ADVERTISEMENT

Stop calling us racists!!

This guy is probably in some serious trouble, at least I hope so.

He was an election denier in 2020, as a US Senator from Indiana.

His gubernatorial candidacy is being challenged by a former Republican woman who 8 years ago won the state of Indiana's head of Public Education's office position, and she is now challenging him on the Democratic ticket for the governor's position, and seems to have won some serious momentum to challenge him. Time will tell, I assume.

Braun is not the brightest bulb in the box, but he might be able to fool the Indiana electorate, because they are not the brightest bulb in the box either. :(
 
This guy is probably in some serious trouble, at least I hope so.

He was an election denier in 2020, as a US Senator from Indiana.

His gubernatorial candidacy is being challenged by a former Republican woman who 8 years ago won the state of Indiana's head of Public Education's office position, and she is now challenging him on the Democratic ticket for the governor's position, and seems to have won some serious momentum to challenge him. Time will tell, I assume.

Braun is not the brightest bulb in the box, but he might be able to fool the Indiana electorate, because they are not the brightest bulb in the box either. :(
He's going to win unfortunately.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Here_4_a_Day
Braun is not the brightest bulb in the box, but he might be able to fool the Indiana electorate, because they are not the brightest bulb in the box either. :(


this-is-a-drastic-understatement-max-shockley.gif
 
On Tuesday evening, Braun sent out a statement saying he had “misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage” and condemned “racism in any form” saying there was “no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race.”





And don't look now but your candidate is about to do a interview with a B list celeb who put on blackface and called a bunch of people ni**ers.
 
On Tuesday evening, Braun sent out a statement saying he had “misunderstood a line of questioning that ended up being about interracial marriage” and condemned “racism in any form” saying there was “no question the Constitution prohibits discrimination of any kind based on race.”





And don't look now but your candidate is about to do an interview with a B list celeb who put on blackface and called a bunch of people ni**ers.
Prime Minister Trudeau is interviewing Kamala?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PoopandBoogers
The reporter asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, it’s hypocritical.”

Anyone claiming Braun was confused or didn’t understand the question is one, some, or all of the following:

1. A liar
2. A mental midget
3. A piece of shit
 
The reporter asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, it’s hypocritical.”

Anyone claiming Braun was confused or didn’t understand the question is one, some, or all of the following:

1. A liar
2. A mental midget
3. A piece of shit
Earning your salary again today I see!
 
It’s nuts that we are even having a discussion about the legality of interracial marriage here in the year 2024. God damn who cares?
Guess you didn’t see Vance’s response to Republican voters that have an issue with him married to a Hindu and fathering mixed race children.
He essentially apologized and told them but she’s such a good mom and lawyer. Instead of telling them to GFT.
 
Guess you didn’t see Vance’s response to Republican voters that have an issue with him married to a Hindu and fathering mixed race children.
He essentially apologized and told them but she’s such a good mom and lawyer. Instead of telling them to GFT.

No. I didn’t see this. Just… wow. I’ve really got nothing else to say at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Paris
With a quote from the article?


Ok.....
You’re too dumb to see he is having his cake and eating it too.

Made the racists happy with the initial quote - as he wanted.

Now pretending he didn’t say the words that came out of his own mouth because he knows there are so many numpties like you willing to carry his racist water.

BAU and despicable.
 
You’re too dumb to see he is having his cake and eating it too.

Made the racists happy with the initial quote - as he wanted.

Now pretending he didn’t say the words that came out of his own mouth because he knows there are so many numpties like you willing to carry his racist water.

BAU and despicable.
Charliefromalwayssunny.gif



Maybe you know something I don't. I quoted his words.
 
IMO it's off the table because it should be covered under the Constitution, and a state can't trump that. However...

Why is it that every time someone suggests it's up to the state to decide something, it's assumed that person favors the unpopular position?

States do govern marriage, and probably should govern all marriage regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. Officials say "by the power vested in me by the state of..." So it's not automatically racist to say states should govern marriage...
 
The reporter asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, it’s hypocritical.”

Anyone claiming Braun was confused or didn’t understand the question is one, some, or all of the following:

1. A liar
2. A mental midget
3. A piece of shit
4. All of the above and goes by Whiskeydeltadeltatango
 
1964 California Prop 14 allowed property sellers, landlords and their agents to openly discriminate on ethnic grounds.

This was later found to be unconstitutional.

Point is, states shouldn't have the right to discriminate. It's not a, "right."
The fact many on this board don't understand this extremely fundamental civics lesson is terrifying and apalling.
 
Why is it that every time someone suggests it's up to the state to decide something, it's assumed that person favors the unpopular position?
Because it's overturning the accepted federal norm, which is what the majority already agree with.
They cannot gerrymander the unpopular views at the federal levels, so they'll do it at the state level.

#It'sNotHardToFigureOutHere
 
IMO it's off the table because it should be covered under the Constitution, and a state can't trump that. However...

Why is it that every time someone suggests it's up to the state to decide something, it's assumed that person favors the unpopular position?

States do govern marriage, and probably should govern all marriage regardless of race, religion, gender, etc. Officials say "by the power vested in me by the state of..." So it's not automatically racist to say states should govern marriage...

Because the current status quo is the "popular"/non-racist position everywhere. Why would you want to change that?

This isn't a simple academic exercise. Opening it back up to the states means that some states will likely put in place laws against it. If there was no movement to do that there wouldn't be any movement to get rid of the decision in the first place.

And historically this is what "states rights" has been used to do. It's not like the Loving v. Virginia happened by accident. It happened because a inter-racial couple wanted to be together and get married and Virginia using laws similar to many southern state's laws at the time sought to criminally punish them for it.

If you want to undo that decision you want to undo it for a reason. And if you want to undo that decision you also believe that it never should have been decided that way and that the southern states should have been allowed to just continue to criminally punish any inter-racial couples from marrying.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT