stop moving goalposts cack. your initial argument was that the only reason johnson didn't get expelled is because she is white. you said she did the exact same thing as the black reps. she did not do the exact same thing - this is a fact.
What has happened definitely is they expelled two black democrats and not the one white female democrat who all broke the same rule at the same time while not voting to expell a pedophile.
I’m not making any arguments at all. That is a fact that they expelled two black men and not the white woman who Al did the same thing at the same time breaking he same rule. Lmao. What a weirdo
The vote was to expell three reps for breaking a rule. The overwhelmingly white body voted to expel the two democrat black men and not the democrat white women who all broke the same rule at the same time. That is a fact. Deny it all you want. The same body voted to not expel an admitted GOP pedophile. But you know that too.
A bull horn. Oh no. Why didn’t the pedophile get expelled. I’ll wait.
you made a statement that their behavior was identical. it was not. your assertion is false. the fact is that their actions were not equal. you can downplay the bullhorn if you want, but that alone made their actions unequal. therefore, it is factually incorrect to say that race was the only contributing factor.
Question: if Johnson was expelled, would the reps be racist and sexist? Or were they just more racist than sexist when they voted?
I'm sure you see the logical fallacy at this point. Or at least I hope you do.
you have also continued to dodge this very important question: who were the reps that voted against johnson but for the others? do they have any racial motives? i have challenged you to provide this data, but you have not.
if you are going to throw out racial accusations, you must focus those accusations on those who voted for the black reps but not for johnson. so, who were they?
Second question: what specific rule did they break? And what does the House code say about the result of breaking that rule? I know the answer; let's see if you do.
Why didn’t you methion this important context? Must not be arguing in good faith.
so you are telling me that the democrat party talking line is race baiting to make republicans look bad, even if it isn't true? and that you are falling for that hook line and sinker?
bad look, bro. the playbook is obvious. you are lapping it up without a semblance of critical thought.
how do the dems get back at the republicans? by calling them racists and fascists. have you seen this somewhere before?
i can play that game too.
"attack on democracy lmao" - look how peaceful he looks in this one picture holding an American flag and bullhorn.
Now, let's talk about David Byrd. He makes my skin crawl. His actions have been those of a guilty man. It sickens me that he was re-elected after the likely true accusations came to light.
However, let's also look at facts because facts are important to the outcome, whether you like them or not:
1) Byrd was elected after the public knew about his past
2) Statute of limitations had passed
3) Speaker Sexton asked AG Slatery if lawmakers could expel Byrd from office over decades-old sexual assault allegations
4) AG Slatery counseled against, but did not prohibit, expulsion.
5) AG Slatery stated that there was no historical precedence for expelling lawmakers for conduct prior to election, especially since Byrd was re-elected when the general public already knew about the allegations. Expulsions had only ever been issued for conduct while in office.
6) Sexton did not move to support a vote to expel Byrd because Slatery counseled against it.
7) Because Sexton did not issue a charge, members could not vote on his expulsion.
So, if you want to claim someone is protecting a pedophile, be specific. You could make the case the Slatery and Sexton specifically protected Byrd, but you could also make the case that statute of limitations and legal precedence also protected Byrd. It's not a black and white issue. the entire republican contingent did not protect Byrd.
Further, if the house set the precedent for expelling a member for pre-election conduct, what then prevents them from doing this any time they dig up dirt on an opponent from another party and have a majority or super majority? This could lead to abuse of power. That's a bad precedent to set. This was also a contributing factor that you need to acknowledge.
It might surprise you to learn that I 100% disagree with the expulsion. The penalty did not match the code. However, I also disagree that it's a race issue. you like to argue in simple narratives. if you are going to throw racial accusations, be specific. if you are going to throw pedophiliac accusations, be specific. use facts, not Twitter sentiments.