Senator Jeff Sessions for Attorney General

[BmorePat87]

(11-18-2016, 07:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I think Sessions is a great pick. Stickler for details and law. He will definitely be backing the Blue.

His KKK thing was an absolute joke. the other part, well everyone bumps there head now and then, and if that's all you can find, then we are fine here.

I would say his comments on the voting rights act is troubling as someone who would be leading the department that ensures that these things are upheld. 

That and when he went after civil rights leaders who were registering black people and helping old black people vote. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'd like to raise what I believe to be an interesting point about Sessions. The man has been a senator for close to twenty years, I don't recall his fellow senators labeling him as a racist during that time.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd like to raise what I believe to be an interesting point about Sessions.  The man has been a senator for close to twenty years, I don't recall his fellow senators labeling him as a racist during that time.

It really doesn't matter.
Anyone that Trump picks has to fall under at least one (or more) of the 5 famous categories:

Bigot
Homophobe
Misogynist (specifically Sexist)
Xenophobe (specifically Islamphobic)
Racist (when all else fails)

[GMDino]

(11-21-2016, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd like to raise what I believe to be an interesting point about Sessions.  The man has been a senator for close to twenty years, I don't recall his fellow senators labeling him as a racist during that time.

The accusations came from work colleagues.  The Senate just refused to confirm him.  

Does confirm or refute his being a racist or having qualities that would lead one to believe he has said or done racist things.

[GMDino]

(11-21-2016, 04:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It really doesn't matter.
Anyone that Trump picks has to fall under at least one (or more) of the 5 famous categories:

Bigot
Homophobe
Misogynist (specifically Sexist)
Xenophobe (specifically Islamphobic)
Racist (when all else fails)

So far, at least. 

Seriously though, it's going to be hard to fill 1000 positions (or whatever the number is) without having a few that aren't questionable.  Myabe he's just getting all of those out of the way early and the rest will be a breeze?

[BmorePat87]

(11-21-2016, 03:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'd like to raise what I believe to be an interesting point about Sessions.  The man has been a senator for close to twenty years, I don't recall his fellow senators labeling him as a racist during that time.

No one in the Senate called Teddy Kennedy a drunk who killed a woman, but he was. 

On a more serious note, I made sure to say "allegations". My beef is with current comments on marijuana users and voting rights. I won't call him a racist for being a typical Alabamian during the 70's. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-21-2016, 04:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It really doesn't matter.
Anyone that Trump picks has to fall under at least one (or more) of the 5 famous categories:

Bigot
Homophobe
Misogynist (specifically Sexist)
Xenophobe (specifically Islamphobic)
Racist (when all else fails)

Not true!

Mitt would be a great Secretary of State and doesn't fall into any of those categories. The others, yea, sure, but that comes with the territory of running websites that promote white nationalism and charging civil rights leaders with voter fraud for trying to register people to vote. Or attacking all Muslims. 

The Muslim thing aside, Flynn seems quite qualified for his post. So far, I haven't been able to knock the qualifications for most of these posts, just issue with policy position.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-21-2016, 04:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: The accusations came from work colleagues.  The Senate just refused to confirm him.  

Does confirm or refute his being a racist or having qualities that would lead one to believe he has said or done racist things.

I don't think you understood my post at all.

(11-21-2016, 04:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one in the Senate called Teddy Kennedy a drunk who killed a woman, but he was. 

On a more serious note, I made sure to say "allegations". My beef is with current comments on marijuana users and voting rights. I won't call him a racist for being a typical Alabamian during the 70's. 

Ted is a fair comparison.  I just don't think it's the same thing.  You can't call him a murderer without being sued and calling him a drunk is just a personal attack as being a drunk doesn't prohibit you from being effective at your job.  The point being made, and I know you got it, is that if Sessions were such an obvious racist, as is now being claimed since he's being nominated for AG, why did a slew of Democratic senators work for him for close to two decades without calling him out on it?  

[BmorePat87]

(11-21-2016, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ted is a fair comparison.  I just don't think it's the same thing.  

Yea, I got your point, I was just being a little facetious. I don't think anyone should call him a racist for allegations. Like I said, question his time as an attorney and attorney general in Alabama. As you said, if he was this horrible racist, the 40-50 Democratic senators who worked with each year would have said something. 

I think I read that Arlen Specter came out and said later that he regrets not voting to confirm Session's appointment. 

[GMDino]

(11-21-2016, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think you understood my post at all.


Ted is a fair comparison.  I just don't think it's the same thing.  You can't call him a murderer without being sued and calling him a drunk is just a personal attack as being a drunk doesn't prohibit you from being effective at your job.  The point being made, and I know you got it, is that if Sessions were such an obvious racist, as is now being claimed since he's being nominated for AG, why did a slew of Democratic senators work for him for close to two decades without calling him out on it?  

Sure I did.  That's why I agreed.  

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 04:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one in the Senate called Teddy Kennedy a drunk who killed a woman, but he was. 

On a more serious note, I made sure to say "allegations". My beef is with current comments on marijuana users and voting rights. I won't call him a racist for being a typical Alabamian during the 70's. 

That's my main issues. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in public office for more than a couple decades who hasn't had an accusation of sexism or racism lobbed at them (usually by an opponent). Especially in the South. But he's been outspoken on his beliefs about marijuana and that's going to be a step back for responsible efforts and states rights.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 04:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: The accusations came from work colleagues.  The Senate just refused to confirm him.  

Does confirm or refute his being a racist or having qualities that would lead one to believe he has said or done racist things.

Which work colleagues??
He was the ONLY Republican to Support the selection of Eric Holder for AG.
He insisted on the Death Penalty for the son of KKK leader who killed an innocent black teenager.
He broke up the desegregation in schools in Alabama.

Those moves don't scream Racist to me. Maybe you got something I haven't seen?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 01:25 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I would say his comments on the voting rights act is troubling as someone who would be leading the department that ensures that these things are upheld. 

That and when he went after civil rights leaders who were registering black people and helping old black people vote. 

So Voter Fraud in a county that already had been proven to have voter fraud in it previously?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10fraud.html

"several trials and indictments in vote fraud cases have already occurred over the years — in 1985, 1997 and 2007 — some of which resulted in convictions of county and city officials."


or maybe this one? where 125% of the population over 18 participated in voting?
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20120830/uniontown-voting-raises-questions

Are you referring to that?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 05:26 PM)Benton Wrote: That's my main issues. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in public office for more than a couple decades who hasn't had an accusation of sexism or racism lobbed at them (usually by an opponent). Especially in the South. But he's been outspoken on his beliefs about marijuana and that's going to be a step back for responsible efforts and states rights.

I doubt the marijuana is an issue with him.
He strikes me as more of a follow the law type, than a bend the law type.

But you never know, a lot of people are still mixed on that.

I'm not a huge fan of it, but I'd tax the hell out of it. :)
I think Prostitution should be legalized and regulated before marijuana, but that's another issue lol.

[BmorePat87]

(11-21-2016, 05:41 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So Voter Fraud in a county that already had been proven to have voter fraud in it previously?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/us/10fraud.html

"several trials and indictments in vote fraud cases have already occurred over the years — in 1985, 1997 and 2007 — some of which resulted in convictions of county and city officials."


or maybe this one? where 125% of the population over 18 participated in voting?
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/news/20120830/uniontown-voting-raises-questions

Are you referring to that?

I'm referring to the case of the Marion Three in 1980, not anything in 1985, 1997, 2007, or 2012, where three people were charged with 29 counts of voter fraud, half of which a judge threw out for lack of evidence, for helping old, poor, illiterate black people fill out absentee ballots. Charges they were acquitted of.

Also, I am referring to comments such as "[The Voting Rights Act] is an intrusive piece of legislation" and the ACLU and NAACP are "unamerican". 

[Benton]

(11-21-2016, 05:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I doubt the marijuana is an issue with him.
He strikes me as more of a follow the law type, than a bend the law type.

But you never know, a lot of people are still mixed on that.

I'm not a huge fan of it, but I'd tax the hell out of it. :)
I think Prostitution should be legalized and regulated before marijuana, but that's another issue lol.

I don't smoke it. I'm too cheap to spend $75 on something you're going to set on fire. But when I was covering courts, marijuana related charges were far and away the biggest burden on the legal system (at least in my area). If the docket had 30 cases that day, it wasn't uncommon for 15 to be marijuana related, 5 DUIs, 5 theft by unlawful taking (shoplifting mostly) and then a handful of significant crimes. From incarceration up to probation/parole, the cost for each marijuana arrest can be thousands of dollars.

I'd rather use those resources reducing drug abuse or crimes against other people (theft, assault, etc) instead of trying to find easy arrests  so law enforcement can inflate crime reduction stats. Tax it like cigarettes, and give cops the resources they need (and time and manpower) to actually reduce crime.

But, likewise, if it were up to me, I'd legalize prostitution and tax it, too.


As far as Sessions' stance, just going by his comments.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/20/502712513/trumps-choice-for-top-law-enforcer-has-cannabis-proponents-fearing-future

[GMDino]

(11-21-2016, 05:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Which work colleagues??
He was the ONLY Republican to Support the selection of Eric Holder for AG.
He insisted on the Death Penalty for the son of KKK leader who killed an innocent black teenager.
He broke up the desegregation in schools in Alabama.

Those moves don't scream Racist to me. Maybe you got something I haven't seen?

Second time you've posted the exact thing.

I posted the story of the allegation against him (from other attorneys) here.

Good for him for doing his job on the murder case.

I guess if he was still fighting segregation in the late 80's early 80's that's a good thing too.

Maybe I've just talked about the other people who accused him of saying terribly racist things...and you don't want to read them.

[Belsnickel]

(11-21-2016, 04:32 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It really doesn't matter.
Anyone that Trump picks has to fall under at least one (or more) of the 5 famous categories:

Bigot
Homophobe
Misogynist (specifically Sexist)
Xenophobe (specifically Islamphobic)
Racist (when all else fails)

Pat pointed out Mitt, and of course Priebus hasn't been accused of those things that I know of, just of being establishment.

I get that we're not supposed to use someone's own words against them now that Trump is in President-Elect, but you're wrong on this one.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 06:16 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Second time you've posted the exact thing.

I posted the story of the allegation against him (from other attorneys) here.

Good for him for doing his job on the murder case.

I guess if he was still fighting segregation in the late 80's early 80's that's a good thing too.

Maybe I've just talked about the other people who accused him of saying terribly racist things...and you don't want to read them.

Yes because actions speak louder than words.
I can call you a racist, doesn't mean it's true, but it's out there now.

I'm strong on immigration, so I'm ok with his stance on that. There's obviously enough people that feel similar since it was one of Trump's campaign promises.

J Gerald Herbert (they guy that said Sessions said the NCAAP and ACLU were "un-American") even said he's not racist.

When it comes to the Marion 3, it's as I said, he seems to be a follow the law type of guy. They were caught with 14 voter ballots on them that did not belong to them. Once their reasoning was explained, they were acquitted.

If you were caught with 14 voter ballots on you that didn't belong to you, I'm sure people would be a little suspicious of voter fraud as well.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-21-2016, 07:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pat pointed out Mitt, and of course Priebus hasn't been accused of those things that I know of, just of being establishment.

I get that we're not supposed to use someone's own words against them now that Trump is in office, but you're wrong on this one.

Guess they haven't dug deep enough yet on Priebus.