DNC Black Caucus: ‘After 70 Days, We Can Go Back to Acting Crazy’
Will they only go back to “acting crazy” if Trump?
A speaker at the DNC Black Caucus meeting said the quiet part out loud:
“We got 70 days to act right … After 70 days, we can go back to acting crazy.”
I tried to find the whole segment but couldn’t find it, so I cannot provide context.
Still…not good. Will they “act right” if Kamala Harris wins? Or will they only act “crazy” if Donald Trump wins?
Thank you, Ross, for the full video! I embedded it below and it starts 1:19:56 and 1:20:22.
Yeah, it wasn’t taken out of context. However, I don’t know if they’ll stay on their good behavior if Harris wins.
Freudian slip of the century from a speaker at the DNC “black caucus” meeting:
"We got 70 days to act right… After 70 days, we can go back to acting crazy.”pic.twitter.com/ZBs1feIhDi
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 21, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Black
I blame the South for this curse on America
You might want to do a bit of research on how the whole slave trade thing got started and who benefitted. Doofus.
Ok Virginia…
The south had millions of slaves but that’s ok, you do you
None of us were alive when slavery began or ended. I don’t see how we should be casting stones but ok. If we’re gonna start pointing fingers for an evil institution which was literally written into our Constitution at its founding and thus in part is a legacy of every State/Territory until the post Civil War amendments were adopted. Then there’s the unwelcome post civil era/Jim Crow era and shabby treatment of ‘black’ folks in Northern States. It wasn’t generally speaking a utopia with open minded folks and welcoming arms that greeted the migration out of the South looking for fair treatment and fair wages in Northern factories.
Then there’s often overlooked fact of ships that ventured to purchase slaves at source were largely owned, crewed and financed by those in North Eastern portions of the USA. As was the output of slave labor. In particular tobacco and cotton were purchased by brokers mostly financed by NE $ for resale and every hand that touched it, even if indirectly and at several removes benefited from Slavery. This leaves aside the purchases of slave products from the Caribbean which were also largely made by NE backed ventures in ships owned amd crewed from NE port cities.
The backbone of slave labor either directly or indirectly built a great many family fortunes in the North. Some not insignificant portions of those fortunes went to build and continue to this day to endow Northern Universities.
FWIW slavery isn’t ‘ok’, not then, not now, not in any form. No one should have the fruit of their labor seized and distributed for the benefit of another private person(s).
On the contrary, the constitution’s framers took great pains not to write it in. It was a reality that they had to deal with, but they refused to make any direct mention of it in a document that they hoped would last longer than that institution. Hence such circumlocutions as “free persons . . . and all other persons”, and “the migration or Importation of such persons”.
Milhouse,
You just described the 3/5 compromise which was essential to the adoption of the US Constitution by the Individual States to form a Nation. If the founders didn’t want to allow slavery and the folks in States with less slaves didn’t wish to agree to a political union in which slavery was legal they could have chosen to hold out for abolishing it from the outset. As the historical record clearly demonstrates they chose to waive whatever principles they had on this point, adopt the Constitution w/o abolishing slavery.
IMO, there are no clean hands from a historical perspective on this issue in terms of State X v State Y or Territory Z prior to the post Civil War amendments. It was wrong then and wrong now. No individual should be categorized by immutable characteristics nor should the fruit of their labor be confiscated for the benefit of another private individual.
Abolishing slavery in all states wasn’t an option. The slaves states simply would never agree to that, so it was “you and which army?”. Even denying slave states any representation for their slaves wasn’t an option. 60% was the lowest the slaves states would go. So the things you’re saying are fantasies.
But it is a fact that slavery was not written into the constitution, because the framers were very careful not to do that. The slave states would have wanted them to, but they didn’t; not even the southerners among them. They all agreed to a constitution that carefully avoided endorsing or even mentioning slavery, because the delegates from slave states knew that the free states would never accept a constitution that did that.
Slavery existed long before Arabs started buying captured blacks in Africa.
I suspect that slavery has existed from the first tribal conflict in the history of the world.
Milhouse
The NE States put political expediency to get the Constitution approved above whatever principles some may wish to falsely ascribe to them. They didn’t reject the evil institution instead they accepted it. It wasn’t until 1800 that legislation passed to ban imports of slaves but the effective date was nearly a decade away in 1808.
Sanddog/jb4,
Yes indeed slavery has a long history across the world. This discussion is about the USA.
So did the North, although mostly they were called “bond servants”.
If you gonna blame an entire group of for the misdeeds of some within that group, why limit it to just “the south”?
May as well just blame the whites and have done with it. 🙄
They already do, including those of us whose people didn’t get here until the 1880s.
The south were not the only consumer that the Moors were supplying.
You are a g-d da-mn racist. Please crawl back under your rock. Every post you do here just helps to get Harris elected. I hope you are proud of yourself.
“Every post you do here just helps to get Harris elected.”
Concern troll is concerned again.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
Inauthentic virtue signal by the Karen among us.
Sorry if history offends you, Bartleby.
What a horribly racist thing to say, that blacks can only act right for a limited time and the default state is acting crazy. This was a Klan rally right? Oh…
Something I’ve noticed, and I’m hoping at least some segments of the American public have also noticed: all of this racial stuff that we’re getting out of the Democrat convention. This racial group that racial reference, etc. I didn’t hear any of this during the Republican national convention, although I will admit I wasn’t paying that much attention. So, in truth, who are the racists?
The definition of “racism” has changed to “not being concerned with or focused on race.” If you don’t consider race in your decision-making, you’re a racist. Being color-blind (the former standard for being non-racist) is now racist.
“Racism” hasn’t really changed, only its definition.
The group defining racism hasn’t changed, either.
They’re the same old slaveholding racists.
Every liberal I’ve had an honest conversation about race with has told me that black people basically can’t take care of themselves so white liberals have to take care of them and make decisions for them. They want to help blacks, but only as long as they can control them.
That, or they think blacks are inferior to them because they are children, and must be “helped”.
“Will they only go back to “acting crazy” if Trump?”
If Trump? If Trump what? I don’t think that question is complete.
How will anyone know the difference?
Acting????
What is holding black Americans from “acting out”?
I don’t see any repercussions for smash and grab robberies, violent looting, aggressive driving nor the rancor with which they choose to pursue daily.
Only one thing, really. They have 70 days not to scare the voters.
As a child growing up in NC, long before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I heard a black mother tell her children while in public, ‘now children don’t show your color’. I had to ask my Mother what that meant. She struggled as I was maybe 6.
Black racism is tiresome. As is the claim that people lacking power cannot be racist.
While this sounds bad, I am too old to take a 10 second clip at face value without knowing more context. Anybody have a link to a longer clip?
Plantation life must be good for those on the caucus.
Dey gets to be workin’ in the mastah’s house!
thanks for the article
saw it and was soooo happy when they admit to their criminality ( ies)
Leave a Comment