Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to rstybeach11's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Friday, June 07, 2024

Former President Donald Trump faced mockery online after mistakenly referring to Arizona as Texas during a campaign rally in Phoenix on June 6, 2024. At the rally, Trump stated, "What they're doing here in Texas... (He is in Arizona)," prompting widespread ridicule on social media platforms. The Biden-Harris HQ account shared the footage, garnering over 300,000 views and 7,800 likes, with the caption "Trump: What they're doing here in Texas... (He is in Arizona)."


Hundreds of BLM protesters were charged with property damage, including burglary and looting. The Associated Press reported that hundreds were charged with burglary and looting as of June 4, 2020. A report by The Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) stated that federal charges included 105 for arson, 49 for civil disorder, and 45 for assault against an officer, among others. The FBI and ATF investigated 164 structure fires from arson during the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis"Saint Paul, and by May 2021, federal investigators had filed arson charges against 17 people for damages at 11 properties in the Minneapolis"Saint Paul metropolitan region.

Rioters were required to repay businesses for damages through various means, including:

Restitution Agreements: In plea deals, defendants agreed to pay restitution to the U.S. Treasury Department. For example, defendant Hodgkins agreed to pay $2,000 in restitution as part of his guilty plea.

Fines and Sentencing: Defendants faced fines and sentencing, with felony charges potentially carrying fines exceeding $75,000.

Legislative Proposals: Ohio Senate Bill 267 aimed to make rioters financially responsible for property damages, with the slogan "You break it, you fix it." This bill sought to hold rioters accountable and prevent government officials from obstructing law enforcement during riots.

Insurance Claims: In some cases, insurers for minority-owned businesses damaged during protests sought restitution from defendants.

Now do Jan. 6 insurrectionists.


The Koch brothers and their network have had a complex and somewhat contradictory stance on issues related to systemic racism and critical race theory (CRT):

In 2021, leaders of the Koch network publicly opposed government bans on teaching critical race theory in schools, stating their support for free speech and academic freedom.

However, organizations funded by the Koch brothers, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), were prominent drivers behind legislative efforts to ban the teaching of CRT and limit discussions of systemic racism in schools.

The Koch network has long-standing ties to white nationalist scholars and has used their research to drive policies that critics argue perpetuate structural racism, such as efforts to resegregate schools, restrict voting rights, and expand the prison-industrial complex.

At the same time, the Koch network has funded some initiatives aimed at addressing racial injustice, such as the faith-based program "Heal America" launched in 2020 to combat "racial injustice with love and redemption."

Support for criminal justice reform - The Koch network has supported some initiatives focused on criminal justice reform, which disproportionately impacts minority communities, though details are scarce.

In 2014, the Koch brothers made a $25 million grant to the United Negro College Fund, though this led to criticism from some groups.

So while the Koch network has publicly disavowed CRT bans and claimed to reject racism, their funding of organizations promoting such bans and policies criticized as perpetuating systemic racism has led to accusations of contradictory actions and motivations driven by their free-market capitalist ideology.

"Nope, I said its worth a look if she has first hand experience, and I asked you to show me that, since your are more familiar with her than I am. At this point, I'm skeptical, not dismissive."

Hmmm, well then, pardon me. When you suggested she's nothing more than a "Soros-funded academic," I took that to mean you're outright dismissing her. I mean, why bring that up if you weren't?

"Nope, I was talking about "most of them", I don't know about her yet. That is why I asked. Does she fit that ^ description, or has she does she actually have first hand experience like I described. It was a QUESTION. I'd be more inclined to read her book if she does. Do you have any examples of her first hand experience?"

Do I need to provide them? I'm curious why we have to have a vetting discussion just for you to consider reading the material. Is this how you typically choose material or sources to consider?

"Are you suggesting that she hasn't built a career around racial injustice? That is a good thing and I would consider her intentions honorable, as long as she keeps it real and honest."

Excuse me. But I perceived that point as indicative that you were asserting that she built her career around Soros funding. Thank you for the clarification. I'm not sure what you're looking for here other than me convincing you that she's real and honest. That's entirely up to you to determine once you've read the book.

"I might just do that. Just because you intrigue me."

You can't see it, but I'm blushing.

"You are making alot of assumptions about my perspective."

Neh, I am making a lot of presumptions about your perspective based upon what I've seen you post on this most august site.

That is the problem I have with so called criminal justice "experts" in Academia. Most of them have done none of these things, or even talked to the people who DO these things every day. Yet they claim to have all the answers. What they usually DO have is an agenda, which is often as basic as getting recognition In her case, George Soros recognized her ideas as something he could get behind and funded her book. She has built a career around it.

Oh no. You're going to gatekeep an opportunity to find perspective? You're going to discount her research because of this?

What a shame. I'm sincerely disappointed.

"Yet they claim to have all the answers."

Whelp, you wouldn't know if Michelle Alexander was presenting answers or not, since you haven't read a synopsis of the book, let alone the book itself.

I assure you, Michelle Alexander has far fewer "answers" than she does provide evidence of systemic racism. That's usually how it works with academia: Not necessarily "answers" provided, but evidence that a phenomenon is taking place, which in this case points to systemic racism in the justice system without explicit laws written tantamount to those produced during the original Jim Crow era.

"Most of them have done none of these things, or even talked to the people who DO these things every day."

Is that what your charging Michelle Alexander with? Just exactly what evidence do you have that would suggest she's "done none of these things" or "even talk to the people who DO these things every day"? You are making assumptions without actually considering the content.

"She has built a career around it."

You had never even heard of her before today and now you've already judged her intent? Fascinating and illuminating take on your part. I really appreciate this little conversation we've had on this thread. It has exposed you for what so many others on this most august site have accused you of, appreciate the corroborating evidence.

Why not take a risk (apparently?) and read the book regardless of your preconceived notions of the author? Are you that afraid of being influenced away from your biased perspective? Again, if so, what a shame. Here's a glimpse: The most significant evidence she provides in the book indicating systemic racism existing in the justice systems stems from Seattle, WA (an obviously VERY liberal stronghold) under the watch of Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's Chief of Police before he was appointed Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (2009-2014) under Obama. Is that enough of an nonpolitical component that might influence you actually read a book? LOL

Take heed, Miranda. Please do not choose the ignorance that has plagued the likes of BOAZ on this site for as long as it has.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable