The Trump Presidency...

Watch this space:
The Democratic House passes historic anti-lynching bill after Congress’s century of failure.
Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). introduced the Bill which was finally voted on last night while chump was over at the Reichstag rambling on about how great he is.

H.R. 35, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, was approved on a bipartisan 410-to-4 vote after a sometimes emotional debate in the House. Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), who sponsored the legislation, said the bill will “send a strong message that violence, and race-based violence in particular, has no place in American society.”

House Democrats are somewhat optimistic the Senate will approve the House-passed version send it to President Trump’s desk for his sharpie pen signature and claim that it was his idea all along.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can only ask, why it took so long, how can the Senate possibly vote against it, and why, why, why would these people vote against the Bill.
Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert (Texas), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Ted Yoho (Fla.), and independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
Watch this space:
The Democratic House passes historic anti-lynching bill after Congress’s century of failure.
Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). introduced the Bill which was finally voted on last night while chump was over at the Reichstag rambling on about how great he is.

H.R. 35, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, was approved on a bipartisan 410-to-4 vote after a sometimes emotional debate in the House. Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), who sponsored the legislation, said the bill will “send a strong message that violence, and race-based violence in particular, has no place in American society.”

House Democrats are somewhat optimistic the Senate will approve the House-passed version send it to President Trump’s desk for his sharpie pen signature and claim that it was his idea all along.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can only ask, why it took so long, how can the Senate possibly vote against it, and why, why, why would these people vote against the Bill.
Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert (Texas), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Ted Yoho (Fla.), and independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)
I'm sure there were great people on both sides
 
One can only ask, why it took so long,
Historically because Southern Democrats kept voting against it. "From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 asked Congress to pass a federal law."

"Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc."

how can the Senate possibly vote against it, and why, why, why would these people vote against the Bill.
Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert (Texas), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Ted Yoho (Fla.), and independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)
They voted against it because they don't believe the punishment for it (maximum 10 year prison sentence) fits the crime.
 
Historically because Southern Democrats kept voting against it. "From 1882 to 1968, "...nearly 200 anti-lynching bills were introduced in Congress, and three passed the House. Seven presidents between 1890 and 1952 asked Congress to pass a federal law."

"Not one bill was approved by the Senate because of the powerful opposition of the Southern Democratic voting bloc."

They voted against it because they don't believe the punishment for it fits the crime.
Maximum 10 year prison sentence. OK, I can buy that, it does seem a bit low.

However, 200 lynching bills with 3 passed by {R} and the rest failed because of the {D} seems like a stretch to me, I will however conduct the proper research and stand to be corrected.
 
I will however conduct the proper research and stand to be corrected.
Crack on mate, I'll always put my hands up if shown to be wrong. It was the same thing with civil rights, giving Negroes the vote and the desegregation of schools, Southern Democrats blocking or fighting it every time.

The Federal anti lynching bill of 1918 was the Dyer Bill introduced by Republican Leonidas Dyer from Missouri, it was shot down by guess who.
 
Last edited:
Maximum 10 year prison sentence. OK, I can buy that, it does seem a bit low.
They are also arguing that this bill will supersede State Laws which already have the anti lynching laws. In the State of Texas for example where Louie Gohmert comes from, lynching someone carries the death penalty.
 
The Federal anti lynching bill of 1918 was the Dyer Bill introduced by Republican Leonidas Dyer from Missouri, it was shot down by guess who.
Interesting reading so far but not cut and dried or as simple as the {Dem's.} killed it. I would say at this point it appears to be neither side wanting to pass the 1918 bill.

Executive Secretary James Weldon Johnson lead a lobbying effort to get the necessary votes. The Association circulated posters to promote public awareness of the bill. Walter White was fully involved in this effort handling much of the logistics and ably assisting Johnson. With NAACP support the bill passed the House but not the Senate. In the Senate the southern Democrats filibustered the bill and the Republicans even though they held a majority of the Senate declined to fight for the bill.

Johnson Weldon after the vote: * I should not say "The Republicans did not intend to pass the Dyer Bill," I think they would have been glad to pass it and they had more than enough votes to do so. The fact is, they were not willing to put up the fight necessary to overcome the Democratic opposition. You could say, The Republicans did not try to pass the Dyer Bill." I do not believe the majority of the men on the Republican side hate and despise us " if they do, there are no words left for the sentiments of the majority of men on the Democratic side. The Republicans are disinterested, they want to keep the Negro in the Republican Party, but his insistence upon recognition embarrasses them. I think "wished to ignore us," expresses more exactly the attitude. "Cowardice and Politicians" were the main characteristics of the Republicans.*

I shall continue my research but I can imagine similar scenarios from both sides continuing up until the late 60's early 70's at least.

Oddly enough, the wiki page edited last night doesn't mention any of this.
 
Watch this space:
The Democratic House passes historic anti-lynching bill after Congress’s century of failure.
Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). introduced the Bill which was finally voted on last night while chump was over at the Reichstag rambling on about how great he is.

H.R. 35, the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, was approved on a bipartisan 410-to-4 vote after a sometimes emotional debate in the House. Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), who sponsored the legislation, said the bill will “send a strong message that violence, and race-based violence in particular, has no place in American society.”

House Democrats are somewhat optimistic the Senate will approve the House-passed version send it to President Trump’s desk for his sharpie pen signature and claim that it was his idea all along.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One can only ask, why it took so long, how can the Senate possibly vote against it, and why, why, why would these people vote against the Bill.
Republican Reps. Louie Gohmert (Texas), Thomas Massie (Ky.) and Ted Yoho (Fla.), and independent Rep. Justin Amash (Mich.)
Murder was already Illegal in all 50 states, and the feds typically dont prosecute Murder except for the Military in the UCMJ.

Art. 118. Murder

Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- (1) has a premeditated design to kill; (2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm; (3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or (4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

If, however, the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the federal government also has jurisdiction. If a crime is not committed within any state, then federal jurisdiction is exclusive, for example vessels of the U.S. Navy or the U.S. Merchant Marine in international waters and U.S. military bases worldwide.




18 U.S. Code § 1111.Murder

(a)
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.
Any other murder is murder in the second degree.
(b)
Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;
Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(c)For purposes of this section—
(1)
the term “assault” has the same meaning as given that term in section 113;
(2)the term “child” means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and is—
(A)
under the perpetrator’s care or control; or
(B)
at least six years younger than the perpetrator;
(3)
the term “child abuse” means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;
(4)
the term “pattern or practice of assault or torture” means assault or torture engaged in on at least two occasions;
(5)
the term “serious bodily injury” has the meaning set forth in section 1365; and
(6)
the term “torture” means conduct, whether or not committed under the color of law, that otherwise satisfies the definition set forth in section 2340(1).

So why do we need a law that punishes murder by Lynching when its already well covered by Federal, Military, State and local laws?


BY the way Emmett's father , PVT. Louis Till was Hanged under the Articles of War in 1945 for Rape and Murder in Civitavecchia Italy


He raped 2 Women causing one to miscarry, stabbed another 23 times and robbed a US Sailor breaking both arms. Prior to being drafted he regularly beat Emmett's mother so badly a White Southern judge gave a unprecedented order of protection to her
 
Interesting reading so far but not cut and dried or as simple as the {Dem's.} killed it. I would say at this point it appears to be neither side wanting to pass the 1918 bill.

Executive Secretary James Weldon Johnson lead a lobbying effort to get the necessary votes. The Association circulated posters to promote public awareness of the bill. Walter White was fully involved in this effort handling much of the logistics and ably assisting Johnson. With NAACP support the bill passed the House but not the Senate. In the Senate the southern Democrats filibustered the bill and the Republicans even though they held a majority of the Senate declined to fight for the bill.

Johnson Weldon after the vote: * I should not say "The Republicans did not intend to pass the Dyer Bill," I think they would have been glad to pass it and they had more than enough votes to do so. The fact is, they were not willing to put up the fight necessary to overcome the Democratic opposition. You could say, The Republicans did not try to pass the Dyer Bill." I do not believe the majority of the men on the Republican side hate and despise us " if they do, there are no words left for the sentiments of the majority of men on the Democratic side. The Republicans are disinterested, they want to keep the Negro in the Republican Party, but his insistence upon recognition embarrasses them. I think "wished to ignore us," expresses more exactly the attitude. "Cowardice and Politicians" were the main characteristics of the Republicans.*

I shall continue my research but I can imagine similar scenarios from both sides continuing up until the late 60's early 70's at least.

Oddly enough, the wiki page edited last night doesn't mention any of this.
That made for interesting reading, however as I pointed out earlier, all efforts to give the Negro any rights or the same rights as whites was always impeded by the one party and that was members of the Democrat party. Even up until the nineteen sixties it was members of the Democrat Party that were against school desegregation, in fact President Johnson was at his wits end with Southern Democrats trying to block civil rights for African Americans.

Just to be clear here, I'm not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with you over this and neither am I out to score points. I've stated my position on Congress quite clearly on a few occasions and that hasn't changed one bit, I still think they are all self serving kunts.

You are quite correct to ask why this bill has taken so long to get where it is now but at the same time I find myself asking, Why now? Why not a decade ago or two decades ago or how ever long ago. I think I know the answer to the question why now but I will keep that to myself.

Saying that though by all means keep researching, like you I am also willing to learn, however I'm also willing to accept when I'm wrong and don't let my dislike of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, cloud my view to facts both past and present.

I read the media stories today about the Reps who voted against the bill, I also recognized the media hype and slant put out by them at the same time and the reaction from some Liberals accepting everything written as gospel. Unfortunately it wasn't, but that's what becomes of having a media that has become politicized rather than reporting without bias.

Lets be honest here, you jumped on that story for whatever reason and you asked why (in red I note) why those four voted against it, what you didn't do was go find out why before you posted. Then again maybe you did but didn't say so because it didn't fit in with any views you may hold on one particular political party.
 
Last edited:
King George III.
 
That made for interesting reading, however as I pointed out earlier, all efforts to give the Negro any rights or the same rights as whites was always impeded by the one party and that was members of the Democrat party. Even up until the nineteen sixties it was members of the Democrat Party that were against school desegregation, in fact President Johnson was at his wits end with Southern Democrats trying to block civil rights for African Americans.

Just to be clear here, I'm not going to get into a pi$$ing contest with you over this and neither am I out to score points. I've stated my position on Congress quite clearly on a few occasions and that hasn't changed one bit, I still think they are all self serving kunts.

You are quite correct to ask why this bill has taken so long to get where it is now but at the same time I find myself asking, Why now? Why not a decade ago or two decades ago or how ever long ago. I think I know the answer to the question why now but I will keep that to myself.

Saying that though by all means keep researching, like you I am also willing to learn, however I'm also willing to accept when I'm wrong and don't let my dislike of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, cloud my view to facts both past and present.

I read the media stories today about the Reps who voted against the bill, I also recognized the media hype and slant put out by them at the same time and the reaction from some Liberals accepting everything written as gospel. Unfortunately it wasn't, but that's what becomes of having a media that has become politicized rather than reporting without bias.

Lets be honest here, you jumped on that story for whatever reason and you asked why (in red I note) why those four voted against it, what you didn't do was go find out why before you posted. Then again maybe you did but didn't say so because it didn't fit in with any views you may hold on one particular political party.
Excellent points Sam, once you {and GB} pointed out that the story had another side I genuinely did want to go and research the history of the Bill and refrain from a pissing contest also. My 2nd post may have seemed like a 'ha-ha it was the {R's} fault all along' moment but that wasn't my intention. My intention was to point out that both sides were against the Bill.

Allow me to answer your points made.

Lets be honest here, you jumped on that story for whatever reason and you asked why (in red I note) why those four voted against it, what you didn't do was go find out why before you posted.
On that point you are correct I did initially post with a {D} v {R} bias but that was because I was astounded that after 120 years of trying ANYONE could still be against lynching in any form. I probably would have said the same thing if 4 Dems had done the same thing though. {although I may not have highlighted it}.

It didn't fit in with any views you may hold on one particular political party.
I don't really hold any views against one party over another, both sides seem to be more interested in holding onto power at the expense of doing the right thing for the country.
Not one of my friends consider me to be a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

That's what becomes of having a media that has become politicized rather than reporting without bias.
That statement agrees with the majority of my posts, leaving my pure piss takes aside for a second the sheer hypocrisy and bias in the media and supporters from both sides is incredible it just switches to be against whoever is in power at the time. At the moment Trump supporters get really, really upset and bent out of shape if you disagree with Trump, but forgetting that they spent 8 years ripping Obama to shreds, and before that they spent 8 years ripping Clinton. {and Vice Versa}. There is no doubt that if a {D}, by some miracle gets elected, they will also rip them to pieces as well. The mantra is "How dare you do to us what we did to you."

Keep researching, like you I am also willing to learn.
I will post any findings without bias, in fact further research pointed to FDR {D} refusing to even look at the bill in the 30's because he didn't want to lose the Southern {D} voters in an election year. I went for a beer without posting it.

However I'm also willing to accept when I'm wrong and don't let my dislike of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, cloud my view to facts both past and present.
I wish more posters on this thread agreed with that statement.

My thoughts of the man in charge were in place a long time prior to him being elected and since then he has done nothing to assuage that opinion. I have no intention of changing it.
 
Last edited:
I might add, the stupidity of the Democrats at the moment is also unbelievable.
'Let's all stand there every night and point out to the voters why the other contenders are all shit and have terrible ideas but hey please vote us back in to power anyway'. How this tactic is meant to sway the undecided is beyond me.
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I might add, the stupidity of the Democrats at the moment is also unbelievable.
'Let's all stand there every night and point out to the voters why the other contenders are all shit and have terrible ideas but hey please vote us back in to power anyway'. How this tactic is meant to sway the undecided is beyond me.
AKA The Corbyn Gambit
 
Once I read about the decision a few days ago by the Trump Campaign to file a lawsuit against the NYT for one of their Trump & Russia articles my immediate thought was how can they prosecute this without the defence calling upon Trump to testify. Well apparently I was on the right track.
Trump’s defamation suit against the NYT could blow up in his face. Full link
Attorney David Lurie warned in a Daily Beast column

“On its merits, Trump’s complaint is extremely weak,” Lurie wrote. “A defamation action requires proof that the challenged statement was false. But, because, the campaign (like Trump himself) is a ‘public figure,’ the First Amendment also bars the suit unless the Trump campaign can establish that the newspaper acted with ‘actual malice’ — meaning that the Times had actual knowledge, or reckless disregard, of the challenged statement’s falsity.”


The re-election campaign argues the newspaper knew that Trump and his campaign were not corruptly involved with the Kremlin, but Lurie argues that a mountain of evidence — some reported by the Times and other outlets, and more in indictments filed by Robert Mueller — showed numerous links between the 2016 campaign and Russia.

“Since truth is a defense, if the Trump campaign’s case against Trump was to go forward to the discovery stage, the Times would inevitably seek to obtain evidence regarding whether Trump and his campaign did in fact enter into a quid pro quo arrangement with Putin,” Lurie wrote. “Furthermore, Trump himself would also certainly be a key witness, and would be called upon to provide testimony and documents.”

Getting Trump under oath might be such a sweet proposition that the Times might skip any attempt to dismiss the case and proceed directly to the discovery phase, Lurie wrote.

“If the Times employs that strategy, it will be difficult for Trump to maintain that the Constitution prohibits him from being required to testify,” Lurie wrote. “After all, the campaign, a corporation Trump controls, chose to bring the case, necessarily recognizing that its principal would have to be made available to provide evidence.”
 
I was astounded that after 120 years of trying ANYONE could still be against lynching in any form.
My own view on that is that it is a momentous waste of time, the States already make lynching anyone a criminal offence and have done for quite some time. Indeed there are some States that still have the death penalty for the crime and others were it carries an automatic life sentence without any hope of parole but now here we have Congress wanting to make it a "hate crime", it must be getting close to election time I guess.

As to the rest of your post, I understand what you mean and to a degree, agree with most of it but unlike you I won't give the twats in Congress the time of bothering to post to the extent some people give them, I'd rather go post on the all videos and pictures in here thread.

Anyway an interesting little debate none the less and thank you for that.
 
@Spank-it

The one thing I did find slightly amusing about the whole thing was the 10 year sentence for the the "hate crime". That's really going to bother someone who has already been sentenced to life imprisonment without parole that is, or someone who has been sentenced to die.
 
Donald Chump Jr.:
Dems Hope Coronavirus ‘Comes Here and Kills Millions of People’

1582913203719.png

"But for them to try to take a pandemic and seemingly hope that it comes here and kills millions of people so that they can end Donald Trump’s streak of winning is a new level of sickness. I don’t know if this is coronavirus or Trump derangement syndrome but these people are infected badly.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know there are a ton of people that believe this horseshite but..really? and this guy expects to follow in his dads footsteps? God help America.

1582913919659.png


Oh, and the Dems caused this too.....
1582913994485.png

and NO ONE wants to see that happening
 

Latest Threads

Top