Michigan City Council Candidate: Keep Community white

[Bear Stearns]

Was this woman actually born in another country or are you saying white = foreign?

The latter, at least when talking about Michigan, or any other place in the Americas.

That's both racist and untrue. Most white people in America have been here 4+ generations. How are they foreign?

How many generations does it take to go from being foreign to native?

[Necroghastia]

The latter, at least when talking about Michigan, or any other place in the Americas.

That's both racist and untrue. Most white people in America have been here 4+ generations. How are they foreign?

How many generations does it take to go from being foreign to native?

I dunno. Don't really care, seeing as I'm not the one raising a stink over ancestry.

[Bear Stearns]

That's both racist and untrue. Most white people in America have been here 4+ generations. How are they foreign?

How many generations does it take to go from being foreign to native?

I dunno. Don't really care, seeing as I'm not the one raising a stink over ancestry.

You clear are since you said white people are foreigners.

And now you can't even back that up.

[Necroghastia]

I dunno. Don't really care, seeing as I'm not the one raising a stink over ancestry.

You clear are since you said white people are foreigners.

And now you can't even back that up.

No, I'm not. I'm merely applying this person's own "logic" to the fullest extent.

[Tornado Queendom]

Crackpot racist bitch, it doesnt matter if you dont believe in it or not, interracial is still gona be a category on pornhub.


Also i wonder if that "Doesnt want anyone foreign born settling in the city" apply to just darkies or foreign whities too, or are we okay?

When people say that it usually refers to people of color. If you ask them about someone from Russia settling in their community they would likely have no issue

I honestly kind of agree with Jean Cramer, but I'm not going to comment any further than that. Besides, it's for very different reasons anyways (which are personal to me).

You agree with her? May I inquire as to why?

Those reasons are personal, and I don't plan on sharing them here.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

"I'm not racist, but..." isn't gonna prevent us from seeing through her wingnuttery. The question over interracial marriages has already been settled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and there is no objective reason for why law-abiding citizens should be barred from marrying the person of their heart on the basis of their melanin quantity.

[Aureumterra]

"I'm not racist, but..." isn't gonna prevent us from seeing through her wingnuttery. The question over interracial marriages has already been settled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and there is no objective reason for why law-abiding citizens should be barred from marrying the person of their heart on the basis of their melanin quantity.

This

[Neko-koku]

"I'm not racist, but..." isn't gonna prevent us from seeing through her wingnuttery. The question over interracial marriages has already been settled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and there is no objective reason for why law-abiding citizens should be barred from marrying the person of their heart on the basis of their melanin quantity.

It was "settled" by Jim Crow too. "Settle" in social issues means "temporarily accepted" and nothing else. Nothing social is ever going to be settled.

[San Lumen]

"I'm not racist, but..." isn't gonna prevent us from seeing through her wingnuttery. The question over interracial marriages has already been settled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and there is no objective reason for why law-abiding citizens should be barred from marrying the person of their heart on the basis of their melanin quantity.

It was "settled" by Jim Crow too. "Settle" in social issues means "temporarily accepted" and nothing else. Nothing social is ever going to be settled.

Interracial marriage is unlikely to be criminalized again. it is by and large settled law.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

"I'm not racist, but..." isn't gonna prevent us from seeing through her wingnuttery. The question over interracial marriages has already been settled in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, and there is no objective reason for why law-abiding citizens should be barred from marrying the person of their heart on the basis of their melanin quantity.

It was "settled" by Jim Crow too. "Settle" in social issues means "temporarily accepted" and nothing else. Nothing social is ever going to be settled.

Unless the entire SCOTUS magically decides that interracial marriage is bad and decides to unilaterally invalidate its own court ruling, there is no realistic chance that Loving v. Virginia is ever going to be overturned, especially as there is no objective scientific reason for why interracial marriages should be banned. The state is there to govern the country and care for the welfare and security of its people, not to be a marriage counsellor.

[Saiwania]

Unless the entire SCOTUS magically decides that interracial marriage is bad and decides to unilaterally invalidate its own court ruling, there is no realistic chance that Loving v. Virginia is ever going to be overturned, especially as there is no objective scientific reason for why interracial marriages should be banned. The state is there to govern the country and care for the welfare and security of its people, not to be a marriage counsellor.

If interracial marriage were to be outlawed, it'd be done via stacking the supreme court with judges that'll invalidate that ruling or via an actual amendment that can't be struck down so easily like regular legislation can. Would be like the Nuremberg Laws.

For while the US constitution guarantees a lot of rights and makes change glacial and difficult to implement by design, it can't protect against popular mandate. It used to be legal to forcibly sterilize certain people in the US for example, because during that time- Eugenics was very popular and commonplace. Scientific racism was in vogue and etc. Society isn't guaranteed to always be so tolerant and liberal as it is now.

[San Lumen]

Unless the entire SCOTUS magically decides that interracial marriage is bad and decides to unilaterally invalidate its own court ruling, there is no realistic chance that Loving v. Virginia is ever going to be overturned, especially as there is no objective scientific reason for why interracial marriages should be banned. The state is there to govern the country and care for the welfare and security of its people, not to be a marriage counsellor.

If interracial marriage were to be outlawed, it'd be done via stacking the supreme court with judges that'll invalidate that ruling or via an actual amendment that can't be struck down so easily like regular legislation can. Would be like the Nuremberg Laws.

For while the US constitution guarantees a lot of rights and makes change glacial and difficult to implement by design, it can't protect against popular mandate. It used to be legal to forcibly sterilize certain people in the US for example, because during that time- Eugenics was very popular and commonplace. Scientific racism was in vogue and etc. Society isn't guaranteed to always be so tolerant and liberal as it is now.

Your not going to get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw interracial marriage and that would be a Supreme Court completely out of step with popular opinion

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Unless the entire SCOTUS magically decides that interracial marriage is bad and decides to unilaterally invalidate its own court ruling, there is no realistic chance that Loving v. Virginia is ever going to be overturned, especially as there is no objective scientific reason for why interracial marriages should be banned. The state is there to govern the country and care for the welfare and security of its people, not to be a marriage counsellor.

If interracial marriage were to be outlawed, it'd be done via stacking the supreme court with judges that'll invalidate that ruling or via an actual amendment that can't be struck down so easily like regular legislation can. Would be like the Nuremberg Laws.

For while the US constitution guarantees a lot of rights and makes change glacial and difficult to implement by design, it can't protect against popular mandate. It used to be legal to forcibly sterilize certain people in the US for example, because during that time- Eugenics was very popular and commonplace. Scientific racism was in vogue and etc. Society isn't guaranteed to always be so tolerant and liberal as it is now.

About 87% of American citizens approve of interracial marriage today, so if anything, interracial marriage is even less likely to be struck down than same-sex marriage, which, while having unprecedented support today, sits at 67% in comparison as of 2018, so there is no risk of a "popular mandate" or "silent majority" giving the government a greenlight to recriminalize marriage between black and white Americans.
Sources:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/app ... hites.aspx
https://news.gallup.com/poll/234866/two ... riage.aspx

[Thermodolia]

Failing to see how this is even news worthy, as I'm sure it not that hard to find someone sharing a similar viewpoint among every race.

In other news, water is wet but does it also make your sheets whiter? The answers may shock and surprise you, followed by sports at eleven.

“Water has been shown to make sheets wet and dark not whiter”

[Loben The 2nd]

If interracial marriage were to be outlawed, it'd be done via stacking the supreme court with judges that'll invalidate that ruling or via an actual amendment that can't be struck down so easily like regular legislation can. Would be like the Nuremberg Laws.

For while the US constitution guarantees a lot of rights and makes change glacial and difficult to implement by design, it can't protect against popular mandate. It used to be legal to forcibly sterilize certain people in the US for example, because during that time- Eugenics was very popular and commonplace. Scientific racism was in vogue and etc. Society isn't guaranteed to always be so tolerant and liberal as it is now.

Your not going to get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw interracial marriage and that would be a Supreme Court completely out of step with popular opinion

Dredd Scott.

[Saiwania]

Your not going to get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw interracial marriage and that would be a Supreme Court completely out of step with popular opinion

My point is that if that happened, that is how it could be done. However unlikely it is. The US constitution after all, allows itself to be amended. It isn't always about precedent.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Your not going to get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw interracial marriage and that would be a Supreme Court completely out of step with popular opinion

Dredd Scott.

Which led to a brutal civil war resulting in the victory of the abolitionists, completely abolishing slavery nationwide and at least de jure granting some basic civil rights to Black Americans, such as equal protection under the law and suffrage to black men.

[Thermodolia]

Here we go. Then you do need to be in a Japan. Singapore is NOT for most people. It does both Japanese and Singaporeans a favor for Japan-minded people to be in a Japan. Without keeping Japan Japan we can't keep Singapore Singapore.

Are you one of those people who thinks no one should immigrate and China should just be for Chinese people or Japan got Japanese or America for Americans?

What defines an American? We are a multicultural country and you cannot and should not say only white people can reside in a community. American doesn’t mean white and neither does a Briton or German

Actually Britons and Germans are white.

America is more of an assimilationist culture. You can bring your food, dance, and dress but leave the bigoted bullshit and ethnic strife at the door

[Thermodolia]

Yes! Finally a prominent woman out there that is fighting the good fight for the right values. She would have my full support, but it'd be quite a difficult and long fight if she's going up against the forces of Liberalism and the media that embraces all that is wrong in this world.

I wouldn’t call someone running for a city that barely tops 10,000 people to be prominent

[Thermodolia]

Your not going to get a constitutional amendment passed to outlaw interracial marriage and that would be a Supreme Court completely out of step with popular opinion

My point is that if that happened, that is how it could be done. However unlikely it is. The US constitution after all, allows itself to be amended. It isn't always about precedent.

We have precedent to kick Nazis asses. We should probably start that up

[Estanglia]

Are you one of those people who thinks no one should immigrate and China should just be for Chinese people or Japan got Japanese or America for Americans?

What defines an American? We are a multicultural country and you cannot and should not say only white people can reside in a community. American doesn’t mean white and neither does a Briton or German

Actually Britons and Germans are white.

It kinda depends upon how those terms are defined though.

If you're talking ethnically Briton and German, then yes.
Culturally, it depends upon whether or not being white is core to the culture or not. If not, then there could be a nonwhite Briton or German.
In terms of nationality (i.e what country/ies you're a citizen of), then there are nonwhite Brits and Germans.

[Andsed]

Yes! Finally a prominent woman out there that is fighting the good fight for the right values. She would have my full support, but it'd be quite a difficult and long fight if she's going up against the forces of Liberalism and the media that embraces all that is wrong in this world.

I wouldn’t call someone running for a city that barely tops 10,000 people to be prominent

Or racist ethnostate bullshit to be good values to have.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Yes! Finally a prominent woman out there that is fighting the good fight for the right values. She would have my full support, but it'd be quite a difficult and long fight if she's going up against the forces of Liberalism and the media that embraces all that is wrong in this world.

I wouldn’t call someone running for a city that barely tops 10,000 people to be prominent

Not to mention someone holding such fractally wrong views that I would be surprised if she even managed to win a sizeable amount of votes, let alone a outright victory. Only a member of the Ku Klux Klan could possibly vote for her after reading her speeches.

[Telconi]

Dredd Scott.

Which led to a brutal civil war resulting in the victory of the abolitionists, completely abolishing slavery nationwide and at least de jure granting some basic civil rights to Black Americans, such as equal protection under the law and suffrage to black men.

I mean, that's a pretty long winded description of why Loben made a good point, which does nothing to invalidate his point.

[Tornado Queendom]

completely abolishing slavery nationwide

With the exception of me enslaving myself all the time doing stupid shit, that usually never gets finished.