Republican Tim Scott, the Only GOP Senator to sign on to Anti-Lynching Bill

[Frankeneinstein]

Do we need any further explanation?

well, since you haven't had or needed a further explanation for anything for more than half a century now I am going to say no.

 

[harmonica]

more wasted time
more dumbass laws/bills

...also, as others have said--they concentrate on stupid/unimportant/not critical dumbshit --that will not help blacks--instead of concentrating on something that will help blacks:
....blacks graduate at lower levels
..blacks murder over 3000 blacks every year--over eight per DAY
THESE are the problems blacks should concentrate on
not racism
not lynching
definitely not the police!!!!!!
no wonder they have so many problems--real and imagined

 

[Polishprince]

"the willful act of murder by a collection of people assembled with the intention of committing an act of violence upon any person."

So does that mean you would be willing to prosecute this group in the same manner?

Trump supporters can sue San Jose cops for attacks by protesters, court says

Who was murdered?

Heather Heyer was. How about that?

Ms. Heyer wasn't lynched.

 

[Missourian]

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.

How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?

Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...

 

[Avatar4321]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Tim Scott is finding it harder and harder to pretend he’s not in a party of white supeemacist losers

He doesn't need to pretend. He isn't a Democrat

Ok cookie. He does have to keep pretending that you aren’t the party of the kkk

We aren’t. We never have been

 

[Pogo]

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.

How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?

Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...

I don't "propose an anti-lynching bill". I simply corrected your timeline.
I didn't bother to research it; that's just a famous case that I know was well after 1981. How many more there may be, I don't know, but I do know they didn't quit in 1981.

 

[Kondor3]

A Solution in Search of a Problem.

 

[Missourian]

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.

How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?

Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...

I don't "propose an anti-lynching bill". I simply corrected your timeline.
I didn't bother to research it; that's just a famous case that I know was well after 1981. How many more there may be, I don't know, but I do know they didn't quit in 1981.

I appreciate that...thanks for posting it...it really drives home the idiocy of the OP & the notion that an "anti-lynching bill" has any use other than political theater...which is about the only thing the Democrats excel at these days.

 

[deanrd]

Sen. Tim Scott Says 'It's Good To Be First' As The Only GOP Senator To Sign On To Anti-Lynching Bill

On CBS's "Face The Nation," Sen. Tim Scott had a difficult time trying to explain why no other Republican has signed on to the anti-lynching bill that he has put forth.

-------------------------

The GOP is 90% white.

This is Tim Scott:

Do we need any further explanation?

Tim Scott is finding it harder and harder to pretend he’s not in a party of white supeemacist losers

He doesn't need to pretend. He isn't a Democrat

Ok cookie. He does have to keep pretending that you aren’t the party of the kkk

No pretense necessary, since we aren't the party that FOUNDED it.

No, it was white conservatives.

Hmm, white conservatives. Who are white conservatives these days? Hint, their party is 90% white.

Oops!

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How many laws against murder do we need? I’m thinking one should do it. And it’s in the Ten Commandments.

 

[BlackFlag]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

 

[Pogo]

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Not exactly what I'd call a traditional lynching, but okay...that's two in the last 40 years...and the people responsible, one was executed, one's on death row awaiting execution, and the last is serving life without the possibility of parole.

How do you propose the anti-lynching bill is going to serve more justice than that? Put their executed bodies back in prison for a few years after they're dead? Execute them a couple of times each?

Like I said...a solution to a non-problem...

I don't "propose an anti-lynching bill". I simply corrected your timeline.
I didn't bother to research it; that's just a famous case that I know was well after 1981. How many more there may be, I don't know, but I do know they didn't quit in 1981.

I appreciate that...thanks for posting it...it really drives home the idiocy of the OP & the notion that an "anti-lynching bill" has any use other than political theater...which is about the only thing the Democrats excel at these days.

Actually the Senator is a Republican.

As I said I'm not willing to accept it even is an "anti-lynching bill" on the basis of a blog headline. As they say in Missouri, "Show me".

 

[bripat9643]

Democrats...experts at finding solutions to non-problem.

The last lynching in the United States was 1981 !

Lynching of Michael Donald - Wikipedia

Say, that's only eighteen years before James Byrd.

Pretty sure Jasper County Texas is in the United States.

Wow, did you JUST now figure out that people continue to kill each other in spite of it being against the law?

Wow, have you not yet figured out that "1998" is long after "1981"? Ergo the "1981" cannot have been the "last"?

Read much?

James Byrd wasn't lynched, dumbass.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

LMAO! You’re my favorite USMB retard. Keep up the good work though rdean is right on your heels.

 

[BlackFlag]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

LMAO! You’re my favorite USMB retard. Keep up the good work though rdean is right on your heels.

^ doesn’t realize that if it were good politics for the modern GOP, they’d be signing up to support it.

Admit it, you’d be pissed if your GOP rep came out in opposition to lynching.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

LMAO! You’re my favorite USMB retard. Keep up the good work though rdean is right on your heels.

^ doesn’t realize that if it were good politics for the modern GOP, they’d be signing up to support it.

Admit it, you’d be pissed if your GOP rep came out in opposition to lynching.

Why would I be pissed? Murder is not acceptable. It’s one of the biggest sins one can commit. Made the top ten. I’ve never read a version that had any exceptions for race have you?

What do you think the law should be for blacks killing blacks? Do we need a new law for that?

 

[Kondor3]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

What the phukk are you talking about? What the hell are you smoking? Or is it just LibTard Kool-Aid?

 

[Pogo]

Too many conservatives want the right to lynch black people back. It’s bad politics for republicans to support this bill in their Trump era.

What the phukk are you talking about? What the hell are you smoking? Or is it just LibTard Kool-Aid?

I believe he's making the same observation post 57 made:

Republicans are worried that bigots, racists, and neo-fascists might be offended by the legislation.

You know, the same reason Rump had to hail Nazis and skinheads as "very fine people" and pretend not to know who David Duke is. Can't upset the base now. They gets cranky.

 

[FA_Q2]

But since we've had James Byrd mentioned, albeit in a post I have had explained to me had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic or with any sort of point, let's discuss what difference these sort of "even more illegal!" laws are supposed to make.

Byrd was killed by three men. Of those three, one has already been executed, one is on death row awaiting execution, and one was sentenced to life in prison, and has apparently had to be in solitary since 2003 for his own protection. In the aftermath of Byrd's death, we saw the passage of numerous "hate crimes" laws, to apparently make it even MORE illegal to kill someone than it already was. At the time, I couldn't figure out how that was supposed to work. Were we gonna call in a necromancer to raise them from the dead and execute them twice?

And now we somehow need a law to SPECIFICALLY make it illegal to lynch people, even more than it's already illegal to kill people generally? And the same question applies: what more is there to do than the law already provides? What, in other words, is the frigging POINT?

It isn't my thread or my bill, Ms. Hair-up-the-ass. I simply corrected a post that said that "the last lynching was in 1981" with a reference to a well-known one from 1998. In the civilised world we call this "refutation".

In tiny little words that means "no, the last lynching was not 1981 because here's one long after".Don't like it? Tough titty.

Can't believe I actually have to sit and explain simple shit to a purported adult.

Go change your diaper. You're making a mess here.

That does not refute the point in the post though which is that lynching is not an issue anymore. Further, your example is actually a fantastic illustration of why this 'law' is asinine in the first place, existing laws already completely cover this type of crime.

Here is the text. Several pages of text in this bill and the actual law is essentially 1 paragraph. The entire thing is nothing but showmanship.
https://www.harris.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/ALB18773.pdf

 

[FA_Q2]

If you lynch someone your are committing a murder that is already against the law. What is an Anit Lynching Bill going to do make murder more illegal than it already is?

The law would make it a federal hate crime.

It already is. The law is pointless.