a reply to: queenofswords
With all due deference, I do not see how your are getting from the text of that bill to a Reparations Narrative.
The reparations narrative has been ongoing for as long as I've been paying attention to politics, and probably longer.
.488 - Justice for Victims of Lynching Act of 2019
Also, I see no amendments to the text of the Bill as presented at the link, and as recently passed in the senate that lead me to believe that it leads
to a reparations narrative. The Amendments tab says zero, so I'm a little lost WRT to the amanedments reference.
That being said, I want to be clear on a few points:
1. Hate crime legislation is nothing but virtue signaling from my point of view. I care little what the motivation is for a crime. Either you broke
the law, or you didn't, the reasoning doesn't make it any more or less egregious in my mind.
2. Talk of reparations is also just virtue signaling. If anything, decedents of African slaves should be pissed that the first black president with a
majority D senate and congress took no action. In fact, I invite brining it back from the dead because it helps drive the point that the liberal
democrats don't give two craps about the issue, or the constituents that it stands to affect.
3. Regardless of whether this is virtue signaling or not, and even if you agree with points 1 and 2 above, the costs of not signing on outweigh the
break-even of signing on in the long run politically. You don't want to be the elected official who voted against anti-lynching legislation,
especially when the legislation has no teeth.
I'm going step back from this, and just listen to any further comments from here on out respecting this issue. I respect the concern over this
legislation, as expressed by many in this thread, but I feel that the issue is only as big as the pushback made against it.
We're debating an 1147 word document that adds only one word th the USC, "Lynching".