Should being a racist/bigot/anarchist disqualify you from Police/Military/Office service?

For that matter, the democratic party just elected their first openly racist president since Johnson. His ideology of racist critical race theory fueled hate has been fashioned into his (his own words) "war on white supremacy" whatever that is. Which is, well, ironic given that he actually believes deeply in the Eugenics theory of race. More, he seems entirely willing to take that war against his own people, the average citizen of the US, who, as this topic elicits, might hold "controversial" or "non governmentally supported" ideas. Dangerous ideas like equality of all. Dangerous because it might compete for the power he so desperately wants to wield.

 

A) Agreed. You absolutely have that right. B) Any information you voluntarily make public, such as posting on social media, can be used against you. C) Companies regularly check the social media histories of potential employees to see if they are right for the job. It would be no different for a police department to do the same for potential recruits.

 

So Biden is racist against white people?

 

People are imperfect.

 

Yes

 

if one hates people based on race or gender, why should they have positions of power

I do not want white people in power that hate black people
I do not want black people in power that hate white people

 

With some misgivings, I voted "yes" -- but only (ONLY) in cases where it can be proven that a candidate for service is REALLY a "racist/bigot/anarchist"!

What worries me is that so often we see BLM/ANTIFA/NFAC cadres treated almost like they're 'heroes' by lib media-driven "public opinion", even though all through 2020, THEY were the ones who were rioting, pillaging, rampaging, destroying property, and looting everything they could lay their hands on!

I would want to see the "MAGA hat" extremists excluded from the ranks of law enforcement and the military -- BUT ONLY if the same standard is applied to violent, marauding, America-hating Leftists, too!

Fair enough...?

 

"Racism' is subjective, and as a word, by it's actual definition, is grossly misused and overused. Keep in mind, what measure that is used to judge others, will eventually be turned on you.

Discriminatory actions such as the Asian reported who said all white men should be eliminated (paraphrasing), being that she is supposed to be 'impartial', should be banned from reporting to the public also.

Women who say men should be subjugated should be banned from holding any office or position where their words may have influence.

Men who say that women should be subjugated should be banned from any office or position where their words may have influence.

Rappers who promote and/or glorify violence should be banned from the airwaves.

Anyone who wears bell bottom pants should be banned from public, period.

*sarcasm included, for those who need to be told

 

Gosh, and so, all those democrats who had said all those seditious and insurrectionist things are still in government. Here's the thing though, on B), government has to get a warrant to ask companies for your content. C) Social media isn't all media, and I know you know the difference. Refer to B, and for this case, government still must ask for your consent to address you social media content. absent that, they are still breaking the law. Somehow, though, you still seem perfectly willing to trash the 4th and 5th amendment in favor of tyrannical government. Why is that?

 

He seems to believe in his own grandeur that is for sure. And whoever isn't adding to it seems to be his enemy, hence the "war of white supremacy".. which is literally laughable given his history with actual Klan members of his party, his own personal history of describing desegregation as returning to the jungle, etc. And now, for political gain, he's embraced yet more racism as his radical left now characterize ANYONE who disagrees with him as a white supremacist. Check the inaugural address. It was right there for everyone to see and hear it. And now, you have folks like Brennan calling for use of government force against anyone who isn't loyal to the party. No wonder democrats have used the national guard to reinforce the capital. Why do democrats fear their own people, and want to make war on them?

 

What democrats? What seditious and insurrectionist things did they say?

Sure, but the government doesn’t need a warrant to look at information you make publicly available. If you publish content you should expect that the government can see it.

I never said that social media is all media.

What law is the government breaking by looking at a potential employee’s social media and making decisions based on what they see?

How have my statements suggested I don’t support the 4th and 5th? Please explain.

 

Wait, so is he racist against minorities or is he racist against white people?

Could you quote what Brennan said?

 

Should being a racist/bigot/anarchist disqualify you from Police/Military/Office service?

When I was in Army ROTC in college, we were told The Army accepts all races, colors, ideologies and creeds, so long as they follow orders, uphold the constitution and cooperate cohesively with all the others. It was also put to me- there is no black or white or brown or tan, because everyone in the Army is green (this was right at the end of the jungle camo days, I suppose everyone is now 'digi'). The inference was that being a racist or an anarchist or a communist was like being gay- it was 'allowed' as long you kept it to yourself.

 

So one can't be a victim if the weapon used is only words? Emotional damage is to be dismissed if there is no attended physical harm?
Instigation is not doing harm? No worries what scum want to say to themselves or in their circle jerks, but when they crawl out in public, they need to be cognizant of the consequences. Its not rocket surgery.

 

Absolutely YES.
If you have to "serve and protect" you have to serve and protect all.
This is self explanatory.

 

A fair point, although I do not buy into the "emotional harm" nonsense.

Having an opinion and voicing that opinion is generally harmless. I do recognize a distinction though. Getting in someone's face, as Obama encouraged, is harassment and possibly assault, in addition to instigating violence.

 

So PTSD isn't a thing. I get it.

 

Hasn’t stopped them yet.

 

Can someone carry out their particular job, while disliking or despising the demographic for which the job is meant?
I think they can.
You can’t be liked by everyone in the world but as long as your bigotry or anarchism views don’t impinge on the job, they shouldn’t prevent you from holding that job or office.
EG. Atticus Finch.

 

Hmm.. so when democrats hate white men, you're saying they also shouldn't have power, yes?

 

I think I made that clear, if a black person hates white people, they should not be in a position of power either

 

Whatever will Kamala do now....

 

Of course no one wants an overt bigot etc to be in any position of power over others.

My biggest concern is the yardstick by which one is judged to be a bigot.

Who is to decide if a candidate for LEO, soldier etc is really a racist or other "wrong thinking" individual unless the candidate has left a paper trail of comments on social media that reveals him or her to be a true racist?

 

you mean the women that loves a white man and in fact married one - that is your definition of someone that hates all white people?

 

How about lets not, and ask it just like I did? Cause I made the poll? And you didnt?

If you want to ask a different ques

I do not believe it would be possible to do a job like that WITHOUT letting your personal bias show.