https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-administration-sues-los-angeles-sanctuary-city-immigration-polic-rcna216011

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has sued the city of Los Angeles over its immigration policies, claiming that the city's law discriminates against federal law enforcement by treating them differently from other law enforcement authorities.

The lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California, and notes up top that Donald Trump "campaigned and won the presidential election on a platform of deporting the millions of illegal immigrants the previous administration permitted, through its open borders policy, to enter the country unlawfully."

The suit, which names Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, the City Council and City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson as defendants, claims that Los Angeles' laws and policies obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws. A spokesperson for Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

"Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles," Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. "Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump."

The lawsuit comes weeks after protests over the administration's deportation efforts exploded in Los Angeles. The protesters — along with Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom — have become key targets for Trump and his allies.

The Trump administration has taken an aggressive approach to immigration, reassigning resources from other areas to immigration enforcement. One of Bondi's first acts as attorney general was announcing a lawsuit against New York over its "sanctuary" policies.

In Los Angeles, Trump and Newsom squared off over the use of National Guard troops in the city in response to the protests.

good now throw all these domestic terrorists into prison and cut federal funding fuck los angelos

>>1417036
Why do you hate Americans?

>>1417056
he's esl shill, he's just doing his job

>>1417056
They're genocidal colonizing pieces of shit that overthrow democracies and oppress people wherever they set foot. No one group of people has caused more human suffering throughout history than Americans.

>>1417058
not lately though

>>1417059
Tell that to Palestine.

>>1417060
I didn't know America and Israel were synonymous.

>>1417061
Of course they are. Israel is an American vassal state. Make America disappear and Israel loses all of its funding and the land returns to its rightful owners.

You literally just bombed innocent people for having the audacity to defend themselves from your fascist tyranny and stand up for victims of genocide.

>>1417062
Boy are you in for a surprise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Israel_during_the_Gaza_war

>>1417063
Help me out, how does this disprove that your nation is funding the genocide in Palestine? The fact that other nations built on slavery and colonialism also have funded it?

>>1417064
>Make America disappear and Israel loses all of its funding
False
>and the land returns to its rightful owners.
Also false.

>>1417033 (OP)
Trump sure is angry that California is holding ICE to unreasonable standards, like having warrants and identifying themselves and following due process.

FFS, LAPD is literally a legalized gang, but at least they show their faces and provide badge numbers and use warrants.

>>1417066
Add the fact that the LAPD of today is a lot more dark skinned than it was 30 years ago.
https://www.dailynews.com/2025/05/30/photos-lapd-adds-to-ranks-with-16-police-academy-graduates/
https://www.lapdpolicecom.lacity.org/052521/BPC_21-099.pdf

>>1417065
You know damn well Israel would never lay a finger on nobody without having America throw their hands up in the air like they're powering up a spirit bomb to help Israel lmao fuck out of here

>>1417067
>tfw watching ICE agents named Ramirez and Sanchez bagging browns
What a time to be alive

Sure is a lot of coping and seething from the left wingers in this thread. They're even mistaking anti-semitic terrorists getting what they deserve with genocide, lol.

>>1417066
>Trump sure is angry that California is holding ICE to unreasonable standards, like having warrants and identifying themselves and following due process.
Unlike the ATF that breaks into homes while people sleep, unannounced, masked, and killing people they were serving a search warrant for their home - that they called off the week before because the person wasn't there so they could drop him.

>>1417096
It's super cool that all the libshits who downplayed Ruby Ridge and Waco are now trying to tell us how super duper evil and scary ICE is

>>1417081
Evangelicals are a small percentage of the population.

>>1417095
>>1417097
Shitty damage control

>>1417104
>Shitty damage control
No it's tit for tat. You have no problem with the feds crushing anyone on the right under their boot. You'll cry and riot over every minority thug getting shot by police - while they're shooting at police! - but an unarmed woman gets capped by police at Jan 6th and you celebrate it, along with the thousands that got tossed in jail when you were outraged six months ago when a handful of your people got arrested at CHAZ. And before that you were cheering on the government for killing one and wounding another of those Bundy ranch guys. Then like the other anon said you were in full support of the feds at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Plus all the no-knock raids and red flag confiscations where people got killed.

It's classic "It's only okay when WE do it!", so don't expect me to listen to your crying over ICE. You had no problem when it happened to us, now it's your turn in the barrel.

>>1417107
>Plus all the no-knock raids and red flag confiscations where people got killed.
Leftists and progressives aren't ideologically consistent. They don't care if deportations are legitimate, all they know is that immigrants are being deported and that makes them upset.

>>1417107
>oh help me orange man I'm so oppressed
>muh ruby ridge and waco
That was over 30 years ago. No one buys your list of grievances.
>>1417108
There is nothing more hilarious than a chud who thinks he's an expert on 'leftists'.

>>1417111
And Ashley Babbitt was just a few years ago. Nobody buys your fake outrage over police brutality. You just want an excuse to fuck shit up.

>>1417114Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol Police officer while attempting to climb through a barricaded doorway into the Speaker's Lobby during the January 6th Capitol attack. The officer fired his weapon as Babbitt was part of a mob trying to breach the area where members of Congress were being evacuated. The shooting was deemed lawful by the Department of Justice and the Capitol Police, who concluded the officer acted in self-defense and defense of others.

>>1417116
Yeah and the shooting of Dresjon Reed - that black guy who was shooting at police with the same gun he livestreamed him doing a drive-by with the night before - was 100 and 20% justified, yet you animals still rioted over him. Even had Antifags blocking roads and pointing guns at drivers. Jacob Blake, Michael Brown, etc. All these justified shootings that you found time to riot over, but for some odd reason you couldn't do it for Ashli Babbitt.

Now why is that?

>>1417117
>feels personally attacked when a chud gets what he deserves
>thinks Antifa is real
It must be tough living with a republican persecution complex. Do you take meds? Sounds like you need them.

>>1417118
Of course you can't answer the question. That's okay, I sort of answered the question for you earlier: you don't give a fuck about police brutality, you just want an excuse to fuck shit up. That's why when police brutality happens to someone perceived to be on the right, you turn a blind eye to it. If you were truly consistent with your beliefs you'd be outraged about police brutality no matter what side it happens to.

But you're not - and since you don't care when it happens to the right, don't expect me to care when it happens to the left. Simple.

>>1417119
Weird headcanon

>>1417107
Stop acting like a fucking child. It's not okay in either case.

>>1417119
Why would anyone answer your loaded false premise questions?

>>1417108
Democrats always start rioting when republicans take away their slaves.

And Republicans will soon start food riots because they want the Republican-voting agricultural industry's slaves taken away
As you MAGAtards voted for this, here's your Fell For It Again award

>>1417146
The parties switched in the 60s.

>>1417058
Sure, if you ignore all of east asian history (and present), not that you'd know anything about it Mr. Anglocentric

>>1417149
>Republican legislation has always been individualistic without specifically targeting a group (race, religion, etc.) for preferential treatment, unlike democrats
>the parties switched in the 60s
Sure Anon.

>>1417154
Yes, it's a historical fact. Ask your mom.

>>1417156
She's been dead for a few years and I don't have a fucking ouiji board so ... Can you back up your claim?

>>1417157
Ask ChatGPT then.

>>1417157
>>1417158
https://files.catbox.moe/6z5yom.png
BTFO

>>1417159
>the parties didn't exactly "switch"
>BTFO
Oh the irony.

Also not seeing any pro-whites only legislation being passed by Republicans, so nice to know we're still keeping that trend going of not acting like democrats.

>>1417160
If you didn't learn about the party realignment of the mid-20th century in high school then you need to go back to high school.

>>1417160
Can you try to not be a disingenuous faggot for once in your life?
>The parties didn't exactly "switch," but their bases, ideologies, and regional strongholds changed dramatically. This was a gradual process that spanned from the 1940s to the 1980s, with the 1960s as the turning point. The Democrats moved left on social and racial issues, and many conservative white voters moved right, aligning with the Republican Party.

>>1417162
>Can you try to not be a disingenuous faggot for once in your life?
Can you show me an example of Republican legislation that specifically listed a group (whites, men, protestants, etc.) for special treatment?

No?

Well then I guess this bullshit that the parties "switched" is exactly that.

>>1417160
>Also not seeing any pro-whites only legislation being passed by Republicans
Yeah they're just getting rid of programs that are there to address racial disparity in the workplace and censoring minority history.

>>1417164
Now show me where in the legislation it specifically says blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

>>1417163
Why are you pretending to be retarded?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace#1968_third-party_presidential_run
>Planning for Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign began with a strategy session on the evening of the March 1967 inauguration of Lurleen Wallace. The meeting featured prominent white supremacists and anti-Semites, including: Asa Carter; William Simmons of the White Citizens' Council; Dallas County Sheriff Jim Clark; former Mississippi governor Ross Barnett; Leander Perez, a fervent Louisiana segregationist and anti-Semite; Kent Courtney, a John Bircher; and "a representative sent by Willis Carto, head of the Liberty Lobby and publisher of the anti-Semitic magazine American Mercury."[

Between 1953-1961, a political party was elected to power: during that time, the highest tax rate was 91%. And the president & leader of that party was elected twice by the voters of that party thus they approved of that president & leader. A president who destroyed someone in that same party who was rabidly anti-those who were against that party by giving him enough political rope to hang himself, then when he did, leading to that someone - who was an alcoholic - dying a pickled irrelevance, and the leader & president of that someone not acknowledging his existence. Said leader/president destroyed that someone by doing nothing.
Question: Who was that party leader/president between 1953-1961 - when the highest tax rate was 91% - and what letter was after his name?

>>1417160
There is absolutely nothing ironic about the post you replied to.

>>1417166
Still not seeing a time where Republicans did not post legislation that were individualistic in nature without targeting a specific demographic in the United States.

Unlike democrats. Y'know for a party that "switch sides" they sure kept the winning tradition they were known for.
>mfw retard dems here thinks the parties "switched" in the 60s after hearing LBJ "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years."

>>1417169
What are you getting out of denying things people learned in history classes for the last 50 years? (besides derailing the thread of course). You might as well argue that the sky is green and not blue.

>>1417169
>after hearing LBJ "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years."
LBJ never actually said that, the quote came secondhand from one of his political rivals years later.

>>1417170
I know it's really hard to understand, I clearly haven't repeated myself enough in this thread, but the Republican party has always pushed legislation that was individualistic in nature - meaning it applied to everyone regardless of demographic - and have not made any legislation that was specific to any sort of group; race, religion, etc.

This is a tradition that they've had for almost 200 years. So this idea that the parties "switched side" is complete bullshit because the Republican party has been doing the same fucking thing it's been doing since the 18 fucking hundreds.

Have I made myself clear enough yet? Or are just so retarded that no amount of effort on my part will get through to you?

>>1417171
>imagine trying to argue that LBJ, a man known for making racist statements, didn't make this specific racist statement
And yet I'm sure you believe all the bullshit that people say Trump said.

>>1417173
>chatgpt and every history book are actually wrong
>here's what really happened
Anon your delusions aren't real.

>>1417174
The fact that you get personally offended when people (rightly) attack Trump is the icing on the cake.

>>1417175
>chatgpt is a reliable source
Kek for one.

And for two:
>The democrats and Republicans switched sides!
>Really? What changed then?
>NOTHING! The Republicans are still doing the same thing.

>>1417176
The fact that you seriously don't believe LBJ said "nigger" when he's been quoted saying that word multiple times is just adorable.

>>1417177
Why did the South go from being the most reliable Democrat region of the nation to the most reliable Republican region of the nation between the late 60s and the late 90s?

>>1417176
It's not insulting, it's exhausting. Because you collectively lie and apply double standards to people you don't like all the time.
You're unironically the biggest bootlickers on the planet too.

>>1417179
>>1417161

>>1417177
Key Points in the Party Shift:
1. Civil Rights Movement (1950s–60s):

The Democratic Party, especially under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, began to embrace civil rights more fully.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed by Johnson, caused a major backlash among white Southern voters who had traditionally supported Democrats (the "Solid South").

2. Southern Strategy (1968–onward):

The Republican Party, particularly under Richard Nixon, employed the "Southern Strategy" — appealing to disaffected white Southern voters who opposed civil rights legislation and federal intervention.

Over time, this led to the South becoming increasingly Republican, while African Americans and other minorities increasingly aligned with the Democrats.

3. Ideological Realignment:

Before the 1960s: Democrats had a large conservative Southern wing (Dixiecrats) and a progressive Northern wing. Republicans were historically more associated with civil rights (e.g., Lincoln’s legacy) and had a strong base in the Northeast and Midwest.

After the 1960s:

Democrats became the party of civil rights, social programs, labor unions, and progressive causes.

Republicans increasingly became associated with states' rights, limited government, social conservatism, and a pro-business agenda.

4. Key Figures & Moments:

Strom Thurmond, a segregationist Democrat, switched to the Republican Party in 1964.

Barry Goldwater (R) opposed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, appealing to states' rights conservatives.

Ronald Reagan’s 1980s presidency cemented the conservative coalition that included many former Southern Democrats.

>>1417181
And still the Republican strategy of pushing individualistic legislation that applies to all Americans equally remained intact, despite democrats - well known for pushing targeted legislation - "switching" to the big R.

>>1417183
Anon the parties flipped. Full stop. I'm sorry you live in a bubble of indoctrination.

>>1417184
Yeah flipped so hard that the Republicans continued doing the same thing they've been doing for almost 200 years. It's incredible.

>>1417185
>You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
-Lee Atwater, Republican strategist and senior advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

>tfw the party of aristocratic slave owners tells you that you're racist for not wanting to flood the interior with brown people so they can both inflate the house of representatives and have an underclass of undocumented slave labor
>tfw this party also tells you that the American institutions you support are systemically racist, but in actuality they're just applying marx's concept of Class Struggle to racial conflict, which they use as a justification to flood the interior with more brown people and tax white people more
>tfw this party calls you fascist while they get paid by NGOs funded out of Congress to smash businesses, fight with federal officers, and adopt whichever political position allows them to keep importing slaves
National divorce when bros

>>1417189
Right wingers:
>Control Congress
>Control White House
>Control Supreme Court
>Control majority of state governments
>Still whining about seceding/civil war/"national divorce"
This is why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

>>1417187
>As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you'll make it. Just pretend you're a goddamn piece of furniture.
-LBJ, 'embracing civil rights more fully.'

>>1417191
Just not going to acknowledge a senior advisor to multiple Republican presidents spelling out how your "Republican strategy of pushing individualistic legislation that applies to all Americans equally" is actually deliberately and maliciously planned coded racism?

>>1417190
>try to fix the country
>district judge in a single state: "Nuh-uh"
>entire system grinds to a halt
>democratic plants start killing their own politicians who cross party lines
Actual insanity.

>>1417192
What you call a dogwhistle is just schizophrenia.

>>1417194
How do you personally interpret this quote?
>You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
-Lee Atwater, Republican strategist and senior advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

>>1417193
>try to fix the country
>district judge in a single state: "Nuh-uh"
>entire system grinds to a halt
"Checks and balances are actually bad and the president should be a king... as long as he's on my team"
>democratic plants start killing their own politicians who cross party lines
Schizo babble brought on by malicious online political operatives.

>>1417196
Advocacy for racially motivated domestic policies isn't indicated by party affiliation. And that doesn't change the fact that Democrats are the ones now trying to silo voters based on their ethnicity, like the mayoral candidate openly saying he's taxing white people specifically.

>>1417192
Not if you're not going to acknowledge a DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT calling his black chef a - quote - "Nigger" while simultaneously fighting for civil rights.

Yeah tell me more how racist Republicans are.

>>1417196
How do you personally interpret this quote?
>As long as you are black, and you're gonna be black till the day you die, no one's gonna call you by your goddamn name. So no matter what you are called, nigger, you just let it roll off your back like water, and you'll make it. Just pretend you're a goddamn piece of furniture.
-LBJ, 'embracing civil rights more fully.'

>>1417197
>"Checks and balances are actually bad and the president should be a king... as long as he's on my team"
A district judge interfering with the powers of the executive branch is the exact opposite of checks and balances.
>Schizo babble
Boelter, the recent shooter of two democrats, claimed Tim Walz instructed him to kill those people

>>1417199
>Advocacy for racially motivated domestic policies isn't indicated by party affiliation
Hold on just a second. Your entire point this entire time has been Democrats are the party of racists and always have been, and now that you've been given evidence of a senior member of the Republican party openly admitting to using linguistic tricks to hide racist intent of legislation, you're shifting to "both sides bad?"
>>1417200
>while simultaneously fighting for civil rights.
At least you're acknowledging it was a Democrat president fighting for civil rights. Actions speak louder than words, and the civil rights legislation championed by Johnson still impacts millions of Americans every day in positive ways.
Tell me, how would you say Lyndon Johnson's use of the word nigger impacts you or anyone in 2025 personally?

>>1417204
>Hold on just a second.
You're arguing with multiple people.

>>1417204
>At least you're acknowledging it was a Democrat president fighting for civil rights.
I guess it wasn't sarcastic enough. For some odd reason I thought you'd be smart enough to pick up on the context of a "civil rights champion" calling his chef a NIGGER because he had the audacity to ask LBJ to call him his name instead of always calling him "boy".

That's your champion? The guy who fought for civil rights in America? And you're coming at me with some presidential advisor I've never even heard of until today, to try to beat PRESIDENT LYNDON B JOHNSON?

Fucking kek, the cope is beyond belief.

>Democrats are the real racists because they're the ones who hate black people, but also they hate white people and they want to genocide them and unfairly uplift black people
so this is the power of the conservative mind

>>1417204
>you're shifting to "both sides bad?"
What you're talking about is a red herring to distract from democrats openly pushing race-based policies in contemporary politics.

I could cherrypick any number of politicians acting retarded from 70+ years ago. That has no real impact on democrats trying to push for communism, quoting marx and hating white people though.

>>1417206
Actions speak louder than words, and the civil rights legislation championed by Johnson still impacts millions of Americans every day in positive ways.
Tell me, how would you say Lyndon Johnson's use of the word nigger impacts you or anyone in 2025 personally?

>>1417210
>Actions speak louder than words,
I agree. Which is why I keep pointing out the fact that Republican legislation has always been aimed at promoting individual rights of everyone in America, in contrast of democrats who passed legislation that specifically targeted races - which I would argue had massive negative consequences that "still impacts millions of Americans every day".

>>1417212
>which I would argue had massive negative consequences that "still impacts millions of Americans every day".
So you're saying the Civil Rights Act was a mistake?

>>1417214
I was thinking more like those affirmative action policies you dems are known for that discriminate based on race, such as the Higher Education Act of 1965, signed by your boy Lyndon B Johnson, which is how we end up with campuses that will exclude qualified applicants based on their race and race-specific scholarships.

Which, again, Republicans do not do.

>>1417212
>Before the 1960s: Democrats had a large conservative Southern wing (Dixiecrats) and a progressive Northern wing. Republicans were historically more associated with civil rights (e.g., Lincoln’s legacy) and had a strong base in the Northeast and Midwest.
That isn't the "individualism" you keep going on about.

>>1417219
>Which, again, Republicans do not do.
Whatever you need to do to cope over the fact that the GOP is the defacto racist party now is fine.

>>1417219
So the Civil Rights Act, championed and signed by Lyndon Johnson, was a positive for the nation?

>>1417219
>will exclude qualified applicants based on their race and race-specific scholarships.
As opposed to what they did before, where they excluded qualified applicants because they weren't white.

>>1417214
Forcing people who hate each other to associate at gunpoint? Yes.

>>1417239
you'd prefer little black girls get murdered by a lynch mob then?

>>1417241
Weirdly specific example anon, but no, the civil rights act was literally enforced by the military pointing guns at students

>>1417245
Every law is enforced by the threat of government violence for non-compliance.

>>1417245
and i'm telling you that a lynch mob would've killed a bunch of little girls if not for the federalized national guard. it's not like the military was used for fun. but i see you believe in the rule of the mob over the republican president eisenhower

>>1417232
>As opposed to what they did before, where they excluded qualified applicants because they weren't white.
Which was done by the Jim Crow promoting democrats. Not only were Republicans allowing blacks to go to college, they were compelling the South to either open colleges to everyone equally or force them to build colleges for African American student (Yes I know those southern democrats still managed to fuck that up. What else is new?). See the Morrill Land-Grant Act for more information ... Justin Morrill was a Republican by the way, just in case you didn't know.

>>1417264
>Not only were Republicans allowing blacks to go to college, they were compelling the South to either open colleges to everyone equally or force them to build colleges for African American student
That sounds a lot like Republicans pushing race based policies, which doesn't really gel with
>>1417212
Which is why I keep pointing out the fact that Republican legislation has always been aimed at promoting individual rights of everyone in America, in contrast of democrats who passed legislation that specifically targeted races
You're talking out of both sides of your mouth again.

>>1417245
Students who were going to what to that little black girl for going to their school?

Fucks sakes, some of the ghouls yelling at her are STILL ALIVE TODAY. This shit wasn't in ancient times.

>>1417265
The difference is Republican legislation doesn't give preference to one race over another. There's actual equality.

>>1417267
>Not only were Republicans allowing blacks to go to college, they were compelling the South to either open colleges to everyone equally or force them to build colleges for African American student
That sounds very much like Republicans giving preference to one race over another.
Which was a good thing, in this case. But it destroys your entire argument you've been making for hours.

>>1417268
>That sounds very much like Republicans giving preference to one race over another.
How so? Republicans are telling southern democrats that they can't discriminate based on race, but have to accept everyone individually that's qualified. The only thing that gives preference to blacks is the part where the land-grant act gave them a choice to either allow everyone into colleges equally or be forced to build colleges exclusive for African Americans. It was meant to compel them to either do the right thing and treat everyone equally, or else build entire colleges out of your own state budget.

Naturally, democrats are racist and retarded so they choose to do the latter even during reconstruction when finances were tight. And of course they would find ways to cut corners and not even meet the standards given. What can you do?

>>1417269
you're extremely not american

>>1417272
And yet well-versed in American history.

>>1417269
Why did the South go from being the most reliable Democrat region of the nation to the most reliable Republican region of the nation between the late 60s and the late 90s?

>>1417274
it's cute that you've deluded yourself into thinking that

>>1417276
Yes I'm sure you knew all about the Morrill Land-Grant Act and LBJ's racist comments before I posted.

>>1417275
Why would a majority of Evangelical Christians continue to support a party that openly supports abortion?

>>1417277
>Why would a majority of Evangelical Christians continue to support a party that openly supports abortion?
So there was a party swap.

>>1417278
Except the Republican party never swapped it's values or behavior. I think it would be more accurate to say the states swapped more than the party did.

>>1417279
>the party that fought to free slaves is now attempting to make america a white ethnostate
>"never swapped it's values"
you're a faggot and you also don't understand english contractions

>>1417279
>Except the Republican party never swapped it's values or behavior.
This is laughable. You have Republicans today pretending like they're a completely different party from the one that voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. You can't find a Bush supporter in the wild anymore.
Republicans won't even claim the same values they claimed 25 years ago.

>>1417281
Can you please show me a time when Republicans passed legislature that wasn't individualistic, but collectivism similar to the democrat party that valued one demograph over another? I'd really love to see it.

Hell you had to stretch my Morrill Land-Grant Act to make that count as an example, even though we put in that option to try to compel the South democrats to de-segregate. It was our way of saying "Now I know times are tough economically, we're both recovering from the war we just fought - you more so than me... but you need to let African Americans go to school. So you've got two choices. Option A: You let blacks use the same schools you already have built OR option B: you have to build them new schools from the ground up using only your money. Now I'm not going to tell you what to do, but if it were me..."

We didn't think the stupid fucks would actually pick Option B. And this was after Lincoln was murdered, we didn't have any leadership with any spine to send troops and compel the South all over again so we just threw our arms up and said fuck it. A mistake on our part.

That history tangent aside, when has the Republican party ever engaged in collectivism?

>>1417284
- Medicare Part D expansion (2003)
- Social Security Act Amendments of 1956
- Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
- First Step Act (2018)

Now shut the fuck up and take your gaslighting/sealioning combo elsewhere

>>1417284
and stop pretending to be a white american just because you watched some history videos on youtube

>>1417284
Didn't Texas Republicans just pass a law forcing a copy of the ten commandments in every classroom in the state?

>>1417286
>- Medicare Part D expansion (2003)
>- Social Security Act Amendments of 1956
>- Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Failing to see the racial component in either of these.
>- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
God fucking damn it Bush!
>- First Step Act (2018)
Bipartisan aimed at reducing recidivism for all prison inmates. I'm not seeing your point here.

>>1417288
Yes I am the first black Republican ever in history.

>>1417289
If they did that's stupid and I'm looking forward to a majority-Republican Supreme Court striking it down.

>>1417290
didn't we tell you to stop spewing your logical fallacious shit

>>1417290
https://files.catbox.moe/x5hd5u.png
You have been given many examples and you just ignore them or handwave them away as wrong. This is why no one should respond to you.

>>1417292
I'm pretty sure his only goal is to flood the zone with shit and derail threads he doesn't like.

>>1417292
>but collectivism similar to the democrat party that valued one demograph over another? I'd really love to see it.
Again, I guess I'm not being clear enough.

>>1417290
>If they did
They did
https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/24/ten-commandments-texas-schools-senate-bill-10/
So that would qualify as Republican legislature passing collectivist legislation valuing one demographic over others, correct? Regardless of whether or not it's struck down. Which, by the way...
>I'm looking forward to a majority-Republican Supreme Court striking it down.
I didn't realize the majority of Supreme Court justices had identified themselves as members of the Republican party. When did that happen?

>>1417294
I literally copied your question from >>1417284 into chatgpt you imbecile, since you are apparently too retarded to manage that.

>>1417294
>demograph
how are you this esl? and why doesn't it embarrass you to get caught pretending to be white and american

>>1417295
>So that would qualify as Republican legislature passing collectivist legislation valuing one demographic over others, correct?
It is. I'll give you that one, even though it will likely be struck down just like the one in Louisiana that the article mentions.
>I didn't realize the majority of Supreme Court justices had identified themselves as members of the Republican party. When did that happen?
So we don't have a 6 to 3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court after Trump put Kavanaugh and Barrett in? You might want to tell NPR that.

>>1417296
Now tell me which demographic benefits more from either of those bills, you imbecile. (Except for the fucking No Child Left Behind Act. Thanks Bush.)

>>1417296
Also stop using ChatGPT for everything like you do for your homework. I want reliable sources, not AI slop.

>>1417299
Ah, so Republican and conservative are interchangeable. That makes this conversation much more interesting.

>>1417302
It would've been even more interesting having you explain how democrat justices got rid of Roe v. Wade.

>>1417302
>Ah, so Republican and conservative are interchangeable
NTA, but when the shoe fits and they're members of the society backing the republican party and put into power by a republican president and vote along republican lines and each align with republican values, YES YOU FUCKING RETARD.

>>1417301
The only reason you don't like chatgpt because it easily debunks your retarded time-wasting, thread-derailing questions.

>>1417306
>Was Lyndon B Johnson racist?

>Lyndon B. Johnson, the 36th U.S. president, is widely recognized for his pivotal role in advancing civil rights legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These laws were monumental in dismantling legal segregation and protecting voting rights for Black Americans.

>However, Johnson’s personal views and earlier political career tell a more complicated story. During his first two decades in Congress, he opposed every civil rights bill that came up for a vote. Biographers and historians have also documented his frequent use of racial slurs in private conversations. Some argue that he used this language strategically to navigate the political landscape of the Jim Crow South, while others see it as evidence of deeply ingrained prejudice.

kek

>>1417304
No, this creates a much more interesting view of American history, based on the points you've made in this thread.
If Republican and conservative are interchangeable, we must also assume Democrat and liberal and/or progressive are interchangeable. Meaning the Democrat party has always been the liberal progressive party, as the Republican party has always been the conservative party.
If that's the case, is it your assertion that the south up to the late 20th century was a hotbed of liberal progressivism? Can you point to the cultural shift in the south that occurred that led them away from liberal progressive ideology to conservative ideology?

>>1417307
Yes, people can atone for the mistakes they made early in their lives.

>>1417308
we're talking about current news, faggot. stay on topic. yes, in the last 50 years, conservative and republican have been interchangeable.

>>1417308
>we must also assume Democrat and liberal and/or progressive are interchangeable.
Must we? Just because Republicans have been steadfast in their legislation and their approach to politics doesn't necessarily mean democrats have the same integrity. Unless that integrity is based on their racism. After all they're the same party that went from keeping blacks segregated to keeping blacks poor, fatherless, and aborted - but still thinking they give a fuck about them. Or to quote LBJ: "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for 200 years."
>in before he didn't say THAT racist quote
Y'know I've been going on about LBJ for a while... Maybe I should give Biden a chance.
>“Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
Okay maybe not.

It's repeating itself again.

>>1417311
>Just because Republicans have been steadfast in their legislation and their approach to politics
Ignoring the instances of that being proven untrue, even some you yourself have acknowledged in this very thread, does not make that true.
>keeping blacks poor, fatherless, and aborted
Ah, I forgot, every single black person in America is poor, fatherless, and has had multiple abortions.
And that this was caused by Democrat passed legislation forcing them to do all of those things.
And let me guess. You're one of those compassionate conservatives who wants to help the poor, dumb blacks Walkaway™ from the Democrat party, which they haven't done yet because they're been too stupid to see through the Democrats tricks for the better part of a century and too addicted to government handouts to step off the Democrat plantation, aren't you?

>>1417248
>and i'm telling you that a lynch mob would've killed a bunch of little girls if not for the federalized national guard
And the alternative was pointing guns at a bunch of white students who had nothing to do with anything.
Congrats on picking a side.

>>1417316
>And the alternative was pointing guns at a bunch of white students who had nothing to do with anything.
Yeah no. The only people who were having any guns pointed at them were people who wanted to kill a black girl for going to school.

>>1417316
we all know you're literally an esl shill, you don't even know what you're talking about. grow some self awareness please

>>1417316
>OMG you can't just be in favor of protecting children against a violent, racist mob! Congrats on picking a side, so much for the tolerant left!
You are a caricature of a human being.

>>1417315
>Ignoring the instances of that being proven untrue, even some you yourself have acknowledged in this very thread, does not make that true.
Mostly true, but of course you're going to split hairs with me over a nothingburger like Texans wanting the 10 commandments in government buildings.
>Ah, I forgot, every single black person in America is poor, fatherless, and has had multiple abortions.
Well lets use this trusty ChatGPT that the other anon has relied upon the whole thread like a crutch.
>57% of fatherless homes involve Black households
>Non-Hispanic Black women: ~38.4% of abortions
And funny enough 2nd place for poverty, lost (or won in this case) to Native Americans at 25.4% vs.
>Black or African Americans: ~20.8%
So I wouldn't go as far to say that for "every single black person in America", but a damn good chunk of the American population for sure.

Now pop-quiz hotshot: which party is pro-life, pro-traditional nuclear family, and pro-middle-class/small-business/high tarriffs/low taxes/I-can-do-this-all-day?

>And that this was caused by Democrat passed legislation forcing them to do all of those things.
I wouldn't say forced, but yeah.

>And let me guess. You're one of those compassionate conservatives who wants to help the poor, dumb blacks Walkaway™ from the Democrat party,
Well using that fun ChatGPT tool again, I wonder where the safest African American communities in America are.
>Raleigh, NC
>Richmond, VA
>Lansing, MI
>Cedar Hill, TX
>Stone Mountain, GA
>Randallstown, MD

The majority of those just happen to be in Republican-controlled territory. What a coincidence. I look forward to their growing sense of community, high homeownership, low crime, affordable living, excellent schools, and all the other benefits ChatGPT listed.

This AI is kinda based. I'm starting to like it more. That other anon might have a point using it.

>>1417327
you'll never be white or american

>>1417328
Kind of you to admit the White race is superior to all others, and that the USA is the greatest nation on Earth. Since you seem to think everyone in the world wants to be a White American.

>>1417335
i know you want to be superior but you're a shill on a dead board, and i'm making fun of you for larping as a white american, once again

>>1417327
As a wise anon said not too long ago.
>>1417301
>stop using ChatGPT for everything like you do for your homework. I want reliable sources, not AI slop.
The fact that you included the literal birthplace of the KKK in your list of safest places for black Americans shows how unreliable your information is and how desperate you are to just respond for the sake of responding.
In your own words, if the Democrat party has always been the party of black hate and racism, and the Democrats are pushing them to be poor and fatherless and have multiple abortions, why have black Americans overwhelmingly voted Democrat for generations?
Given you literally went through the effort of looking up statistics on how inferior blacks are to other races so I have a hunch on what your answer is going to be, but I'd like to read it in your own words.

>>1417345
>The fact that you included the literal birthplace of the KKK in your list of safest places for black Americans shows how unreliable your information is and how desperate you are to just respond for the sake of responding.
>Founded in Pulaski, Tennessee, U.S.
Hmmmm... I guess you must've meant Stone Mountain as the birthplace of the KKK.... and how does that place look in modern time?
>Demographics
>Black or African American (non-Hispanic 72.31%
I'm sorry, did you have a point? Is the Klan still casting wizard spells or whatever the fuck they do in Stone Mountain?

>In your own words, if the Democrat party has always been the party of black hate and racism, and the Democrats are pushing them to be poor and fatherless and have multiple abortions, why have black Americans overwhelmingly voted Democrat for generations?
I wonder if calling Republicans nazis for the last 10 years has anything to do with it.

>Given you literally went through the effort of looking up statistics on how inferior blacks are to other races
Ouch. Okay those are your words, not mine motherfucker.

>so I have a hunch on what your answer is going to be,
LMAO let me guess, I'm a nazi? Oh I love how I called it earlier with the bullshit narrative you fuckers keep pushing.

>>1417358
faggot

>>1417339
You're really telling on yourself when you fling those blind accusations, you know?

>>1417361
i don't know, esl shill, your imagination isn't indicative of reality. which demograph are you in?

>>1417345
see >>1417306
Stop using false premise questions and no one will have to use chatgpt.

>MAGA now openly uses AI to make their arguments for them
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

>>1417358
Maybe you should go back to the AI, you're starting to lose coherence.
>I wonder if calling Republicans nazis for the last 10 years has anything to do with it.
Republicans being called names for the last decade is why black Americans have voted Democrat for the last 60 years? Did you misread the question or is that your actual answer?
>Ouch. Okay those are your words, not mine motherfucker.
You've taken a break from accusing Democrats of being the eternal party of racism to research and post fatherlessness rates, poverty rates, and abortion rates in blacks, then seemed gleeful in posting how they're lagging behind other race groups.
I'd bring up the fact that the only other place I see people spreading statistics about black Americans and other types of self described "race realism" like is /pol/, but
>LMAO let me guess, I'm a nazi?
You seem very sensitive to being associated with that crowd, despite the fact that I haven't brought them up once until this point.

>>1417368
>Maybe you should go back to the AI, you're starting to lose coherence.
Hilarious, from the guy who thinks the KKK is still running shit in Stone Mountain.
>Republicans being called names for the last decade is why black Americans have voted Democrat for the last 60 years?
Democrats accusing Republicans of being the party of racism is the effective strategy used to shame their base into voting accordingly. This is how an old white guy like Joe Biden can get away with saying "you ain't black" or Republicans will "put y'all back in chains." Same shit going back as far as LBJ - a blatant racist that convinced the black population to vote for his party "for the next 200 years".

But please keep playing dumb and acting like this shit doesn't happen.

>You've taken a break from accusing Democrats of being the eternal party of racism to research and post fatherlessness rates, poverty rates, and abortion rates in blacks,
When did I take a break?

>then seemed gleeful in posting how they're lagging behind other race groups.
No, the only thing I take any glee from is knowing that their struggles are the fault of the democrat party you defend.

>I'd bring up the fact that the only other place I see people spreading statistics about black Americans and other types of self described "race realism" like is /pol/, but
Yes I know using statistics is racist, but it's important to point out how badly the democrat party failed. Also good job telling everyone you browse /pol/. Even I don't bother with that nu-/b/ board.

>You seem very sensitive to being associated with that crowd, despite the fact that I haven't brought them up once until this point.
It's very obvious the implication you're giving with
>Given you literally went through the effort of looking up statistics on how inferior blacks are to other races so I have a hunch on what your answer is going to be,
Even though I've never said the word "inferior" once ITT. Then you confirm it with bringing up /pol/.

>>1417369
you're trying way too hard, faggot

>>1417369
>Democrats accusing Republicans of being the party of racism is the effective strategy used to shame their base into voting accordingly.
You're right, you haven't taken a break from doing the same thing in reverse.
But I digress. I don't think 90 plus percent of an entire race of people are so easily manipulated that they would fall for such a baseless lie for generations. How does that happen, in your estimation?
>No, the only thing I take any glee from is knowing that their struggles are the fault of the democrat party you defend.
You're gleeful that black Americans are struggling at the hands of the Democrat party?
>Yes I know using statistics is racist, but it's important to point out how badly the democrat party failed. Also good job telling everyone you browse /pol/. Even I don't bother with that nu-/b/ board.
Maybe you should check it out. They seem like minded with you in their dogged hatred of Democrats coupled with glee about the struggles of black Americans/ spreading unflattering cherry picked statistics about black people.
>Even though I've never said the word "inferior" once ITT.
I never brought up the word Nazi, but you seem convinced that's where my mind is. I think it's only fair I return the favor, based on your continued insistence that black Americans are poor, fatherless puppets too stupid to see through the lies of the Democrat party.
Do you even know what you're arguing anymore? Or is getting in the last word all that matters at this point?

>>1417362
Why do you care?

>>1417376
>How does that happen, in your estimation?
>vote for me or you ain't black
It's a mystery.

>You're gleeful that black Americans are struggling at the hands of the Democrat party?
I'm "gleeful" that the democrat party is such a failure that let their voters down for decades.

But don't think I don't see what you're trying to do.
>Maybe you should check it out.
And there it is again.

>I never brought up the word Nazi, but you seem convinced that's where my mind is.
Because you're using the same tactic ITT that democrats have used to pressure African Americans to vote for them, against their interest, for several decades: "My opponent is racist."

That is why "black Americans overwhelmingly voted Democrat for generations". Anyone who votes Republican is at best labeled an Uncle Tom by dems. And anyone who uses statistics to point out how badly the democrat party failed the black population, well ... they probably browse /pol/.

You have to be more subtle if you're going to play the "this guy who disagrees with me is racist" card.

>Do you even know what you're arguing anymore?
Democrat policies are responsible for African Americans struggling today. They would be better off under Republican leadership, and the only reason they don't vote Republican is because of race-baiting faggots like you.

>>1417376
>Do you even know what you're arguing anymore? Or is getting in the last word all that matters at this point?
They're a mentally damaged retard who thinks they're trolling you to save 4chan from nonwhite degeneracy.
Every time you reply to them you've already lost, because they only care about having something to reply to with their unfounded schizo rants.

>>1417385
>the only reason they don't vote Republican is because of race-baiting faggots like you.
Yeah, I get called a faggot by a lot of high minded, non discriminatory individuals. Never been called that on /pol/ before. Or exclusively on right leaning forums in general.
You're clearly very upset so I'm going to end it here. Feel free to call it a victory, it obviously means a lot to you.
But just a heads up: you're not getting called racist because you vote Republican.
Only one person in this thread has accused black Americans of being poor, fatherless, and having multiple abortions each.
Only one person in this thread has gone out of their way to look up and post statistics that portray black Americans in a negative light just to prove a point.
Only one person in this thread has continually insisted that black Americans are somehow uniquely susceptible compared to other races to the lies of a political party.
And only one person in this thread seems extremely sensitive to accusations of being called racist or associated with Nazism.
And only one person in this thread has done all of this to make a point about how the other side are the REAL racists!
Maybe you don't realize what you're doing.
Maybe you get tunnel vision when you get into internet slapfights like this and lose track of the broader point you're trying to make. I do that sometimes.
But I think it's only fair someone point it out to you.
See you tomorrow, have a good night.

>>1417398
lol. Get a load of this faggot. Somebody is taking themselves way to seriously.

>>1417398
>Yeah, I get called a faggot by a lot of high minded, non discriminatory individuals.
Welcome to 4chan. If you can't handle that word then maybe reddit is more your speed.
>Never been called that on /pol/ before.
Interesting.
>You're clearly very upset
lol
>But just a heads up: you're not getting called racist because you vote Republican.
Sure, it's jut the typical dem strategy.
>Only one person in this thread has accused black Americans of being poor, fatherless, and having multiple abortions each.
ChatGPT? See this is the exact shit I'm talking about. I'm quoting statistics to show how bad black Americans have it (thanks to dems), and you deliberately twist it into me calling them inferior, saying it applies to every one, or "accusing" them. You're trying so hard to paint me as a racist because you have no defense for how dogshit your party is.

Typical democrat maneuver. I'm not falling for that shit.

Especially when the democrat party pushes race-specific legislation, bullies their constituents into voting for them, and then ends up with their voters living worse than they would be under a Republican. Compare the economic situation of African Americans under Trump vs Biden for more details - since you've already dismissed my earlier example of the safest black neighborhoods primarily being in Republican-led territory.

>See you tomorrow, have a good night.
I did. Hopefully today you bring something more to the table than "durr u racist!" when defending the democrat party.

>>1417058
We don't oppress people, we oppress browns to keep them from harassing people. There's a huge difference, and browns don't have souls.

>>1418001
So you're harassing brown people.