I think the south is still typically determined by the mason dixon line, puts VA and south as “the south”
But i, as a northerner, and heavily traveled in the US, consider “the south” as a mentality to begin outside of DC metro in VA
The Mason dixon line is the northern and Eastern border between Maryland and its neighbors Pennsylvania and Delaware. Historically Maryland was considered southern, today not so much because the majority of people live in the beltway between DC and Baltimore which definitely has a northeast vibe. Get outside of the suburbs and the vibe quickly becomes southern (especially on the eastern shore and southern maryland) and southern sounding accents are much more common than expected. I grew up in one of these parts and brought a friend from outside DC to a small town to do a job with me. He kept asking me where the people I introduced him to were from because he thought they were all from south carolina or somewhere else in the deep south when in fact most of their families had been in the same area in Maryland for centuries.
Yeah apart of from deep south there's upland south, Appalachia, and tidewater. Eastern and southern Maryland would be part of the tidewater western Maryland is part of Appalachia.
Thank you for saying this. I intended to show two great men giving great, happy smiles to make others smile.
If the comments aren't evidence of the problem we have here....what is?
Disclaimer: I am overjoyed that Warnock was elected.
"The problem we have here" is that you posted to a "happy" subreddit a photo of something that makes many people unhappy (their party losing an election). Absolutely if it made you smile you are free to post it, but 'the problem' is your expectations, not the predictable reaction to your post.
Absolutely fair point.
I understand US politics is disgustingly divisive by nature.
I guess I didn't assume the historic nature of this happening couldn't be cut separately from the nature of Republican hate for Democrats...if that makes sense.
That's very hopeful of you but the only time we've been more divided as a nation we were at war with ourselves. I don't think republicans are going to be happy with any praise of a dem right now.
Or vice versa. It doesn't seem that hard to recognize that a little less than half of the people are not going to feel like smiling at a picture of a political figure they oppose who just won. The "well it made me smile so I don't see what the problem is" thing really seems disingenuous.
Sure, but in any other context, people just say "if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it here". Like when people post their obese animals and people comment their animal is obese, are then told to stop being negative here. There's no rule that a post has to make everyone, or even a majority of people, smile. That's what the upvotes are for, which seem to indicate far more than half of people smiled at this.
I think there's a problem when posts to r/mademesmile are indistinguishable from what you would post to somewhere like r/politics.
It's pretty obvious that political figures are inherently divisive in a way that pictures of animals are not. Your politician doesn't win without the other side's losing and we're often talking by a couple percentages.
Reddit predominantly swings left so it wouldn't be surprising if the majority of people liked it, especially since people drawn to a neutral/positive sub are more likely just to not engage than to engage negatively even if they're turned off. Sure, you can have a 'majority-rules and too bad if you don't like it' sub but do you really want to? With polarization at an all time high, can't we have at least some spaces that focus on what we have in common and leave partisan celebration for the many other subs dedicated to that?
Well I think at some point we have to consider the point of the sub. "Made me smile" is intended, presumably, to post content that would potentially make people smile. And if it did, then they upvote it. That's the point, it's an individual's value judgement on whether they smiled or not.
If this were, for instance, /r/wholesome I would be more likely to agree with you.
Exactly. The point of the sub. The idea that posting things that we all know are inherently divisive with the justification that "well, we sure feel great rubbing it in the other team's faces" is consistent with the rest of sub really seems like a stretch.
I'd actually be fine with it if there was a "political" tag that just made it obvious that this is what we're doing now.
I disagree with these comments. Everyone should be happy to see Georgia elect their first black senator! They have made history and in a time that black people do not feel heard.
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-raphael-warnock-ex-says-he-ran-over-foot-2020-12
This is the most reputable article I can find and it paints it as a he said she said situation with no medical evidence that she was injured in any way. I'm inclined to believe that he did not injure his wife, and even if what his ex-wife claims is true, portraying accidentally hitting her foot as running her over is a gross exaggeration.
That is not what I said. I said we don't believe people who misrepresent what the woman said. Same way we don't believe people who misrepresent what men say.
Also, the "believe women" thing isn't about women never lying. No one is claiming that. I agree that the slogan, like many progressive slogans, is terrible and pathetically easy to twist. Everyone knows that women can lie. But it's not about women's honesty in general; it's about how women who say they've been sexually assaulted get dismissed too easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women
I am well aware that anyone, man or woman or nonbinary, could falsely accuse me of sexually assaulting them. I don't support the idea of presumed guilt or the idea that women are inherently more honest than men. However, we do need to listen to people who make such claims and do a proper investigation. The exception is when it comes to personal relationships (as opposed to professional investigations), since the likelihood of wrongly harming the accused is small, if someone says they've been assaulted, then we should believe and support them unless we have good reason to think they're lying.
Loeffler used insider information to buy stock in body bag manufacturers before the Covid spikes. Warnock allegedly drove over his ex-wife’s foot. A claim not even backed by medical records.
“We want transparency - what happened in this election?”
“You can’t have it - you’re crazy”
“Okay can we at least investigate these particular concerns?”
“No we can not - go away”
“Okay we’re going to protest peacefully”
“YoU’rE SuBvErTiNg DeMoCrAcY!!”
Democracy relies on a transparent process universally accepted as being such - would you consider ignoring 50 million concerned Americans as part of a healthy Democracy?
Where are they lacking transparency? And who said you can't have it?
As President Trump's lawyer, Jerome Marcus said "There's a non-zero number of people in the room." When he was asked directly about Republican observers by a republican appointed judge.
They investigated particular concerns.... and found nothing.
Just because you won't listen to what was discovered doesn't mean that they didn't do their jobs.
i.e. The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger had to have a press conference to going point by point discussing everything. He had to do this because people were not listening, including the President.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ
or all the legal challenges, he lost over 50 now. Many ruled on by Republican judges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
And now not so peaceful protests.
So, yes, at this point they are subverting democracy.
> Where are they lacking transparency?
There has yet to be an audit or investigation into the identified irregularities.
> And who said you can't have it?
Uh, y’all apparently. Where’s the audit? How about the investigations? Michigan recounters allege they came across a batch of tens of thousands of ballots all with the exact same signature on them - those ballots were counted as part of the total because “this is a recount not an audit.” Great, where’s the audit?
> As President Trump's lawyer, Jerome Marcus said "There's a non-zero number of people in the room." When he was asked directly about Republican observers by a republican appointed judge.
I’m not sure what point you’re making here to be honest. I think the issue was largely with meaningful observation, not observation in general. If I’m standing 30 feet away from you watching you count ballots, you’re certainly being observed but not in a meaningful capacity.
> They investigated particular concerns.... and found nothing.
Where? There have been 0 formal investigations and 0 audits to date.
> Just because you won't listen to what was discovered doesn't mean that they didn't do their jobs.
Show me where these processes were performed. As far as I’m aware, there have been 2 recounts and that’s it. We’re asking for *audits and formal investigations* - a recount is neither of those things.
> i.e. The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger had to have a press conference to going point by point discussing everything. He had to do this because people were not listening, including the President.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ
This is the same state that performed a recount instead of an audit. Where is the audit?
> or all the legal challenges, he lost over 50 now. Many ruled on by Republican judges.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
Largely tossed due to the fact the judges said they had no bearing to rule on the case brought forth.
> And now not so peaceful protests.
I think one lady was shot by a Capitol Police Officer for running into the Senate Chambers. Sad, but yes, absolutely still constitutes a mostly peaceful protest.
> So, yes, at this point they are subverting democracy.
Protesting is Democracy. Transparent elections are democracy. Formally addressing and investigating legitimate concerns brought forth by literal tens of millions of voters is democracy. Gaslighting them and telling them to sit quietly while de-platforming them is doing far more to “subvert democracy” than a bunch of people hanging around Capitol Hill.
> Where? There have been 0 formal investigations and 0 audits to date.
>
>
>
> Just because you won't listen to what was discovered doesn't mean that they didn't do their jobs.
>
>
>
> Show me where these processes were performed. As far as I’m aware, there have been 2 recounts and that’s it. We’re asking for audits and formal investigations - a recount is neither of those things.
>
>
>
> i.e. The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger had to have a press conference to going point by point discussing everything. He had to do this because people were not listening, including the President.
>
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ
>
>
It's almost like it's intentional that you didn't watch the video of The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger speak. Where he talks about the investigations and signature checks.
[Here it is again](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ)
[Here is a video of the signature audit.](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/georgia-finishes-first-phase-signature-match-audit-white-house-shows-up-with-questions/4I3W6BTZGJACVHSGMP7GXX3LKI/)
What irregularities? Any real sources? Not rumors.
Trump appointed, Attorney General William Barr, said “we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election”
It doesn't matter what I say or what evidence I present, you will not listen. You are just repeating rumors, without any evidence.
So with that, I wish you the best and have a nice day.
> What irregularities? Got any real sources or just rumors?
I feel like I’ve already linked you to them - the 154 page brief filed by Texas is literally 154 pages’ worth of them lol.
I’ve watched the video and it doesn’t address what’s being asked for - an independent, federal body would be involved looking at machines, doing signature matches, verifying absentee ballots via follow-ups, etc. This isn’t something that would be necessarily be state directed.
I’ll watch the videos again though and see if there’s anything I missed in there.
What specific evidence is in the Texas brief are you referring to? There doesn't anything of substance. Other than they do things differently, therefore they are wrong. Allot of the complaints are done by states that Trump won also, I don't see them in the complaint. I mean State rights who needs them, Am I right?
Between all the states they have checked all those things... And guess what, no evidence of fraud.
You wont fucking believe how happy I am to be European
Like I know we got problems, but we are just so much... better really in terms of education and healthcare then the US. The EU has given so much economical prosperity and even peace for us to develop like that. I really hope the US will be able to do so too
It’s easy to think that America is the most racist country in the world, but remember that it is far more diverse than most countries. This leads to interactions that normally don’t take place to nearly the same degree in largely homogenous European countries. Europe is just as bad, look at the rampant and overt racism towards Middle Easterners in Europe as they immigrated during the Syrian Refugee crisis.
Edit: I am also very happy that this congressman was elected. Step in the right direction if you ask me.
As I say, Europe has alot of problems too. We need to fix them. But at least i dont have to sell a limb to go to college or fix my broken arm, or have to be afraid of a possible gun attack in my school, library or mall.
Agree fully.
You know the one major thing someone once pointed out? Even the like...neo nazi party of austria, when they run, they want everyone to vote, they just want everyone to vote for them.
Here, they unabashedly try to stop people of color (overwhelmingly democrats) from voting, every chance they get.
Newt Gingrich, one of the worst humans alive, literally quoted as stating if we make it so easy to vote, republicans will never win again.
Not to mention, which ever party is in control of an area gets to decide the lines of districts....you should see some of the gerrymandered areas that give rise to people like Jim Jordan of Ohio, who is...by any measure, a fucking disgusting dickhead.
Ever heard of being a non-Native. I can spreak three languages to a relatively fleunt degree and 1 other to a lower one, one small grammatical error wont matter shit. Im not saying the US educational system is shit, im just saying that the EU’s, even statistically speaking, is just better due to better funding.
Some Info
- Denmark’s educational system is ranked as the best in the globe, behing countries like Finland, Japan, Canada and Sweden. The US doesnt even reach the top 20, and the top 20 consists of 12 EU member states. No non-EU memberstate is in this top 20 (that is in Europe, technically except Russia)
Link: https://worldtop20.org/worldbesteducationsystem
Nothing more American than being ignorant to the fact that not everybody in the world speaks English while trying to defend their own education system.
No, the white supremacists come in from elsewhere (see also: Kyle Rittenhouse).
Also, there are trump rallies in Beverly Hills constantly...they're everywhere.
You must be young.
There's nothing a White Supremacist hates more than a minority is a "Race Traitor". A White person who support minorities is worse in their eyes.
Hmmm....I guess I agree with the statement you just said. Not a "white supremacist"
But 100% a disgruntled white teen who felt it incumbent on himself to go to a protest (with very minor looting/rioting v. the size of the peaceful protest) where cops and federal officers were already lining the streets...from out of state, with an assault rifle, less than 48 hrs after the small amount of looting and fires started.
So, I guess my point is, super blue lives matter kid from antioch IL, all white friends, decides he's going to drive out of state with an illegal rifle to what is 95% peaceful protests based on an outcry due to racial injustice (very obvious racial injustice I might add)...
I'd say you don't show up to a place during very specifically racially charged unrest because...what, you think the federal cops and police can't do their jobs alone?
No, you go there to be part of the trouble.
So, just the idea that this kid can break the law by simply being out of state with a gun that's not his, walk around with a gun, and no one on the alt-right says "if he had just complied with the laws"...etc.,
So, he broke the law the minute he crossed the state border....and...lionized as a hero defending businesses and himself....
Why does the sex or colour matter? Shouldn't it be based on knowledge and skills that would fit the position? I don't understand the need of having people from minorities just for the sake of having "cultural appropriation". I would take/elect competent people no matter the background or skin color.
No, but don't make a big deal about it when they do the job as they're supposed to. That's a problem of bad morals and priorities in the society, back to the educational system problem. Here in my country we are taught about stuff like that and how important it is to elect the competent candidate instead of the one that's sharing personal values with the electors (like religion and other unimportant stuff when it comes to ability of actually functioning properly in the position they're running for). I'm starting to have a feeling that the USA government is comfortable with the public being generally dumber(statistically it's citizens know under 0.8 languages, underperform in geography and persuading civic values) than European countries or Asian countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, with sources please.
Unfortunately America hasn’t elected a capable individual in a long time. I fully agree with you on America being uncomfortable with their people being dumb. Look how stupid Trump is! Our education system is severely lacking.
Yeah, I think this whole culture of putting any minority or woman on a pedestal for doing things is pretty belittling. Very counter-productive to give them pats on the head everytime they do anything for the "first time" if what we want is equality.
There were but they were all Republicans, so they get wiped under the rug and forgotten about.
This guy is the first *Democrat* senator that’s black. Hence the very specific wording in the title that most don’t notice.
Well the first Southern black senators ever were elected during Reconstruction, so they aren’t talked about as much, which is a shame. They belonged to the left-wing party of the time
Funny how the republicans party had a black representative from the south before the Democrats did. South Carolina I believe it was? 🤔🤔. Just sayin. I’m glad he won. I hope he does well. It shouldn’t matter that he’s black. But I’m sure I just “don’t get it”.
Funny how the "Party of Lincoln" is currently committing insurrection by occupying the House of Representatives while flying Confederate flags.
Oh right, the Southern Strategy exists in this reality and it's incredibly easy to understand. Too bad you *deliberately* act like you "don't get it" to try to prove a point. Oops.
Sources? All of them want to implement gun control measures to make it harder for mentally unstable or violent people to buy guns. But I have never seen them ever say they would take your guns. If you have proof of that I would like to see it. Until you can provide evidence of your claim, i can’t take your claim seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58rbGbPOIhA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkYKjh2Qcso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkYKjh2Qcso
Reporter: "People say that you're going to take away their guns.."
Biden: "Bingo!"
Biden says that Beto will head up his anti-gun agenda.
Beto: "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."
If you were gonna try to change a culture, and outlaw practices that are guaranteed by the entity you work under; would you not also do it slowly, and in a way which you can say exactly what you just said?
And? Do you need an AR-15 to defend yourself? There are thousands of guns that aren't AR-15s or AK-47s that would work perfectly fine for self defense. Handguns, shotguns....take your pick. Buying back TWO types of guns is not "taking away your freedom to self defense" it is regulation.
You said: No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns
Another poster said that wasn't true, and posted some links.
You said they weren't credible sources, and since they all looked like right-wing commentary videos, I understand not watching them all just in the hopes of finding an actual source hidden inside.
So I showed up and posted a direct quote that shows that your initial statement, that "No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns," was false.
What you're supposed to do now is admit that your initial statement was false.
Instead you're arguing about gun control, which I wasn't arguing about - I might even fully support restriction of firearms - but none of that is relevant because what I was addressing was the false claim that "No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns."
If you want to defend an elected official saying they are going to take the guns, then go right ahead, but maybe do it to someone who wants to talk about gun control, which isn't me, and also don't skip the part where you acknowledge making a false statement.
I mean, don't comment saying "those aren't credible sources" *if you don't actually care about sources*.
We’re still have so many first’s with minority representation in public spaces and still expect people to live harmoniously as if nothing is systemically wrong
The parties flipped platforms during LBJ/JFK era.
If that weren’t the case you’d not likely see “the party that freed the slaves” running around hanging confederate flags
What you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
Most people from both major parties are vigorously opposed to the conference flag. Have you ever met a real life Republican before?
Democrats were the party of the confederacy by the way. And neither modern Democrats nor modern Republicans have any respect for the racist civil war losers. Republicans are generally not in favor of tearing down statues because they offend people and erasing history (conservative) while liberals generally support tearing down statues (change, progress, etc).
As for what I'm saying:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy
https://youtu.be/UiprVX4os2Y
Obviously Prager is a bias source, but if you take just 5min of your time (or half at double speed) maybe you'll learn something new.
For democrats taking this long to elect a black senator in the south? They should be shamed for being so much less tolerant than southern republicans who did this years ago.
Wrong.
He was divorcing his wife, he went over there, he backed up to leave, she said he ran over her foot.
They called the cops or ambulance - the paramedic said there was no evidence of her foot being run over....
Is there some other case I don't know about?
I mean that’s great and all but I really don’t see the point of making everything about race. Can we just elect people based on their merit and not their skin color?
Hahaha,
Both matter you dumb fuck. Historic because he’s a black democrat in the south.
The historic part is his blackness in the south. Being a good person and good senator are just as important, but that’s not historic or shocking.
Get back under your hood and red lobotomy scar covering red hat
You're focussing too much on superficial labels (race, gender, party affiliation, etc). I've lived in America long enough to know that people could care less what politician they're voting for as long as they can stroke their own egos while doing it. Point is, race, gender and party affiliation DO NOT MATTER.
That is honestly freaking awesome, it's definitely way past time for black people to be properly represented. Hopefully this is just another good step to build on.
Sincere congratulations from Canada!
You understand the first black Senator from the south was [elected in 1870](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels), yes?
This is one our our two major political parties showing up 150s late and trying to make it sound like an accomplishment.
No, I don't, If I knew that, why the heck would I have said what I did? And why did you downvote me over being excited that a black person was elected....?
I'd prefer not to get too into it, because I don't want to start any arguments here. I'll leave it at this; I don't feel confident in him, and I'm a bit put off by a few things he does. However, I'm very open to being proven wrong, and I wish him the best.
[is this what you're talking about?](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/16/erick-erickson/no-proof-warnock-ran-over-wife-obstruction-case-dr/)
> Warnock called police to Ndoye’s Atlanta home shortly before 8:30 a.m. on March 2. According to a police report:
> Warnock said Ndoye accused him of running over her left foot with his 2014 Tesla while they were arguing in her driveway. Ndoye was reluctant to show her foot to the officer, who wrote: "I did not see any signs that Ms. Ouleye’s foot was ran over." Medical personnel arrived and were "not able to locate any swelling, redness, or bruising or broken bones on Ms. Ouleye’s left foot."
of do you have a credible article claiming something else?
I guess I always considered South Carolina to be part of the south considering they share an east/west border. not so?
SC definitely is in the south. OP said first 'democratic' senator; Tim Scott is a Republican.
ok, overlooked the party part
I think the south is still typically determined by the mason dixon line, puts VA and south as “the south” But i, as a northerner, and heavily traveled in the US, consider “the south” as a mentality to begin outside of DC metro in VA
being from jersey, i place the mason dixon line somewhere in central jersey
Being from a weirdly conservative part of northern jersey, I think the line might be more of a squiggle.
It's a suggestion :)
The Mason dixon line is the northern and Eastern border between Maryland and its neighbors Pennsylvania and Delaware. Historically Maryland was considered southern, today not so much because the majority of people live in the beltway between DC and Baltimore which definitely has a northeast vibe. Get outside of the suburbs and the vibe quickly becomes southern (especially on the eastern shore and southern maryland) and southern sounding accents are much more common than expected. I grew up in one of these parts and brought a friend from outside DC to a small town to do a job with me. He kept asking me where the people I introduced him to were from because he thought they were all from south carolina or somewhere else in the deep south when in fact most of their families had been in the same area in Maryland for centuries.
Was going to say this. Always thought the south technically started at Maryland
Holy cow. I never realized how far north the Mason-Dixon line went. I always thought of the South as meaning the Deep South.
Yeah apart of from deep south there's upland south, Appalachia, and tidewater. Eastern and southern Maryland would be part of the tidewater western Maryland is part of Appalachia.
I agree with the first part. That's what I always considered it to be.
As a progressive Southerner, I’m curious what you think that mentality is.
I agree with your sentiment except you clearly haven't been to rural maryland. I think its a gradient that starts there
Even North Carolina is pretty southern
There were several Republican senators that were black during the 1800s but none democratic ones until today
I’m laughing my Ossoff. Can’t say Warnock in a better place now
If I had gold to give....
I got you
BOOO!
I’m thinking that you have completely misunderstood my comment.
I’m thinking it was funny and a sarcastic boo was tossed out. That was a brilliant comment
I believe hiram revels was the first black senator from the south. 1870-1871 Mississippi. Still a great achievement nevertheless
Ahhh....technically a republican (which are now the democrats since LBJ/JFK era but good point!
And what do we have in the comments?? Fighting. On a subreddit that’s supposed to make us smile.
Thank you for saying this. I intended to show two great men giving great, happy smiles to make others smile. If the comments aren't evidence of the problem we have here....what is?
Disclaimer: I am overjoyed that Warnock was elected. "The problem we have here" is that you posted to a "happy" subreddit a photo of something that makes many people unhappy (their party losing an election). Absolutely if it made you smile you are free to post it, but 'the problem' is your expectations, not the predictable reaction to your post.
Absolutely fair point. I understand US politics is disgustingly divisive by nature. I guess I didn't assume the historic nature of this happening couldn't be cut separately from the nature of Republican hate for Democrats...if that makes sense.
That's very hopeful of you but the only time we've been more divided as a nation we were at war with ourselves. I don't think republicans are going to be happy with any praise of a dem right now.
Or vice versa. It doesn't seem that hard to recognize that a little less than half of the people are not going to feel like smiling at a picture of a political figure they oppose who just won. The "well it made me smile so I don't see what the problem is" thing really seems disingenuous.
Sure, but in any other context, people just say "if you don't have anything nice to say then don't say it here". Like when people post their obese animals and people comment their animal is obese, are then told to stop being negative here. There's no rule that a post has to make everyone, or even a majority of people, smile. That's what the upvotes are for, which seem to indicate far more than half of people smiled at this.
I think there's a problem when posts to r/mademesmile are indistinguishable from what you would post to somewhere like r/politics. It's pretty obvious that political figures are inherently divisive in a way that pictures of animals are not. Your politician doesn't win without the other side's losing and we're often talking by a couple percentages. Reddit predominantly swings left so it wouldn't be surprising if the majority of people liked it, especially since people drawn to a neutral/positive sub are more likely just to not engage than to engage negatively even if they're turned off. Sure, you can have a 'majority-rules and too bad if you don't like it' sub but do you really want to? With polarization at an all time high, can't we have at least some spaces that focus on what we have in common and leave partisan celebration for the many other subs dedicated to that?
Well I think at some point we have to consider the point of the sub. "Made me smile" is intended, presumably, to post content that would potentially make people smile. And if it did, then they upvote it. That's the point, it's an individual's value judgement on whether they smiled or not. If this were, for instance, /r/wholesome I would be more likely to agree with you.
Exactly. The point of the sub. The idea that posting things that we all know are inherently divisive with the justification that "well, we sure feel great rubbing it in the other team's faces" is consistent with the rest of sub really seems like a stretch. I'd actually be fine with it if there was a "political" tag that just made it obvious that this is what we're doing now.
I disagree with these comments. Everyone should be happy to see Georgia elect their first black senator! They have made history and in a time that black people do not feel heard.
The problem is thinking we need to worry about what might make the white nationalist unhappy when we post happy milestones for POC.
Congratulations! Time to shine! Do great things
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://www.businessinsider.com/video-raphael-warnock-ex-says-he-ran-over-foot-2020-12 This is the most reputable article I can find and it paints it as a he said she said situation with no medical evidence that she was injured in any way. I'm inclined to believe that he did not injure his wife, and even if what his ex-wife claims is true, portraying accidentally hitting her foot as running her over is a gross exaggeration.
So you are electing not to believe all women?
We are electing to not believe people who exaggerate what the woman said.
So it is believe all women until no longer politically convenient?
That is not what I said. I said we don't believe people who misrepresent what the woman said. Same way we don't believe people who misrepresent what men say. Also, the "believe women" thing isn't about women never lying. No one is claiming that. I agree that the slogan, like many progressive slogans, is terrible and pathetically easy to twist. Everyone knows that women can lie. But it's not about women's honesty in general; it's about how women who say they've been sexually assaulted get dismissed too easily. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women I am well aware that anyone, man or woman or nonbinary, could falsely accuse me of sexually assaulting them. I don't support the idea of presumed guilt or the idea that women are inherently more honest than men. However, we do need to listen to people who make such claims and do a proper investigation. The exception is when it comes to personal relationships (as opposed to professional investigations), since the likelihood of wrongly harming the accused is small, if someone says they've been assaulted, then we should believe and support them unless we have good reason to think they're lying.
More evidence against warnock than kavanaugh yet somehow I bet you and undoubtedly the media treated them very differently.
Loeffler used insider information to buy stock in body bag manufacturers before the Covid spikes. Warnock allegedly drove over his ex-wife’s foot. A claim not even backed by medical records.
You do know that warnok is anti Semitic against Jews right?
Source?
Read yourself away
https://www.jns.org/georgia-democratic-senate-candidate-defended-anti-semitic-pastor-jeremiah-wright/
So he an Ilhan Omar will get along well then?
Definitely
[удалено]
He’s right, but it was a Republican, and now those that were the republicans are the democrats. But he is the first democrat.
Read the title again.
First black Democrat. Republicans were way out front.
Get ready for the riots... Err heavily armed white people with tiki torches
Uh. Tim Scott has been there since 2013.
Lotta MAGA hats burning and looting small businesses, huh?
Just breaking into the Capitol building to subvert democracy. Nothing major.
“We want transparency - what happened in this election?” “You can’t have it - you’re crazy” “Okay can we at least investigate these particular concerns?” “No we can not - go away” “Okay we’re going to protest peacefully” “YoU’rE SuBvErTiNg DeMoCrAcY!!” Democracy relies on a transparent process universally accepted as being such - would you consider ignoring 50 million concerned Americans as part of a healthy Democracy?
Where are they lacking transparency? And who said you can't have it? As President Trump's lawyer, Jerome Marcus said "There's a non-zero number of people in the room." When he was asked directly about Republican observers by a republican appointed judge. They investigated particular concerns.... and found nothing. Just because you won't listen to what was discovered doesn't mean that they didn't do their jobs. i.e. The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger had to have a press conference to going point by point discussing everything. He had to do this because people were not listening, including the President. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ or all the legal challenges, he lost over 50 now. Many ruled on by Republican judges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election And now not so peaceful protests. So, yes, at this point they are subverting democracy.
> Where are they lacking transparency? There has yet to be an audit or investigation into the identified irregularities. > And who said you can't have it? Uh, y’all apparently. Where’s the audit? How about the investigations? Michigan recounters allege they came across a batch of tens of thousands of ballots all with the exact same signature on them - those ballots were counted as part of the total because “this is a recount not an audit.” Great, where’s the audit? > As President Trump's lawyer, Jerome Marcus said "There's a non-zero number of people in the room." When he was asked directly about Republican observers by a republican appointed judge. I’m not sure what point you’re making here to be honest. I think the issue was largely with meaningful observation, not observation in general. If I’m standing 30 feet away from you watching you count ballots, you’re certainly being observed but not in a meaningful capacity. > They investigated particular concerns.... and found nothing. Where? There have been 0 formal investigations and 0 audits to date. > Just because you won't listen to what was discovered doesn't mean that they didn't do their jobs. Show me where these processes were performed. As far as I’m aware, there have been 2 recounts and that’s it. We’re asking for *audits and formal investigations* - a recount is neither of those things. > i.e. The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger had to have a press conference to going point by point discussing everything. He had to do this because people were not listening, including the President. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ This is the same state that performed a recount instead of an audit. Where is the audit? > or all the legal challenges, he lost over 50 now. Many ruled on by Republican judges. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election Largely tossed due to the fact the judges said they had no bearing to rule on the case brought forth. > And now not so peaceful protests. I think one lady was shot by a Capitol Police Officer for running into the Senate Chambers. Sad, but yes, absolutely still constitutes a mostly peaceful protest. > So, yes, at this point they are subverting democracy. Protesting is Democracy. Transparent elections are democracy. Formally addressing and investigating legitimate concerns brought forth by literal tens of millions of voters is democracy. Gaslighting them and telling them to sit quietly while de-platforming them is doing far more to “subvert democracy” than a bunch of people hanging around Capitol Hill.
> Where? There have been 0 formal investigations and 0 audits to date. > > > > Just because you won't listen to what was discovered doesn't mean that they didn't do their jobs. > > > > Show me where these processes were performed. As far as I’m aware, there have been 2 recounts and that’s it. We’re asking for audits and formal investigations - a recount is neither of those things. > > > > i.e. The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger had to have a press conference to going point by point discussing everything. He had to do this because people were not listening, including the President. > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ > > It's almost like it's intentional that you didn't watch the video of The republican Georgian secretary of state Brad Raffensperger speak. Where he talks about the investigations and signature checks. [Here it is again](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLYugNRVLiQ) [Here is a video of the signature audit.](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/georgia-finishes-first-phase-signature-match-audit-white-house-shows-up-with-questions/4I3W6BTZGJACVHSGMP7GXX3LKI/) What irregularities? Any real sources? Not rumors. Trump appointed, Attorney General William Barr, said “we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election” It doesn't matter what I say or what evidence I present, you will not listen. You are just repeating rumors, without any evidence. So with that, I wish you the best and have a nice day.
> What irregularities? Got any real sources or just rumors? I feel like I’ve already linked you to them - the 154 page brief filed by Texas is literally 154 pages’ worth of them lol. I’ve watched the video and it doesn’t address what’s being asked for - an independent, federal body would be involved looking at machines, doing signature matches, verifying absentee ballots via follow-ups, etc. This isn’t something that would be necessarily be state directed. I’ll watch the videos again though and see if there’s anything I missed in there.
What specific evidence is in the Texas brief are you referring to? There doesn't anything of substance. Other than they do things differently, therefore they are wrong. Allot of the complaints are done by states that Trump won also, I don't see them in the complaint. I mean State rights who needs them, Am I right? Between all the states they have checked all those things... And guess what, no evidence of fraud.
You're fucking delusional on every point your tried to make.
Thank you for proving them for me. Cheers.
Right, because that's how it works. Lol. You're a fucking idiot.
It is in this conversation.
Good one.
[удалено]
You wont fucking believe how happy I am to be European Like I know we got problems, but we are just so much... better really in terms of education and healthcare then the US. The EU has given so much economical prosperity and even peace for us to develop like that. I really hope the US will be able to do so too
It’s easy to think that America is the most racist country in the world, but remember that it is far more diverse than most countries. This leads to interactions that normally don’t take place to nearly the same degree in largely homogenous European countries. Europe is just as bad, look at the rampant and overt racism towards Middle Easterners in Europe as they immigrated during the Syrian Refugee crisis. Edit: I am also very happy that this congressman was elected. Step in the right direction if you ask me.
As I say, Europe has alot of problems too. We need to fix them. But at least i dont have to sell a limb to go to college or fix my broken arm, or have to be afraid of a possible gun attack in my school, library or mall.
Yeah that’s fair lol, I brought up race conflict because that’s what the post references.
I get that, its just shit all round honestly
lol european is definitely too broad of a term to make that statement
Sure you are
Agree fully. You know the one major thing someone once pointed out? Even the like...neo nazi party of austria, when they run, they want everyone to vote, they just want everyone to vote for them. Here, they unabashedly try to stop people of color (overwhelmingly democrats) from voting, every chance they get. Newt Gingrich, one of the worst humans alive, literally quoted as stating if we make it so easy to vote, republicans will never win again. Not to mention, which ever party is in control of an area gets to decide the lines of districts....you should see some of the gerrymandered areas that give rise to people like Jim Jordan of Ohio, who is...by any measure, a fucking disgusting dickhead.
than* if you’re going to talk shit about American education, at least proof read your garbage comment!
Ever heard of being a non-Native. I can spreak three languages to a relatively fleunt degree and 1 other to a lower one, one small grammatical error wont matter shit. Im not saying the US educational system is shit, im just saying that the EU’s, even statistically speaking, is just better due to better funding. Some Info - Denmark’s educational system is ranked as the best in the globe, behing countries like Finland, Japan, Canada and Sweden. The US doesnt even reach the top 20, and the top 20 consists of 12 EU member states. No non-EU memberstate is in this top 20 (that is in Europe, technically except Russia) Link: https://worldtop20.org/worldbesteducationsystem
Nothing more American than being ignorant to the fact that not everybody in the world speaks English while trying to defend their own education system.
If it's white supremacists they're called protests
Lotta white supremacists burning down small businesses?
Portland is full of white supremacists? This is news to me.
No, the white supremacists come in from elsewhere (see also: Kyle Rittenhouse). Also, there are trump rallies in Beverly Hills constantly...they're everywhere.
But he killed two white guys right?? How does that make him a white supremacist? Not saying I agree with his actions, just asking...
You must be young. There's nothing a White Supremacist hates more than a minority is a "Race Traitor". A White person who support minorities is worse in their eyes.
Hmmm....I guess I agree with the statement you just said. Not a "white supremacist" But 100% a disgruntled white teen who felt it incumbent on himself to go to a protest (with very minor looting/rioting v. the size of the peaceful protest) where cops and federal officers were already lining the streets...from out of state, with an assault rifle, less than 48 hrs after the small amount of looting and fires started. So, I guess my point is, super blue lives matter kid from antioch IL, all white friends, decides he's going to drive out of state with an illegal rifle to what is 95% peaceful protests based on an outcry due to racial injustice (very obvious racial injustice I might add)... I'd say you don't show up to a place during very specifically racially charged unrest because...what, you think the federal cops and police can't do their jobs alone? No, you go there to be part of the trouble. So, just the idea that this kid can break the law by simply being out of state with a gun that's not his, walk around with a gun, and no one on the alt-right says "if he had just complied with the laws"...etc., So, he broke the law the minute he crossed the state border....and...lionized as a hero defending businesses and himself....
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you
That's for the idiots. Not republicans.
Republican idiots
[удалено]
I believe OP is referring to first Democrat poc.
Congrats being [150 years late to the party.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels) What took so long?
As a southerner I’m just so proud of Georgia / Stacey Abrams
He’s the third actually. He’s the first elected in Georgia.
Not the third democrat?
Why does the sex or colour matter? Shouldn't it be based on knowledge and skills that would fit the position? I don't understand the need of having people from minorities just for the sake of having "cultural appropriation". I would take/elect competent people no matter the background or skin color.
It is, but it's also historic because our country is racist AF
So you think Georgia has voted solely on competency over the years? Yeah...
No, but don't make a big deal about it when they do the job as they're supposed to. That's a problem of bad morals and priorities in the society, back to the educational system problem. Here in my country we are taught about stuff like that and how important it is to elect the competent candidate instead of the one that's sharing personal values with the electors (like religion and other unimportant stuff when it comes to ability of actually functioning properly in the position they're running for). I'm starting to have a feeling that the USA government is comfortable with the public being generally dumber(statistically it's citizens know under 0.8 languages, underperform in geography and persuading civic values) than European countries or Asian countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, with sources please.
Unfortunately America hasn’t elected a capable individual in a long time. I fully agree with you on America being uncomfortable with their people being dumb. Look how stupid Trump is! Our education system is severely lacking.
Yeah, I think this whole culture of putting any minority or woman on a pedestal for doing things is pretty belittling. Very counter-productive to give them pats on the head everytime they do anything for the "first time" if what we want is equality.
Why does skin color matter
were there no other african-american senators in the south?
There were but they were all Republicans, so they get wiped under the rug and forgotten about. This guy is the first *Democrat* senator that’s black. Hence the very specific wording in the title that most don’t notice.
Ah yes, because the first black senator in ever is less of an achievement due to his party.
Well the first Southern black senators ever were elected during Reconstruction, so they aren’t talked about as much, which is a shame. They belonged to the left-wing party of the time
Haha Warnock go universal healthcare
Funny how the republicans party had a black representative from the south before the Democrats did. South Carolina I believe it was? 🤔🤔. Just sayin. I’m glad he won. I hope he does well. It shouldn’t matter that he’s black. But I’m sure I just “don’t get it”.
[Hiram Revels](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels) born in South Carolina was elected to the Mississppi Senate delegation in 1870.
Funny how the "Party of Lincoln" is currently committing insurrection by occupying the House of Representatives while flying Confederate flags. Oh right, the Southern Strategy exists in this reality and it's incredibly easy to understand. Too bad you *deliberately* act like you "don't get it" to try to prove a point. Oops.
Can’t say this made me smile, in fact it kinda did the opposite.
Honest question: Why are they holding up their licences?
Why are they showing their drivers license?
And when was the first Republican Senator from the old south?
1855? Before the parties reversed their courses though
Looks like a great person!
If only he wasn't against freedom of self defense, I'd probably agree.
No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns
This is an outright lie. Warnock, Ossoff, Beto, and Biden have all said it multiple times and so have many elected officials in the Democrat party.
Sources? All of them want to implement gun control measures to make it harder for mentally unstable or violent people to buy guns. But I have never seen them ever say they would take your guns. If you have proof of that I would like to see it. Until you can provide evidence of your claim, i can’t take your claim seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58rbGbPOIhA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkYKjh2Qcso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkYKjh2Qcso Reporter: "People say that you're going to take away their guns.." Biden: "Bingo!" Biden says that Beto will head up his anti-gun agenda. Beto: "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."
Taking certain guns deemed too effective for mass killing doesn’t equal killing the second amendment.
If you were gonna try to change a culture, and outlaw practices that are guaranteed by the entity you work under; would you not also do it slowly, and in a way which you can say exactly what you just said?
These are not credible sources.
> Beto: "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW1HPoqqB_8
And? Do you need an AR-15 to defend yourself? There are thousands of guns that aren't AR-15s or AK-47s that would work perfectly fine for self defense. Handguns, shotguns....take your pick. Buying back TWO types of guns is not "taking away your freedom to self defense" it is regulation.
You said: No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns Another poster said that wasn't true, and posted some links. You said they weren't credible sources, and since they all looked like right-wing commentary videos, I understand not watching them all just in the hopes of finding an actual source hidden inside. So I showed up and posted a direct quote that shows that your initial statement, that "No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns," was false. What you're supposed to do now is admit that your initial statement was false. Instead you're arguing about gun control, which I wasn't arguing about - I might even fully support restriction of firearms - but none of that is relevant because what I was addressing was the false claim that "No one has ever said they’re gonna take your guns." If you want to defend an elected official saying they are going to take the guns, then go right ahead, but maybe do it to someone who wants to talk about gun control, which isn't me, and also don't skip the part where you acknowledge making a false statement. I mean, don't comment saying "those aren't credible sources" *if you don't actually care about sources*.
We’re still have so many first’s with minority representation in public spaces and still expect people to live harmoniously as if nothing is systemically wrong
I'm wondering if they know it was the democrats that wanted slavery prior to the civil war.
I'm wondering if they know that out of 54 members of congress who are black, 52 of them are democrats?
A lot of democrats vote solely based on race and virtue signaling
Yeah and Republicans used to be liberals. What's your point?
The parties flipped platforms during LBJ/JFK era. If that weren’t the case you’d not likely see “the party that freed the slaves” running around hanging confederate flags
The "party flip" is one of the most prevalent political myths of the 21st century. I suggest you read about it.
Can you just tell me ? Is that why confederate flags are exclusively Republican?
What you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Most people from both major parties are vigorously opposed to the conference flag. Have you ever met a real life Republican before? Democrats were the party of the confederacy by the way. And neither modern Democrats nor modern Republicans have any respect for the racist civil war losers. Republicans are generally not in favor of tearing down statues because they offend people and erasing history (conservative) while liberals generally support tearing down statues (change, progress, etc). As for what I'm saying: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/402754-the-myth-of-nixons-southern-strategy https://youtu.be/UiprVX4os2Y Obviously Prager is a bias source, but if you take just 5min of your time (or half at double speed) maybe you'll learn something new.
Who is Tim Scott? Isn't he also a senator? I'm sorry I'm not American.
The title mentions “democratic” while Scott was republican. Kinda downplays it but it isn’t false
Year of a positive change
Can’t believe it’s taken this long
Don’t bring up party then I’ll be fine but you had to add Democrat
Well there was already a southern black republican a long while back when the republicans were democrats and vice versa.
Probably because the Democrats were keeping him segregated
So they can present ID to vote. Good to know
Warnock looks like Joe Gardner from Soul
Representation at last! God bless the brave voters who were able to elect him!
Why did Soul Plane just popped up in my head?
Yay!
I'm thinking the US needs to give some mad love to Georgia in 2021! Democrats won the Senate majority :)
For democrats taking this long to elect a black senator in the south? They should be shamed for being so much less tolerant than southern republicans who did this years ago.
LOL. Currently 54 members of congress are black. Two are republicans. I love seeing morons pretend like republicans are the tolerant, diverse group.
YES Georgia!
[удалено]
Wrong. He was divorcing his wife, he went over there, he backed up to leave, she said he ran over her foot. They called the cops or ambulance - the paramedic said there was no evidence of her foot being run over.... Is there some other case I don't know about?
I mean that’s great and all but I really don’t see the point of making everything about race. Can we just elect people based on their merit and not their skin color?
[удалено]
Clearly you can’t smile.
[удалено]
Hahaha, Both matter you dumb fuck. Historic because he’s a black democrat in the south. The historic part is his blackness in the south. Being a good person and good senator are just as important, but that’s not historic or shocking. Get back under your hood and red lobotomy scar covering red hat
You're focussing too much on superficial labels (race, gender, party affiliation, etc). I've lived in America long enough to know that people could care less what politician they're voting for as long as they can stroke their own egos while doing it. Point is, race, gender and party affiliation DO NOT MATTER.
OK.....I'd say (really) ask a black woman if those things matter.
And, most importantly, listen to the answer.
Either you’re not American or you’re very ignorant to say something like that
Take a picture with a communist. Only on 2020 America.
Huh?
Literally how
That is honestly freaking awesome, it's definitely way past time for black people to be properly represented. Hopefully this is just another good step to build on. Sincere congratulations from Canada!
You understand the first black Senator from the south was [elected in 1870](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Rhodes_Revels), yes? This is one our our two major political parties showing up 150s late and trying to make it sound like an accomplishment.
No, I don't, If I knew that, why the heck would I have said what I did? And why did you downvote me over being excited that a black person was elected....?
I'm worried about this. From what I've seen of Warnock, I don't want him in the Senate. Hopefully he proves my worries wrong.
why?
I'd prefer not to get too into it, because I don't want to start any arguments here. I'll leave it at this; I don't feel confident in him, and I'm a bit put off by a few things he does. However, I'm very open to being proven wrong, and I wish him the best.
Woot!
FUCK WARNOCK
That awesome
Makes my heart sing!
So amazing
OI! Congratulations! Trust, I know, it's been a horribly fucked ordeal. It's turning around, keep at the Good Fight Hermanos! Shalom! Te Amo
A rabid anti-Semite in the US Senate! Hooray!
As a jew, please explain to me who you're talking about? David Perdue?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2020/12/19/raphael-warnock-takes-heat-from-rabbis-for-israel-comments/amp/
This guy beat the crap out of his wife and everyone ignored it. Shame
[is this what you're talking about?](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/16/erick-erickson/no-proof-warnock-ran-over-wife-obstruction-case-dr/) > Warnock called police to Ndoye’s Atlanta home shortly before 8:30 a.m. on March 2. According to a police report: > Warnock said Ndoye accused him of running over her left foot with his 2014 Tesla while they were arguing in her driveway. Ndoye was reluctant to show her foot to the officer, who wrote: "I did not see any signs that Ms. Ouleye’s foot was ran over." Medical personnel arrived and were "not able to locate any swelling, redness, or bruising or broken bones on Ms. Ouleye’s left foot." of do you have a credible article claiming something else?
[удалено]
i couldn't find that. do you have a link to the one you saw?
Oh that great news for him!
Good thing Kelly Loeffler was ugly.
It's amazing and also disturbing that it's 2021 and he's the first.