Ron DeSantis accused of making racist slur about Andrew Gillum

Intelligent people know he is racist as are many of his pals some of whom call President Obama a "f ..... Muslim":


https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/ron-desantis-florida-racial-issues-830726

 

Wrong.

Intelligent people do not make such accusations without evidence and you have none.

Even of he is a racist the statement he made about monkeying IT up is NOT racist.

 

So before it was "ALL felons" who were disenfranchised, what felons WERE disenfranchised?

Can you rephrase?

How the hell do you know that?

Oh really? Are you the treasurer of DeSantis's campaign? Have you ever been the treasurer of anything?

It is certainly at least partially socialist, by definition.

Well we don't know that he has any great interest in protecting it, we just have no reason to believe that he will scrap it.

Does he not have a 33 trillion dollar plan? How is he guaranteed to get the federal government to cough up much of that money? And where will the rest come from even if the feds DO cough up some money?

 

This conversation is done unless you can acknowledge recorded history like black codes and convict lease laws. I notice you didn't address that part of my post.

And also you need to be more clear on what is and what isnt socialist. A little socialism is a subjective term that has no real meaning. You defined socialism as redistribution of wealth. That describes every politician that supports our current tax structure. Every politician that supports subsidies for businesses or social safety nets for people. Basically every politician in America. Be intellectually honest and acknowledge that or explain how each of those are redistributions of wealth.

 

I'm happy to acknowledge the awful recorded history like black codes and convict lease laws. Again, what does this have to do with the present?

So before it was "ALL felons" who were disenfranchised, what felons WERE disenfranchised?

Can you rephrase?

Alright, I shouldn't have gone down that path. My point is that Gillum;s policies are radically MORE socialist than what is already in place. Again, does he not have a 33 trillion dollar plan? How is he guaranteed to get the federal government to cough up much of that money? And where will the rest come from even if the feds DO cough up some money?

 

What do historical attempts by conservatives to disenfranchise and incarcerate blacks have to do with present day attempts by conservatives to disenfranchise and incarcerate blacks? I'll leave you to try work that one out for yourself. The rest us figured it out when they were defending Confederate flags and statues.

Which ones do you think? If blacks were slaves that would make any distinction between a black person and a criminal black person pretty unnecessary, I'm sure that clue will help you out some but I'm not here to do your critical thinking for you. If you can't suss out what they are talking about on your own then you're **** out of luck.

Nope

You mean you shouldn't make specious arguments you don't have the intellect to defend? I agree.

What does radical mean? As a description its subjective. Is socializing healthcare that much more radical than socializing defense (the military and police) or education? I don't think so.

The 33 trillion figure is from an analysis of a federal Medicare for all plan that would save the American people 2 trillion dollars in the long run. It's paid through increased federal taxes on the wealthy, the middle class and corporations.

 

Why can't the defense of Confederate flags and statues be simply based on not wanting to erase history but instead allow it serve as a reminder of a time that the country has moved on so far from? What does erasing history achieve exactly? Is racism such a small problem that it can be eradicated by removing Confederate flags and statues?

So it was just slaves that were disenfranchised?

Are you saying that laws are barely enforced on whites?

No, as in I shouldn't have talked in such general terms as "redistribution of wealth." I actually didn't ONCE define socialism simply as the redistribution of wealth as you suggested earlier. However, it is the LEVEL of redistribution of wealth that I am referring to.

It is just my opinion that when we start talking about raising 33 trillion dollars via the redistribution of wealth, we are talking about full on socialism! And I think this opinion is reasonable and one that would be shared among most political commentators.

No, not at all. I didn't say that it WAS any more radical than socialising the rest. The difference is that it requires a hell of alot more funding!

Why should hard working and successful people not be allowed to keep their money? Did they not earn it fairly?

 

The people fighting to protect them tend to be people who think confederates were "good guys" and no one wants to remove Confederate flags and statues to erase history. We just don't want to glorify the Confederacy.

This is a strawman. You're the only one arguing the removal of these racist symbols is to erase history. I'm all in favor of teaching about the evils of the Confederacy.

Figure it out for yourself.

At the time? Yes. It's why a black kid like Emmett Till could be tortured and killed for whistling at a white woman but that women's husband didn't face any consequences for murdering him even though admitting to and laughing about it. But it's not only unequal enforcement. Blacks also get longer sentences for the same crimes.

Yea. I figured that one out for myself. You tried to paint one side as socialists but since both sides fit your definition now you're switching to arguing the appropriate amount of socialism. I said as much.

Except we already socialize healthcare costs. Anyone can walk into an E.R. and get care regardless of their ability to pay. That burden falls on tax payers. Medicare and Medicaid are already publically socialized healthcare options and private health insurance is private socialization. You and I don't pay out of pocket or even the full cost of our care. We pay premiums and when we get sick hopefully our insurance covers the cost. Socialized healthcare just seeks to make the government rather than private industry the insurer.

It does. But understand we have healthcare costs right now and they are more expensive than this proposed plan, so while it might cost more in government funding it actually results in more savings for average people since we eliminate the cost of private insurance. Medicare for all is projected to cost 2 trillion less than what we are currently paying.

That's not a serious argument. It's a childish one that can be used for anything. Why should we have to pay for public education? The police? The military? Why? Because those things are beneficial to society as a whole.

 

Weren't they "good guys" in terms of their war efforts? Why does their ownership of slaves mean that nothing they did was good?

How will I know if I am correct?

No, you said that laws are enforced in a disporpotionate way and it "continues to this day." See below:
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?goto/post&id=1069649381#post-1069649381

The same crime, but with the same criminal history for each criminal?

No, both sides DO NOT fit my definition now! Let me be very clear:

Non-socialist side = distribution of wealth on the current levels.
Socialist side = distribution of wealth BEYOND the current levels. Certainly when it gets to 33 Trillion!

Again, I think this opinion is reasonable and one that would be shared among most political commentators.

Correct, the basics are covered.

"Private socialization?" Did you make that up? A Google search for that term returns no results which contain the words together!

Under this sort of plan, would anyone end up loosing more of their money from additional taxes than they would loose by paying for private health insurance?

Is "healthcare costs" calculated by adding up what everyone spends on their insurance?

Does Gillum have a medicare for all plan just for Florida? Or is he just saying that if he becomes governor, that is what he will push the ferderal government towards?

Could you imagine the country without all of those? How long would the country last? 5 minutes?

 

The Confederates weren't good guys in any context, that doesn't mean the Union were the good guys, its completely possible for there to be no good guys in a violent conflict. Actually, I'd say that's probably the case most of the time.

Boy if you don't know how to look things up and discern fact from fiction then I can't help you. Figure it out.

And I stand by that statement.

Yes. The people studying this aren't idiots and factor in criminal history.

You were pretty clear when I asked you to define socialism previously and you described it as the redistribution of wealth. This is a revision since that last definition left you in a pretty tight box. To be honest your revision makes less sense than the last definition but let's have fun breaking it down anyway.

Why current levels? What about the subsidies that Trump wants to give farmers? That would be more socialism than current levels, does that make Trump a socialist?

Yep. Does insurance not work by socializing the cost of things by pooling the resources of those paying into the policy? If not how do you describe how insurance works?

Here's the thing Chris. I will debate things I've claimed. And I'll debate things you've claimed. But if you want to know about a candidates policies look them up yourself and make an argument. I'm not doing your homework for you shortbus.

 

Gillum nearing a double digit lead

 

@BobbyRam, why did you miss responding to sections 8,9 and 11 of my response? Were you unable?

 

Because you are asking questions whose answers you are more than capable of finding on your own. As I said it's not my job to do research for you. If you want to criticize a particular part of Gillums campaign then do your homework and form an argument.

 

Wrong intelligent people know that guilt by association is not valid. Much like Obama speaking at a mosque does not make him a musim.

 

I'm asking you what YOUR understanding is! How can I research that? Do you want to try again? Here are the questions, worded differently, if you are even remotely capable of giving a response:

1. Is it your understanding that nobody would end up loosing more of their money from additional taxes than they would loose by paying for private health insurance?

2. Are YOU meaning "healthcare costs" as the total of what everyone spends on their insurance?

3. Public education, the police, the military - Could you imagine the country without one of those? How long would the country last? 5 minutes? Actually, with this question, I don't understand how you took it as anything else other than asking for your opinion! With the other two I can see why you thought that I was asking something which can be researched, but not this one!

 

Don't come for me Chris. I noticed you dropped the socialism line all together and I was more than happy to let you do so without further embarrassment.

It's my understanding that the only people who would see a net loss are the 1% and corporations, not just from taxes but because the government would be in a better position to negotiate drug and treatment costs. Something that was unfortunately left out of Obamacare. The middle class would see a tax increase but it would be less than what they are currently paying for private health insurance because after all the reason progressives promote Medicare for all is because we believe that not only will it allow everyone, regardless of income, access to healthcare, but also because it would be cheaper than our current for profit healthcare system.

I believe when they say healthcare costs they mean the totality of the cost not just the cost of insurance.

That's not the question. The question why is it okay to socialize these things but not healthcare? The question is what would this country look like if these things were completely privatized? What would it look like if the middle class had to pay the police out of pocket when they were burglarized? What would happen to the poor if the only option they had was a private school education they couldn't afford? Well this is the situation we have with healthcare in this country were way to many people, poor and middle class, can barely afford healthcare. It is the number one cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. and thousands die each year to lack of care of inadequate care. That should be unacceptable to the citizenry of this country.

I figured out what my problem with you is. You rarely give your opinion on anything and so a debate with you isn't a debate of ideas. Instead we end up debating endlessly about what something I said means. What healthcare costs means, what unarmed means. Its exhausting.

 

FLORIDA:

Andrew Gillum staffer fired after calling for Trump’s execution, wearing shirt deriding pro-Trump states.

While Gillum tells us voters are sick of “gutter politics.”

When did Democrats become the party of political violence?

 

Would the country be where it is today without The Confederates?

So then why were whites also included if "the plan was to criminalize blacks?"

Okay, then how are laws barely enforced on whites today?

So, do you have a figure in your head of what the disparity is? Example, 5 years longer sentences on average.

Wrong. Here are all of my posts that include the term, "redistribution of wealth." Please find the post in which I describe socialism as that.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...post&o=date&c[user][0]=74987&c[thread]=540670

I actually haven't once labeled Gillum as a Socialist. I only asked you if you see him as a socialist because he APPEARED to be one to me.

Is he proposing raising taxes in order to do it?

Shortbus? The 2006 American erotic comedy-drama film? Otherwise, what the hell?

 

How am I doing that?

Why should they see a loss?

This would all be fine with me, because there is no loss. If the whole thing could be sustained without loss to only one group of people, then it would be great.

Yes, that's what I meant when I asked you how long you think the country would last and I suggested "5 minutes" because the country wouldn't last 5 minutes without the police or the military.

Actually, it wouldn't only be the poor who would be affected. While many in the middle and upper class could afford private education, there would obviously not be enough schools to accommodate everyone.

As bad as the situation is, how does it justify giving successful people's money to other people just because they aren't as successful?

Isn't it important to know what someone means by something?

 

And Gillum has a racist campaign


Gillum Campaign Admits They Have to Lie About Who They Are, ‘Florida is a F*cked Up Cracker State’

 

Liberal: "He can't be racist! He's black!"

 

He's a racist.

 

Yeah, but you know liberals!

 

Liberals lie a great deal about their own vile racism.