting police officers, one by one, will not result in fundamental change.”

Consent decrees fall under the 1994 Law Enforcement Misconduct Act that was passed by Congress in the wake of the brutal beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles police three years earlier. The statute allows the US government to sue local police agencies that engage in “patterns and practices” of unconstitutional policing and fail to comply with essential reforms.

The provision has made a profound impact on several of the most troubled police forces in the country, including Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray. The 25-year-old black man died in April 2015 after he sustained spinal injuries while being transported under arrest in a police van.

Since it was introduced, Baltimore’s consent decree has been credited with bringing critical change to policing in that city.



Since Biden came back into office, he immediately resumed the previous consent decrees that Trump had failed to enforce, and began opening new investigations starting with Minneapolis to determine whether the actions of Derek Chauvin were a lone wolf or part of a pattern of systematic bias.



The Department of Justice has found that the Minneapolis Police department has systematically:
  • Uses excessive force, including unjustified deadly force.
  • Unlawfully discriminates against Black and Native American people in its enforcement activities.
  • Violates the rights of people engaged in free speech.
  • Discriminates against people with behavioral health disabilities when responding to calls for assistance.

They are now negotiating the terms of the consent decree against Minneapolis PD.

The Justice Department also announced earlier this year that they have found Louisville Metro Police (Breanna Taylor) to have systematically:

* unlawfully executed search warrants without knocking and announcing
* discriminated against Black people
* violated the rights of police critics engaged in protected free speech.

They have reached an agreement in principle for that consent decree to be inforced

The Biden DOJ also has ongoing investigations open against Phoenix PD, Mount Vernon PD, Louisiana State Police, New York City PD's Special Victims Division, Worcester PD, and Oklahoma City PD. And, of course, it doesn't just impact the police in those cities, but the very fact that the DOJ is actually holding police departments accountable will impact how departments are run in other cities as well.


That's just ONE example of how the Trump Administration pushed a particular policy to specifically hurt Black people in the opposite form of Obama and Biden. You want me to give 20 more?
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,652
Reputation
19,541
Daps
201,707
Reppin
the ether
I dont give a fukk about either one but I'm still waiting to see where Tariq was wrong. Can I get one specific policy damn?


Let's do a second one, on a completely different issue.


TRUMP SCRAPPED DISPARATE IMPACT CRITERIA FOR RACISM IN HOUSING REGULATIONS




"Disparate Impact" is when you can prove that someone has done something that systematically hurts Black people, even if you can't prove they did it explicitly because they hate Black people. For example, if a bank says they will no longer approve mortgages in certain communities, and those communities are overwhelmingly Black, then you can say the bank's rule clearly has a disparate impact against Black people even though they didn't explicitly say they did it to fukk over Black people.

Under the Obama administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) acknowledged this principle by formally codifying the Disparate Impact Rule in 2013, and consistently affirming the existing Disparate Impact Rule through its fair housing enforcement and guidance as recently as 2016.

But [Trump's] new proposed rule will weaken existing housing protections by imposing a significantly higher burden on victims of housing discrimination to prove their claims, making it nearly impossible to prevail. This change would make it harder to challenge forms of algorithmic discrimination — such as unjust tenant-screening tools or discriminatory marketing schemes — by providing special defenses for business practices that rely on algorithms or statistics, undoing decades of progress in advancing fair housing opportunities for all.

Why does Trump want to undermine this rule? Because it works. Disparate impact liability is a tool like none other in the law with numerous examples of how it has helped dismantle the many systemic barriers to fair housing. The Disparate Impact Rule has been critical in challenging covert or disguised forms of housing discrimination that otherwise escape easy classification. Advocates have invoked the Disparate Impact Rule in challenging discriminatory zoning regulations, predatory mortgage lending practices that charge excessive rates to people of color or people with disabilities, overly restrictive occupancy requirements that shut out families with children, and policies that threaten housing for survivors of gender-based violence and women of color.

Housing discrimination and segregation remain serious challenges for many people of color, particularly as property owners employ discriminatory screening policies. Just this year, the ACLU settled a lawsuit against a Virginia housing complex for its policy of denying any person with a felony conviction or certain misdemeanor offenses—no matter how long ago it happened or how serious the offense. The ACLU is also suing the City of Faribault, Minnesota, for its similar “crime-free” policy, which — given the disproportionate rates at which Blacks and Latinx people are charged with and convicted of crimes — unfairly hurts the most vulnerable among us. As HUD has recognized, excluding people with criminal records may constitute race discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, thanks to disparate impact liability.


The Trump Administration passed a new rule making it almost impossible to use the Obama Administration's Disparate Impact Rule of 2013. That makes it extremely difficult to prove discrimination, because it's easy to just make sure you don't write "we hate Black people" in any official policy or communications, and you're scot free. If you can't "prove" they did it to hurt Black people, nothing happens to them.

That's a 2nd clear policy the Trump Administration put in place to hurt Black people.


You want more? I can go to the Civil Rights Division, to the Department of Education, to HUD, to banking regulations, to labor law, to affirmative action, to voter ID laws, to the war on drugs, and that's before we even get to all the justices he put in place who are fukking over money for Black farmers, blocked race-based affirmative aciton in colleges, allowed racial gerrymandering, and making the three strikes law even worse.

What about this can you not see?
 

TripleAgent

FBA. ZayK
Supporter
Joined
May 28, 2012
Messages
34,538
Reputation
4,914
Daps
86,637
Reppin
Baltimore
Third party candidates are in the same spot they’ve been in since I was young. Cornell West would’ve been better off trying as a D or an R.

Also there has literally been debates happening for republicans but most people don’t care because Donald Trump ain’t involved. I mean The Governor of South Carolina just paraded Trump around a football field during halftime like he coached a team or some shyt smh. People don’t even really care about politics like that anyway, they just see names.
If he ran as a Democrat, the DNC would sandbag him like they do anyone who isn't their chosen horse.
 

staticshock

Veteran
Joined
Apr 15, 2017
Messages
38,119
Reputation
5,285
Daps
163,640
Reppin
Atlanta
Oh ok I just thought according to
thecoli the police were the enforcement arm of white supremacy. Now you’re saying they need more funding and better training :dead:

The coli doesn’t represent all black folks. These nikkas are dumb and immature. The only thing this website is good for is talking basketball.
 

FS4LFE

Veteran
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
14,108
Reputation
2,035
Daps
67,305
When posters see a Tariq Nasheed thread:

rage-mad.gif
Just say he’s your daddy. Get off your knees.
 
Last edited:

MrRDU

Superstar
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Messages
5,992
Reputation
516
Daps
25,514
"B b but what about" a favorite deflection of Tariq cultists.

Iirc those council members faced calls to resign when their racism was discovered from DEMOCRATS, and have been ousted. Unlike Republican politicians who remain in power or receive promotions like Jeff Sessions being tapped for the AG position after a lifetime of publicly known racism. Because only democratic voters care about it

Of course you don't acknowledge that part in your attempt to deflect

Let's do a second one, on a completely different issue.


TRUMP SCRAPPED DISPARATE IMPACT CRITERIA FOR RACISM IN HOUSING REGULATIONS




"Disparate Impact" is when you can prove that someone has done something that systematically hurts Black people, even if you can't prove they did it explicitly because they hate Black people. For example, if a bank says they will no longer approve mortgages in certain communities, and those communities are overwhelmingly Black, then you can say the bank's rule clearly has a disparate impact against Black people even though they didn't explicitly say they did it to fukk over Black people.




The Trump Administration passed a new rule making it almost impossible to use the Obama Administration's Disparate Impact Rule of 2013. That makes it extremely difficult to prove discrimination, because it's easy to just make sure you don't write "we hate Black people" in any official policy or communications, and you're scot free. If you can't "prove" they did it to hurt Black people, nothing happens to them.

That's a 2nd clear policy the Trump Administration put in place to hurt Black people.


You want more? I can go to the Civil Rights Division, to the Department of Education, to HUD, to banking regulations, to labor law, to affirmative action, to voter ID laws, to the war on drugs, and that's before we even get to all the justices he put in place who are fukking over money for Black farmers, blocked race-based affirmative aciton in colleges, allowed racial gerrymandering, and making the three strikes law even worse.

What about this can you not see?
"charge excessive rates to people of color or people with disabilities, overly restrictive occupancy requirements that shut out families with children, and policies that threaten housing for survivors of gender-based violence and women of color."

Wtf dont yall understand about specific? And get the fukk outta here like you care about some housing. You got Black ppl being displaced right fukking now to house illegals AND TRUMP AINT DOING IT
 

Tair

Superstar
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
6,149
Reputation
2,514
Daps
30,616
So now you admit it was a disingenuous, bullshyt question.

You started with, "Can anyone say what harm Trump actually did?" Then you're given a massive list of ways in which Trump overtly worked to harm Black communities between 2017 and 2020. Instead of even saying, "Thanks for that list", you deflect to something Biden did 30 years ago that he's personally worked to partially overturn since then....while Trump was literally working to make it worse.

You can just say you love Trump and leave it at that, without having to lie about caring about policies.

If Biden had done 50% of the list you posted these guys would be wailing about how anti-Black he is. They'd be pointing directly to that list as proof positive of Biden's anti-Black racism and not a crime bill of 30 years ago.
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
50,652
Reputation
19,541
Daps
201,707
Reppin
the ether
"charge excessive rates to people of color or people with disabilities, overly restrictive occupancy requirements that shut out families with children, and policies that threaten housing for survivors of gender-based violence and women of color."

Wtf dont yall understand about specific?


Wait, is your argument that because Trump fukked over other people too in addition to Black people, it doesn't count as fukking over Black people? :dead: :dead: :dead:



You realize that Trump's own judges have cemented the policy that you CAN'T write any legislation explicitly for Black people? So how the fukk is he going to do this random-ask thing you asked to show? The point is that, because of Trump, you CAN'T write Black-specific legislation!
 

Rakim Allah

Superstar
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
12,875
Reputation
2,077
Daps
21,514
Reppin
Los Angeles
Stop it. It's a political movement. You have a political agenda and a platform. A lineage is apolitical. Japanese is a lineage. Black American is a lineage. FBA is a political movement and maybe a cult
It’s a lineage.

A Jamaican American citizen is considered Black American in this country, friend.
:unimpressed:

We're not voting for Crime Bill Biden :camby:
why would any Black American, throughout the Diaspora, vote for any white supremacist who are not promising “tangibles”?






































































:mjpls:, friends.
 
Top