The Justice Act: Democrats slammed the door in a black man's face, and ultimately betrayed one of their key constituencies

[Olde Europe]

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives ...

Aw, it's one of these days again, Kormac being all hysterically emotional. Do put some cloth on your mouth, dummy, your spittle is flying...

 

[TemplarKormac]

NO it would not, because any amendments would require 60 votes, and that was never going to happen.

Let me stop you there. It was something Democrats wouldn't let happen. They feared being upstaged by the Republican bill or any Republican proposals or counter-proposals. I smell fear. Not content.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives ...

Aw, it's one of these days again, Kormac being all hysterically emotional. Do put some cloth on your mouth, dummy, your spittle is flying...

And you are...?

 

[L.K.Eder]

yeah, you should get a job. i can tell you that while addressing the topic.

why are you not addressing the topic?

Easy, because I am responding to you not addressing the topic. Which is a mistake, admittedly.

Ignored.

i addressed your topic at least in #23 and #35.

a black person who is a democrat has introduced a bill which is more comprehensive than the version put forth by scott which mimics some proposals, but has not teeth.
therefore, democrats have taken the lead and try to help black people by controlling policing.

you did not address this.
you ran away.
typical lying weasely contard. get a job.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If McConnell had genuinely wanted to pass police reform instead of making this big sham of a bill, he would have had the Senate Judicial Committee - whose members HE appointed, draft it. He would have consulted with Democrats on it.

It is the job of a committee to vote for or against a bill, and refer it (or not) for a vote on the floor. It is not the committee's job as a whole to propose legislation. The individual legislators can propose changes however, hence why we call them legislators. They are responsible for drafting legislation and conferring with their colleagues (both left and right) on the concerns or merits of their proposals.

You have no knowledge of the process.

 

[Dragonlady]

What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?

If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?

THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.

I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.

Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.

No, you won't.

You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.

They did not like the act he submitted , is all, it was not due to the color of his skin.

I beg to differ. What if Tim Scott had been a Democrat introducing the same bill?

Karen Bass has introduced a bill. In her opinion, a much better bill.

Congressional Black Caucus

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has been committed to using the full Constitutional power, statutory authority, and financial resources of the federal government to ensure that African Americans and other marginalized communities in the United States have the opportunity to achieve the...

cbc.house.gov

"In her opinion"

Not yours. Speaks volumes man.

you lame ass ask hypothetical questions about what the reaction would be if a black person introduced the same bill as Scott.
no need for that, son.

A black person already weeks ago introduced a bill, which addressed more problems with policing. Democrats already took the lead.
As initially posted, you neither comprehend the situation nor present it honestly.

you are only interested in whining about race cards while playing the race card.

grow up, get a job.

Look at you evading the topic, again.

You only favor a bill that severely limits the ability of the police to police effectively.

Please, we all know what you want.

If the police were using this provision "police effectively" we wouldn't be having to rescind it. The police are using this provision to shield officers using excessive force from criminal or civil consequences. You're basically inviting racist thugs to apply for police jobs where they can beat up and abuse minorities, with impunity.

1004 people shot by American police last year. Over 1500 died in custody. Only in America. The police in other first world countries don't murder citizens in the streets, like this.

NO it would not, because any amendments would require 60 votes, and that was never going to happen.

Let stop you there. It was something Democrats wouldn't let happen. They feared being upstaged by the Republican bill or any Republican proposals or counter-proposals. I smell fear. Not content.

How could they stop it from happening? None of the needed amendments would pass. It's just that simple.

That's what happened with the Senate funding bill - the second bail out bill. It went to the floor for debate. Democrats proposed money for the states. That failed to pass. They proposed money for testing. That failed to pass. They proposed more money for individuals - that failed to pass. The Senate passed the bill, and Pelosi refused to pass it without amendment. The states got their money, the people got their money, testing was funded.

The same thing will happen with this bill. Republicans know they can't do nothing. Their constituents are demanding it. So either they put on their big boy pants, stop playing McConnell's bullshit games, and come up with a better bill. Or you may be seeing the end of the Republican Party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How could they stop it from happening? None of the needed amendments would pass. It's just that simple.

By not allowing the bill to be debated on the floor.

Too complicated for you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the police were using this provision "police effectively" we wouldn't be having to rescind it.

Sure, but you want to eliminate it, not fix it. Anything in your mind that does not work properly must be eliminated. And that, miss, is a narrowminded, myopic viewpoint.

You can't just assume eliminating something will fix the problem each and every time.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?

If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?

THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.

I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.

Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.

No, you won't.

You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.

Not enough pork. You can't have a bill that doesn't have a shit ton of things that have nothing to do with the original intent.

 

[Olde Europe]

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives ...

Aw, it's one of these days again, Kormac being all hysterically emotional. Do put some cloth on your mouth, dummy, your spittle is flying...

And you are...?

I am just enjoying you putting your idiocy and mendacity in neon.

There is no telling what bill Tim would have proposed if allowed. This is McConnell's bill. McConnell isn't interested in anything other than confirming rightarded judges and throwing the plutocrats financing him a party. That "Justice Act" (Orwell would have a field day with that name) is just a placebo, decoy, to be shot down. Everyone knows that. Even if enacted - not a chance for that with a Democratic House - it would do nothing. Everyone with a lick of sense knows the bill is just an invitation to rightarded morons to whine about how the GOP would do "police reform", but Democrats thwarted it. Only the dumbest of morons fall for that entirely transparent ploy.

You've been doing McConnell another solid: In a remarkable display of cynicism even by his standards, McConnell was using Tim to propose his, McConnell's, bill, inviting the most benighted of dullards to whine about how the Democrats are thwarting a "black" man's efforts, slamming the door shut in a black man's face. That monument to stupidity so extensive as to defy measurement.

 

[busybee01]

What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?

If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?

THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.

I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.

Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.

No, you won't.

You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.

The fact is that the Republican plan does nothing. It is designed to say the Republican did something when they did nothing. The Republicans said that it was our way or the highway. This should be a bipartisan bill not a partisan one.

The Republican Party is the party of corruption. I will never support them until every vestage of Trump and his supporters are gone. The Republican party is the party of racism and every other ism you can think of. Racists like you telling us who is racist. That is sick and shows how sick you are.

 

[BULLDOG]

The bill is a stunt. Instead of taking it to the committee where both parties could have worked out the details and presented a bipartisin bill, he took it directly to the floor where he knew it would fail. He didn't present a bill. He presented what would become talking points. A political stunt.

How is it a stunt when it has 80% of what Democrats want in it? Are you really that butthurt about qualified immunity?

Why don't you want the cops to be obligated to follow the law?

 

[Desperado]

What about the GOP Justice Act introduced by Tim Scott is insufficient? Can anyone tell me? What doesn't appeal to a Democrat more than a black man leading on an issue like this? Is it because the said black man is a Republican?

If another black man dies at the hands of a corrupt police officer, what explanation will Democrats give for not allowing debate on a bill that would have done something to solve this issue? How will they explain to the American people why they didn't act? Why did they offer resistance instead of cooperation?

Do some Democrats prefer bathing in the blood of innocent lives lost to perpetuate an easily solved problem? Were they not the ones who, two days ago, implied that if Republicans don't put forth a solution to this problem, they have blood on their hands? Now that they have, how did Democrats respond?

THEY SLAMMED THE DOOR IN A BLACK MAN'S FACE.

I will never vote for a Democrat in federal elections again. They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are not interested in solving what ails our society, and are all the more interested in entrenching themselves in the problem instead. I am beyond disgusted. The congressional Democrats are no different than the Southern Democrats of old, fighting to preserve segregation and racist practices instead of working with their fellow Americans to rid our country of a toxic scourge. Working to preserve the problem of racism instead of solving it.

Spare me the tired refrain that you, a Democrat, will fight for minority rights, that you will stand for people of color, or that you will enact social justice.

No, you won't.

You were offered a chance to lead on an issue you so frequently champion, by a black man no less, but you slammed the door in his face.

But I thought the dems wanted Police reform... guess not

 

[Dragonlady]

How could they stop it from happening? None of the needed amendments would pass. It's just that simple.

By not allowing the bill to be debated on the floor.

Too complicated for you?

What is the point of debating a bill on the floor when no amendments will be passed. It's a stall tactic at best. It gives the appearance of doing something, but in effect, it just extends the time where everything remains the change. No justice, no peace. This bill provides no justice, the protest groups, the families of the victims, have all rejected it.

The bill proposes studying violence and racism. The studies are there. They've been studying this problem for 100 years, but NOTHING has changed. Action is needed. Real action. Real measures to limit the ability of police to harass, and kill the public with impunity.

Police have killed more than 1000 citizens per year every single year since the stats have been kept. During this time, violent crime has declined, but police violence has not. Middle class, professional, adult males are afraid to go out unless they're wearing a suit, because things can go south so fast.

Since the Civil Rights Act was passed, generations of black Americans have had better access to education, and good housing. There is a strong, black Republican middle class, which once they leave their middle class neighbourhoods, are being subjected to the same racial profiling and abuses that blacks in poor neighbourhoods live with. These people have achieved the American dream in all ways but one. The moment they leave the house, they can still end up dead, if a white American feels in any way threatened.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The bill is a stunt. Instead of taking it to the committee where both parties could have worked out the details and presented a bipartisin bill, he took it directly to the floor where he knew it would fail. He didn't present a bill. He presented what would become talking points. A political stunt.

How is it a stunt when it has 80% of what Democrats want in it? Are you really that butthurt about qualified immunity?

Why don't you want the cops to be obligated to follow the law?

Oh, I do, but it seems to me your concerns have nothing to do with police "following the law" and more with lessening their influence in our society.

Ironic you would demand cops obey the law, if people would simply obey the law, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is the point of debating a bill on the floor when no amendments will be passed.

You can't be serious.

What is the point of trying to pass any kind of police legislation when you're unwilling to debate it?

That kind of defeatist attitude is why nothing is going to get done.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This should be a bipartisan bill not a partisan one.

So, did Democrats consult Republicans on their bill? No?

Then why is this standard only applied to Republicans?

 

[Dragonlady]

What is the point of debating a bill on the floor when no amendments will be passed.

You can't be serious.

What is the point of trying to pass any kind of police legislation when you're unwilling to debate it?

That kind of defeatist attitude is why nothing is going to get done.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VIABLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO DEBATE. THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE IS NOT DEBATABLE.

THROW IT OUT, START OVER IN COMMITTEE, AND BRING A BI-PARTISAN BILL TO THE FLOOR.

THAT IS HOW TO DO LEGISLATION.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am just enjoying you putting your idiocy and mendacity in neon.

Oh, how clever.

This is McConnell's bill

No it's not. Tim Scott is the lead sponsor of the bill, he crafted it. Don't lie.

 

[Dragonlady]

This should be a bipartisan bill not a partisan one.

So, did Democrats consult Republicans on their bill? No?

Then why is this standard only applied to Republicans?

What part of McConnell is just playing games, do you not understand?