Is Gini Thomas's Story Believable?

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

 No wonder Clarence Thomas ended up in the hospital with all the problems his wife is helping cause for him...of course he does himself no favors by pretending he has no idea what his own wife is up to and refusing to recuse himself from cases that have a very clear conflict of interests involving his own wife. 

Here we have a woman who is blatantly believing full on crazy Facebook-level conspiracies and actively contacting the U.S. Whitehouse about overturning the election, AND is the the wife of one of the most influential people in the U.S....one of only 9 people in the world who theoretically 'could' influence the final outcome of the US election....Yet, we're supposed to believe that she knows talking to her Supreme Court Justice Husband is just a 'step too far', and they just keep all of this to themselves and don't discuss it at the dinner table or even share some of the same beliefs?  She'll go to the Jan 6 rally and make contact Trump's administration itself about overturning the election...but ashe wont talk to her husband?  

Na, nobody with an ounce of common sense should buy this for a second. 

The worrying thing is if Clarence himself may secretly harbor some of his wife insane beliefs himself.

 

Pretty clear that if any case involving Jan6, the 2020 election, or Donald Trump, that Clarence Thomas will have to recuse himself from the case. We can't just take their word for it that they have blinders on for each other's work...

 

 

https://www.thebulwark.com/is-ginni-thomass-story-believable/

Virginia Thomas wants people to believe that her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, had no idea about her activities challenging the results of the 2020 election.

“Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” she told a friendly outlet earlier this month. Therefore, no one need worry about his ability to be an impartial judge on the highest court in the land. Everything is hunky-dory.

If you believe that, Ginni has a barge off GITMO to sell you for President Biden’s forthcoming military tribunal. Which, according to the texts she sent to Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is also something she believed possible:

Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition

Her story, as well as her election theories, don’t survive even the most basic common-sense tests.

Justice Thomas cannot plausibly plead ignorance of his wife’s Jan. 6th-related activities. Her texts were the subject of a blockbuster Washington Post-CBS story, carried by numerous other outlets such as CNN and the New York Times. Multiple outlets asked the Thomases for comment multiple times. A CNN reporter staked out the couple in their parking garage. Maybe the Thomases talked about it, maybe they didn’t—it’s impossible for outsiders to know what happens inside a marriage—but the notion that Clarence Thomas is unaware of what Ginni was up to? Not plausible.

Second, beyond the text messages revealed last week, many of Ginni’s political activities relating to Jan. 6th were already a matter of public record. Her promotion of election conspiracies was well known; she posted them on her Facebook page. On the morning of Jan. 6th, just hours before the attack on the Capitol, she lavished praise on the Trump rallygoers who wanted to overturn the election. In the weeks after the riot, Ginni apologized to a listserv of her husband’s former clerks because her election-related activities and her “lifetime passions” caused a rift in the close-knit group of Thomas alumni.* Although this was a minor controversy, her husband could reasonably be expected to know about it, since it directly involved his wife and former clerks—and the Washington Post reported on it.

To believe that Justice Thomas is unaware of Mrs. Thomas’s Jan. 6th-related activities, one would also have to believe that Ginni’s co-signed public letter to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanding that he remove Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from the GOP conference for serving as members of the Jan. 6th Committee never crossed Justice Thomas’s radar.

The letter said:

As part of Pelosi’s team, Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger have deliberately sought to undermine the privacy and due process of their fellow Republicans, and those of private citizens, with improperly issued subpoenas and other investigatory tactics designed not to pursue any valid legislative end, but merely to exploit for the sake of political harassment and demagoguery.

Seems like Justice Thomas may have heard about that one. Turns out Ginni had good reason to be worried about “privacy”; dozens of her texts to one White House official have turned up in the investigation so far.

But wait! There’s more that Justice Thomas supposedly never discussed with his wife.

Jane Mayer’s lengthy January 2022 New Yorker piece “Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?” documented Mrs. Thomas’s long advocacy history, ties to various Stop the Steal organizers, and meetings with the Trump White House. The next month, Danny Hakim and Jo Becker came out with another profile, this time in the New York Times Magazine: “The Long Crusade of Clarence and Ginni Thomas.” It discussed Ginni’s role as a board member of the Council for National Policy, which asked GOP lawmakers to challenge the election results and appoint alternate slates of electors.

Are we to believe that Justice Thomas somehow just happened to miss all this? That after he declined to comment for either of these major articles, no one sent him copies when they came out?  That the issues raised in these articles never came up at the dinner table? Not that it matters much: Ginni’s grassroots and legal advocacy is no longer a matter of supposed spousal compartmentalization. They’re officially part of the Jan. 6th investigation. Ginni’s texts became public because they were part of a tranche of records Meadows turned over to the Jan. 6th committee.

Mayer, in her New Yorker article, walks through some of the questions involved in when Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves. Certainly, a plain reading of the law would require Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to Jan. 6th, the 2020 election, and any of Trump’s future campaigns. Here’s the opening of 28 U.S.C. § 455: Any justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

There have already been cases where Justice Thomas’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The Supreme Court has considered, or considered taking up, cases related to various efforts to overturn the election and the Jan. 6th investigation—and Justice Thomas has been the lone dissent on two of those decisions and only agreed with one other judge on the third:

• In December 2020, the Supreme Court declined to take up a longshot case by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to throw out the election results in swing states Joe Biden won. There were no formal dissents from this order, but Justice Samuel Alito wrote a statement in which Thomas joined that they would have allowed the case to move forward, “but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

• In February 2021, the court declined to take a case in which Trump challenged Pennsylvania’s extended ballot-receipt deadlines. Justice Thomas scathingly wrote in the only dissent: “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

• Then, in January 2022, Thomas dissented from the court’s decision to greenlight the National Archives to turn over White House documents to the Jan. 6th Committee. Only Justice Thomas indicated in the filing that he would have granted Trump’s request to withhold the records. He did not explain why.

One last common-sense test: Ginni told Meadows via text that the “Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.” If she really thought that were true, wouldn’t she have a moral obligation to speak with her husband, one of nine people on the planet who could potentially resolve the matter?

Would she be posting all over Facebook, writing open letters to GOP leadership, and working all her Washington insider connections, including the White House chief of staff, but not strategizing with the Supreme Court justice living under the same roof as her?

That’s even harder to believe than the conspiracy theories dancing in her head.

Edited March 28, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 No wonder Clarence Thomas ended up in the hospital with all the problems his wife is helping cause for him...of course he does himself no favors by pretending he has no idea what his own wife is up to and refusing to recuse himself from cases that have a very clear conflict of interests involving his own wife. 

Here we have a woman who is blatantly believing full on crazy Facebook-level conspiracies and actively contacting the U.S. Whitehouse about overturning the election, AND is the the wife of one of the most influential people in the U.S....one of only 9 people in the world who theoretically 'could' influence the final outcome of the US election....Yet, we're supposed to believe that she knows talking to her Supreme Court Justice Husband is just a 'step too far', and they just keep all of this to themselves and don't discuss it at the dinner table or even share some of the same beliefs?  She'll go to the Jan 6 rally and make contact Trump's administration itself about overturning the election...but ashe wont talk to her husband?  

Na, nobody with an ounce of common sense should buy this for a second. 

The worrying thing is if Clarence himself may secretly harbor some of his wife insane beliefs himself.

 

Pretty clear that if any case involving Jan6, the 2020 election, or Donald Trump, that Clarence Thomas will have to recuse himself from the case. We can't just take their word for it that they have blinders on for each other's work...

 

 

https://www.thebulwark.com/is-ginni-thomass-story-believable/

Virginia Thomas wants people to believe that her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, had no idea about her activities challenging the results of the 2020 election.

“Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work,” she told a friendly outlet earlier this month. Therefore, no one need worry about his ability to be an impartial judge on the highest court in the land. Everything is hunky-dory.

If you believe that, Ginni has a barge off GITMO to sell you for President Biden’s forthcoming military tribunal. Which, according to the texts she sent to Trump’s White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, is also something she believed possible:

Biden crime family & ballot fraud co-conspirators (elected officials, bureaucrats, social media censorship mongers, fake stream media reporters, etc) are being arrested & detained for ballot fraud right now & over coming days, & will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition

Her story, as well as her election theories, don’t survive even the most basic common-sense tests.

Justice Thomas cannot plausibly plead ignorance of his wife’s Jan. 6th-related activities. Her texts were the subject of a blockbuster Washington Post-CBS story, carried by numerous other outlets such as CNN and the New York Times. Multiple outlets asked the Thomases for comment multiple times. A CNN reporter staked out the couple in their parking garage. Maybe the Thomases talked about it, maybe they didn’t—it’s impossible for outsiders to know what happens inside a marriage—but the notion that Clarence Thomas is unaware of what Ginni was up to? Not plausible.

Second, beyond the text messages revealed last week, many of Ginni’s political activities relating to Jan. 6th were already a matter of public record. Her promotion of election conspiracies was well known; she posted them on her Facebook page. On the morning of Jan. 6th, just hours before the attack on the Capitol, she lavished praise on the Trump rallygoers who wanted to overturn the election. In the weeks after the riot, Ginni apologized to a listserv of her husband’s former clerks because her election-related activities and her “lifetime passions” caused a rift in the close-knit group of Thomas alumni.* Although this was a minor controversy, her husband could reasonably be expected to know about it, since it directly involved his wife and former clerks—and the Washington Post reported on it.

To believe that Justice Thomas is unaware of Mrs. Thomas’s Jan. 6th-related activities, one would also have to believe that Ginni’s co-signed public letter to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy demanding that he remove Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger from the GOP conference for serving as members of the Jan. 6th Committee never crossed Justice Thomas’s radar.

The letter said:

As part of Pelosi’s team, Reps. Cheney and Kinzinger have deliberately sought to undermine the privacy and due process of their fellow Republicans, and those of private citizens, with improperly issued subpoenas and other investigatory tactics designed not to pursue any valid legislative end, but merely to exploit for the sake of political harassment and demagoguery.

Seems like Justice Thomas may have heard about that one. Turns out Ginni had good reason to be worried about “privacy”; dozens of her texts to one White House official have turned up in the investigation so far.

But wait! There’s more that Justice Thomas supposedly never discussed with his wife.

Jane Mayer’s lengthy January 2022 New Yorker piece “Is Ginni Thomas a Threat to the Supreme Court?” documented Mrs. Thomas’s long advocacy history, ties to various Stop the Steal organizers, and meetings with the Trump White House. The next month, Danny Hakim and Jo Becker came out with another profile, this time in the New York Times Magazine: “The Long Crusade of Clarence and Ginni Thomas.” It discussed Ginni’s role as a board member of the Council for National Policy, which asked GOP lawmakers to challenge the election results and appoint alternate slates of electors.

Are we to believe that Justice Thomas somehow just happened to miss all this? That after he declined to comment for either of these major articles, no one sent him copies when they came out?  That the issues raised in these articles never came up at the dinner table? Not that it matters much: Ginni’s grassroots and legal advocacy is no longer a matter of supposed spousal compartmentalization. They’re officially part of the Jan. 6th investigation. Ginni’s texts became public because they were part of a tranche of records Meadows turned over to the Jan. 6th committee.

Mayer, in her New Yorker article, walks through some of the questions involved in when Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves. Certainly, a plain reading of the law would require Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to Jan. 6th, the 2020 election, and any of Trump’s future campaigns. Here’s the opening of 28 U.S.C. § 455: Any justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

There have already been cases where Justice Thomas’s “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The Supreme Court has considered, or considered taking up, cases related to various efforts to overturn the election and the Jan. 6th investigation—and Justice Thomas has been the lone dissent on two of those decisions and only agreed with one other judge on the third:

• In December 2020, the Supreme Court declined to take up a longshot case by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to throw out the election results in swing states Joe Biden won. There were no formal dissents from this order, but Justice Samuel Alito wrote a statement in which Thomas joined that they would have allowed the case to move forward, “but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

• In February 2021, the court declined to take a case in which Trump challenged Pennsylvania’s extended ballot-receipt deadlines. Justice Thomas scathingly wrote in the only dissent: “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

• Then, in January 2022, Thomas dissented from the court’s decision to greenlight the National Archives to turn over White House documents to the Jan. 6th Committee. Only Justice Thomas indicated in the filing that he would have granted Trump’s request to withhold the records. He did not explain why.

One last common-sense test: Ginni told Meadows via text that the “Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.” If she really thought that were true, wouldn’t she have a moral obligation to speak with her husband, one of nine people on the planet who could potentially resolve the matter?

Would she be posting all over Facebook, writing open letters to GOP leadership, and working all her Washington insider connections, including the White House chief of staff, but not strategizing with the Supreme Court justice living under the same roof as her?

That’s even harder to believe than the conspiracy theories dancing in her head.

My Facebook friends who believe this stuff tend to share it with everyone. They’re obsessed.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

Prior to her nomination Kagan was actively designing and preparing the defense of Obamacare for presentation at SCOTUS. Then she was nominated, confirmed and ruled on the case. Nobody had a problem with that.  Oh crazy me forgot this stuff only goes one way. 

[AU9377 4,960]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Prior to her nomination Kagan was actively designing and preparing the defense of Obamacare for presentation at SCOTUS. Then she was nominated, confirmed and ruled on the case. Nobody had a problem with that.  Oh crazy me forgot this stuff only goes one way. 

The standard for what is a conflict and what is not is different when one's spouse is involved compared to simply working for a client.  That said, the rules for Thomas allow him to make the decision himself and there is nothing that anyone can really do about it.  He has been a joke of a justice for decades now.  He once went over 10 years without asking one question from the bench.  Still, he is there until he dies or steps down, barring some impeachable conduct, which I doubt ever comes about.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

37 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The standard for what is a conflict and what is not is different when one's spouse is involved compared to simply working for a client.  That said, the rules for Thomas allow him to make the decision himself and there is nothing that anyone can really do about it.  He has been a joke of a justice for decades now.  He once went over 10 years without asking one question from the bench.  Still, he is there until he dies or steps down, barring some impeachable conduct, which I doubt ever comes about.

You are a racist if you think Clarence Thomas is a joke of a justice. Who the heck do you think you are?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

25 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

You are a racist if you think Clarence Thomas is a joke of a justice. Who the heck do you think you are?

Yeah that post definitely had racist undertones. Disappointing.

[AU9377 4,960]

12 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

You are a racist if you think Clarence Thomas is a joke of a justice. Who the heck do you think you are?

Silly try.  The man went 10 years without uttering a word from the bench. He could be a green Martian and my opinion would be the same.  I don't have to agree with someone's views to respect them or not respect them.  The most brilliant mind to ever sit on the court was Antonin Scalia.  On the current court, the most impressive intellectually are Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett. 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Silly try.  The man went 10 years without uttering a word from the bench. He could be a green Martian and my opinion would be the same.  I don't have to agree with someone's views to respect them or not respect them.  The most brilliant mind to ever sit on the court was Antonin Scalia.  On the current court, the most impressive intellectually are Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett. 

It is laughable for you to trash a Supreme Court justice. Stay in your lane my friend.

[AU9377 4,960]

On 3/29/2022 at 12:56 PM, jj3jordan said:

It is laughable for you to trash a Supreme Court justice. Stay in your lane my friend.

Look, you have no way of knowing this and I'm honestly not the type that enjoys spewing credentials and looking like an ass for doing so.  That said, of all the things I comment about, commenting about judges, Supreme Court or otherwise, is actually right down the middle of my lane.  I didn't trash the man.  I simply said that he was a joke of a justice.  That is my opinion.  That opinion has nothing to do with his extreme right wing views and it damn sure has nothing to do with his race.

Similarly, I don't think Kavanaugh was a good pick.  I deplore the charade that the Democrats put him thru all the same.  I thought that he should have been confirmed, primarily due to the fact that he was the choice and he was qualified.  The reason that he was a bad choice, in my opinion, is that he represents everything that the court needs less of and not more.  I have met him twice and had dinner with him once at Brennan's in New Orleans.  That was around 15 years ago.  He is the classic rich kid, Ivy League, high brow guy that has never seen a day of real work in his life. I wouldn't call him a joke of a justice, due to the fact that he doesn't behave like one.

I likely won't agree with Amy Coney Barrett's conclusions on several legal issues.  That said, she is the opposite of Thomas.  She has an impressive legal mind and frankly should have been Trump's first pic, not his third.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

Look, you have no way of knowing this and I'm honestly not the type that enjoys spewing credentials and looking like an ass for doing so.  That said, of all the things I comment about, commenting about judges, Supreme Court or otherwise, is actually right down the middle of my lane.  I didn't trash the man.  I simply said that he was a joke of a justice.  That is my opinion.  That opinion has nothing to do with his extreme right wing views and it damn sure has nothing to do with his race.

Similarly, I don't think Kavanaugh was a good pick.  I deplore the charade that the Democrats put him thru all the same.  I thought that he should have been confirmed, primarily due to the fact that he was the choice and he was qualified.  The reason that he was a bad choice, in my opinion, is that he represents everything that the court needs less of and not more.  I have met him twice and had dinner with him once at Brennan's in New Orleans.  That was around 15 years ago.  He is the classic rich kid, Ivy League, high brow guy that has never seen a day of real work in his life. I wouldn't call him a joke of a justice, due to the fact that he doesn't behave like one.

I likely won't agree with Amy Coney Barrett's conclusions on several legal issues.  That said, she is the opposite of Thomas.  She has an impressive legal mind and frankly should have been Trump's first pic, not his third.

Okay. I think most people would consider being called a joke at their job to be trashed. But if you don’t then I understand.  If someone called Barack Obama a joke of a president I strongly feel the left would consider that racist, regardless of why it was said. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

1 hour ago, jj3jordan said:

Okay. I think most people would consider being called a joke at their job to be trashed. But if you don’t then I understand.  If someone called Barack Obama a joke of a president I strongly feel the left would consider that racist, regardless of why it was said. 

From the Fox News.com Comment Section on this random article recently about obama:

And this is just one article and a couple mins of looking through comments.

Saying Obama was a joke of a president would be literally one of the tamest...least racists things many Conservatives say about him.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-ripped-after-slamming-phony-culture-wars

ptatim

25 October, 2021

Hey Obama, go back to your mud hut in Kenya.

 

bucks49

25 October, 2021

The Kenyan is a huge phony. For starters, how is the son of a Caucasian woman "black?" Why is he helping Quid Pro Joe steal his "Worst President Ever" title?

 

loveamericaorleaveit!

25 October, 2021

Wonder if Obama would feel that way if someone raped his daughters Malaria or Sushi?

 

 

79USMC

25 October, 2021

Obama you had an 8 year recession, you were the most corrupt president, had the most scandals, you are a Muslim, you were born in Kenya, you gave a 150 billion to Iran, and you are married to a trans. Go away and it is real hot where you are headed.

 

longmire128

25 October, 2021

I think the first half-white president ought to keep his ignorant mouth shut.

 

goliard425

28 October, 2021

If he had been born in this country he would probably feel more loyalty to it.

 

PMST33

25 October, 2021

You think your smooth Ebola, like your brethren? You’re not. Everyone has your #. They know the true you. Go listen to your rap, and perpetuate a degenerate culture Sir.

 

fart

25 October, 2021

A giant turd with big ears

 

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

From the Fox News.com Comment Section on this random article recently about obama:

And this is just one article and a couple mins of looking through comments.

Saying Obama was a joke of a president would be literally one of the tamest...least racists things many Conservatives say about him.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-ripped-after-slamming-phony-culture-wars

ptatim

25 October, 2021

Hey Obama, go back to your mud hut in Kenya.

 

bucks49

25 October, 2021

The Kenyan is a huge phony. For starters, how is the son of a Caucasian woman "black?" Why is he helping Quid Pro Joe steal his "Worst President Ever" title?

 

loveamericaorleaveit!

25 October, 2021

Wonder if Obama would feel that way if someone raped his daughters Malaria or Sushi?

 

 

79USMC

25 October, 2021

Obama you had an 8 year recession, you were the most corrupt president, had the most scandals, you are a Muslim, you were born in Kenya, you gave a 150 billion to Iran, and you are married to a trans. Go away and it is real hot where you are headed.

 

longmire128

25 October, 2021

I think the first half-white president ought to keep his ignorant mouth shut.

 

goliard425

28 October, 2021

If he had been born in this country he would probably feel more loyalty to it.

 

PMST33

25 October, 2021

You think your smooth Ebola, like your brethren? You’re not. Everyone has your #. They know the true you. Go listen to your rap, and perpetuate a degenerate culture Sir.

 

fart

25 October, 2021

A giant turd with big ears

 

 

 

All of which is completely irrelevant to my point. Whatever criticism any Republican not just white ones made of Obama, it was said to be racist in nature, not policy. There could be no policy criticism at all. Anything said was racist. Some of what you googled was racist some not. There were issues there that a lot of people believed.  As usual though no actual comment on the topic itself.  

Are you denying that calling Obama a joke of a president would be labeled racist by the left?

I didn’t think so.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

From the Fox News.com Comment Section on this random article recently about obama:

And this is just one article and a couple mins of looking through comments.

Saying Obama was a joke of a president would be literally one of the tamest...least racists things many Conservatives say about him.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/obama-ripped-after-slamming-phony-culture-wars

ptatim

25 October, 2021

Hey Obama, go back to your mud hut in Kenya.

 

bucks49

25 October, 2021

The Kenyan is a huge phony. For starters, how is the son of a Caucasian woman "black?" Why is he helping Quid Pro Joe steal his "Worst President Ever" title?

 

loveamericaorleaveit!

25 October, 2021

Wonder if Obama would feel that way if someone raped his daughters Malaria or Sushi?

 

 

79USMC

25 October, 2021

Obama you had an 8 year recession, you were the most corrupt president, had the most scandals, you are a Muslim, you were born in Kenya, you gave a 150 billion to Iran, and you are married to a trans. Go away and it is real hot where you are headed.

 

longmire128

25 October, 2021

I think the first half-white president ought to keep his ignorant mouth shut.

 

goliard425

28 October, 2021

If he had been born in this country he would probably feel more loyalty to it.

 

PMST33

25 October, 2021

You think your smooth Ebola, like your brethren? You’re not. Everyone has your #. They know the true you. Go listen to your rap, and perpetuate a degenerate culture Sir.

 

fart

25 October, 2021

A giant turd with big ears

 

 

 

Was any of this while he was president? 
 

Obama deserved most of those comments after claiming fake culture wars when parents reacted to the rape of a white girl at school by a transgender using his choice of bathrooms. Hint: he was using his original part to rape her. Thus the comment about Malia and Sasha. Deserved by the way.  That article was a bad example to use. Maybe you could try harder to find some egregious racist comment from when he actually was the worst president ever. Hey Jimmy hold my beer.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

On 3/28/2022 at 10:43 PM, AUFAN78 said:

Yeah that post definitely had racist undertones. Disappointing.

that is quite the stretch but i guess you have to play the bad hand you were dealt................

[CoffeeTiger 5,114]

Can't say Clarence is a joke at his job without Republicans calling you racists, but then those same people will defend actual racist comments made against Obama because he "isn't president anymore" and "he deserves it anyway" 

 

interesting. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

14 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

that is quite the stretch but i guess you have to play the bad hand you were dealt................

It wasn't a stretch, but it was disappointing.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Can't say Clarence is a joke at his job without Republicans calling you racists, but then those same people will defend actual racist comments made against Obama because he "isn't president anymore" and "he deserves it anyway" 

 

interesting. 

No.  You can't say Clarence is a joke at his job because he is black. Same rules Obama had. If you want to discuss Obama's post president comments about fake culture wars and the reections of those who read about it, we can. Don't compare the two.

[aubiefifty 16,803]

On 4/1/2022 at 7:04 PM, jj3jordan said:

All of which is completely irrelevant to my point. Whatever criticism any Republican not just white ones made of Obama, it was said to be racist in nature, not policy. There could be no policy criticism at all. Anything said was racist. Some of what you googled was racist some not. There were issues there that a lot of people believed.  As usual though no actual comment on the topic itself.  

Are you denying that calling Obama a joke of a president would be labeled racist by the left?

I didn’t think so.

am i missing something? i thought trump was a joke but since we both are the same race how can that be racist? i see minority folks do stupid stuff i disagree with but it has to do with performance and not race. but if you read i think maybe the last article i posted the gop considers facists part of their base. go to smack and see the trump folks and their emergency meeting. it seems pretty clear for me.................

[jj3jordan 2,053]

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

am i missing something? i thought trump was a joke but since we both are the same race how can that be racist? i see minority folks do stupid stuff i disagree with but it has to do with performance and not race. but if you read i think maybe the last article i posted the gop considers facists part of their base. go to smack and see the trump folks and their emergency meeting. it seems pretty clear for me.................

Probably. Regardless, your third sentence was not allowed when Obama was president.  No criticism at all. Just asking for the same consideration for Thomas.

 

[1716AU 730]

On 4/1/2022 at 8:04 PM, jj3jordan said:

All of which is completely irrelevant to my point. Whatever criticism any Republican not just white ones made of Obama, it was said to be racist in nature, not policy. There could be no policy criticism at all. Anything said was racist. Some of what you googled was racist some not. There were issues there that a lot of people believed.  As usual though no actual comment on the topic itself.  

Are you denying that calling Obama a joke of a president would be labeled racist by the left?

I didn’t think so.

If you wanted to tell the tuth and just say that Obama didn't want to speak with anyone or deal with anyone during his presidency, especially the second term, that would be fair.  He was not a particularly good president.  We really haven't had one in quite a while, way back to the 60's.

But to look at us,  and with a straight face say this, just makes me realize that you really are not an honest player in this discussion.

Guys like you blather on and really have no clue about Geopolitics put me to sleep.