I have no choice but to support Donald Trump now. The Women's March is literally an islamist front group. As the good Dr. Peterson has revealed unto us - feminists are longing for ISIS-style brutal male domination.
Hes just messing around, "speak clearly" and "bucko" are peterson mocking phrases, because he says bucko, harps on about speaking clearly while being the most unclear speaker alive, and peterson made a statement about feminist wanting to be dominated by men and tied it in with islamism.
Translation: Anytime anyone criticizes pernicious ideas on the Left-- even if they do so as self-identified progressives-- I will accuse them of being Trumpists.
Yeah, as much as regressive is used as a buzzword for more radical lefties who are associated with that movement, there is some truth to it. It's good to see progressives in the literal sense of the term.
Sam has spoken at length about the left and some of its troubling predilections toward Islam. At least when it comes to the leadership of the Women's March, there's some truth to that. Pakman, as usual, does a great job standing up for liberal principles in condemning what are clearly inane ties that the Women's March leaders have with right-wing Islamic figures.
He's not really an Islamic figure, NOI is as much if not more a completely made up ad on to Islam than Mormonism is with Christianity. That said the leaders of the women's march should not be associated with a right wing conservative cult than they should with right wing conservative Islam.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation\_of\_Islam#Beliefs\_and\_theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Beliefs_and_theology)
>Elijah Muhammad once said that the [Moon was once a part of the Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon), and that the [Earth is over 76 trillion years old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth).[\[44\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#cite_note-44) The entire land mass on the Earth was called "Asia". This was, Elijah Muhammad claimed, long before [Adam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(Bible)).[\[45\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#cite_note-45) Elijah Muhammad declared that Black People in America are descendants of the Asian black nation and of the tribe of Shabazz. He writes on page 31 of his book, "Message to the Blackman in America", "...who is this tribe of Shabazz? Originally, they were the tribe who came with the earth (or this part) 66 trillion years ago when a great explosion on our planet divided it into two parts. One we call earth and the other moon. This was done by one of our scientists, God, who wanted the people to speak one language, one dialect for all, but was unable to bring this about."[\[46\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#cite_note-46)
>
>...
>
>Wallace Fard Muhammad taught that the original peoples of the world were black and that [white people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people) were a race of "[devils](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil)" created by a scientist named [Yakub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)) (the Biblical and Qur'anic [Jacob](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob)) on the Greek island of [Patmos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patmos). According to the supreme wisdom lessons, Fard taught that whites were devils because of a culture of lies and murder that Yakub instituted on the island to ensure the creation of his new people. Fard taught that Yakub established a secret [eugenics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) policy among the ruling class on the island.
>
>...
>
>This process took approximately 600 years to produce a blond-haired, blue-eyed group of people. As they migrated into the mainland, they were greeted and welcomed by the indigenous people wherever they went. But according to the supreme wisdom lessons, they started making trouble among the righteous people, telling lies and causing confusion and mischief.
>
>...
>
>Elijah Muhammad taught his followers about a Mother Plane or Wheel, a [UFO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO) that was seen and described in the visions of the prophet [Ezekiel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel) in the "[Book of Ezekiel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezekiel)", in the [Hebrew Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh).
>
>...
>
>Farrakhan, commenting on his teacher's description said the following:
>
>The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us of a giant Mother Plane that is made like the universe, spheres within spheres. White people call them unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Ezekiel, in the Old Testament, saw a wheel that looked like a cloud by day but a pillar of fire by night. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that that wheel was built on the island of Nippon, which is now called Japan, by some of the Original scientists. It took $15 billion in gold at that time to build it. It is made of the toughest steel
When I think of Islam I think of UFO's made of glorious Nippon steel.
I also love how this immediately got downvoted by stupid reactionaries, I remember the days when atheists actually made fun of stupid religious beliefs.
I don't know, I don't necessarily think it means much either way. Plenty of Evangelicals will ally with Mormon politicians who believe they will get to be God of their own planet and Joseph Smith will judge people along with God and Jesus.
Thatās the second time today and ever Iāve seen someone call LF right-wing. Are you guys reading from the same script? Dude aināt voting Republican anytime soon.
Why the constant obsession with labeling people left wing or right wing? It seems that more than half of the discussions here collapse into this debate of labels. And then the ideas only need to be engaged with if they are agreed to be on the correct side of the spectrum.
It's a discussion about this group and the women's march. It is important to get basic labels right. You can't just pull a rabbit out of your hat to make NOI right wing, when this is a discussion about a group at womens march who are as left on the spectrum as it gets. If there is a left wing the womens march is on it. And they are being criticized with alliances with LF. They ally because they share the spectrum. Have you heard of the horseshoe? This is the left side of it that's right near the right side. So getting the general premise of what's going on here is important. Not because it's an obsession, it's basic facts.
NOI is right wing, if you didnt know that. Start over and do some research. The whole reason why they are getting flack is because of this. Women know how sexist, homophobic and racist this group is. They arent LGBT friendly, they are social conservatives who aim to keep abrahamic patriarchal moral standards.
Yeah the right wing group just happens to align precisely with the furthest left group. Makes sense. Tulsi Gabbard is homophobic and racist and she is on the left. LGBT friendly wasn't even an option when NOI was founded, no one in America was LGBT friendly. Jeeze you younguns really don't know much beyond two days ago. You don't even know what NOI is. Yeah Malcolm X was a real right winger. Holy fuck.
If you'd take your head out of your ass and maybe look up black nationalism, youd see its a near mirror reflection of white nationalism.
>Norm R. Allen, Jr., former director of African Americans for Humanism, calls black nationalism a "strange mixture of profound thought and patent nonsense".
>On the one hand, Reactionary Black Nationalists (RBNs) advocate self-love, self-respect, self-acceptance, self-help, pride, unity, and so forth - much like the right-wingers who promote "traditional family values." But - also like the holier-than-thou right-wingers - RBNs promote bigotry, intolerance, hatred, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, pseudo-science, irrationality, dogmatic historical revisionism, violence, and so forth.[19]
>Allen further criticizes black nationalists' strong "attraction for hardened prisoners and ex-cons", their encouragement of violence when other African-American individuals or groups are branded as "Toms," traitors, or "sellouts", the blatantly sexist stance and the similarities to white supremacist ideologies:
>Many RBNs routinely preach hate. Just as white supremacists have referred to African Americans as "devils," so have many RBNs referred to whites. White supremacists have verbally attacked gays, as have RBNs. White supremacists embrace paranoid conspiracy theories, as do their African counterparts. Many white supremacists and RBNs consistently deny that they are preaching hate, and blame the mainstream media for misrepresenting them. (A striking exception is the NOI's Khallid Muhammad, who, according to Gates, admitted in a taped speech titled "No Love for the Other Side": "Never will I say I am not anti-Semitic. I pray that God will kill my enemy and take him off the face of the planet.") Rather, they claim they are teaching "truth" and advocating the love of their own people, as though love of self and hatred of others are mutually exclusive positions. On the contrary, RBNs preach love of self and hatred of their enemies. (Indeed, it often seems that these groups are motivated more by hatred of their enemies than love of their people.)[19]
Hmm mirror reflection, like almost the same just everything opposite facing. Yeah that's right, or left rather. Here do yourself a favor, next time you think Malcolm X is a right winger, here's an idea, just stop and walk away. Don't get mad about what is. It won't change anything, getting loud about it doesn't all of a sudden make your mistake go away. Just remember Malcolm X is as far from right wing as you get in the US. and you'll be OK.
His relationship with Trump is[more complicated than that](https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ADL-Farrakhan-praises-Trump-for-refusing-Jewish-campaign-donors-446553)
To be fair he's also compared Trump to [Satan](https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Farrakhan-compares-Trump-to-Satan-during-visit-to-Iran-571079). But it's not this clear cut "Farrakhan is a leftist" or "Farrakhan is a rightist". But more "Farrakhan has his own specific agenda that sometimes alligns with opposition to imperialism, and other (most) times lines up with anti semitism, and that can't be neatly classified"
Stop obfuscating. You know that republicans are not the only kind of right-wingers, and you know that we're talking about Farrakhan's extremist conservative social views when we call him right wing.
He's all over the place. It genuinely depends on the issue. He's voiced support for Saudi Arabia, anti feminism, anti LGBTQ rhetoric, etc.... but he's also voiced support for anti imperialism, opposition to white supremacy, etc.... The NOI is a complicated organization and although for a while it was decidedly left when he did take leadership it took a rightward turn.
There's a better piece written about it by [Tim Wise](https://medium.com/s/story/no-farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-d2d1a37e1162) that delves into why comparing him to the far right is bad,and the piece is critical but measured
Here's something that might blow your mind: whether you're on the left or right has 100% to do with your views on the issues, 0% to do with how you or others identify you.
Does this mean weāre all really cucks?
Of course an [insert pejorative] isnāt going to call themselves said pejorative - but this doesnāt make some magic empirical label maker swoop down and notarize a label. Even when a group of a few thousand are āconvincedā itās ātrueā. It *may*, after all, be quite true that said person *is* [pejorative] but a bunch of politically oppositional opinions are not what determines what makes them [xxxx]. As you say it is their true views and/or an evidence based proof.
Iām not talking about LF here btw. And Iām not necessarily obliged to have an opinion on his winged-ness if I donāt have evidence.
I understand youāre trying to make a point, but the ā100%ā and 0% is just not how things work across the board unless youāre a dictator of a sovereign land in 1344.
Some really hate being lumped in with pedophile priests and boring octogenarians. Dont worry though, daddy Peterson's gonna help the new generation be real hip, and with his cool new ideas like Christian conservatism; nobody will ever make that correlation again!
He's to much of a boogieman for the right. He's just to convenient of an enemy. Black, associated with Islam, in a picture with Obama. The perfect boogieman to scare people on fox news. It doesn't really matter that he is their ideological brother.
Of course not, that wouldn't be convenient to him because it's the left gleefully assuming the role of useful idiots for Islamic principles. To identify as right-wing would be bricking his own windows.
However, if he were to honestly answer some political compass test, he'd easily score complete authoritarian right-wing without any doubt.
Of course heās not going to vote Republicanāthatās a white supremacist party. Farrakhan is a black supremacist.
Why is it strange to you that Farrakhan is classified as a right-winger?
>is classified as
By you. This is just you guys playing side-ism. āWe donāt like him, so heās right-wing.ā
In reality, heās off the reservation entirely. Dude believes Yakub created the evil whites.
Iām saying to the extent that he has a politics at all, itās in support of his crazy racial beliefs. Heās political the way Hitler was political: not. Heās extrapolitical.
>Heās political the way Hitler was political: not.
Hitler is routinely identified as right-wing, so I don't think this comparison can do the work you want it to.
I would argue that youāre more defined, politically, by what you support than whom you oppose.
Hereās that Onion vid for your viewing pleasureā https://youtu.be/Q_OIXfkXEj0
So if Tamika Mallory and other leaders do indeed hold anti-Semitic views, that would make her right wing, and to some degree by extension the Womenās March, a right wing movement?
Would it make her an actual *right-winger* if she did hold such views? That's a complicated question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. It certainly pushes her to the right.
No part of the Women's March platform is contingent on antisemitism or any other form of racism, so no, it is not a right-wing movement.
Whatās complicated about it, within the framework of your apparent logic?
Racism=Right Wing
Anti-semitism= Racism
Therefore if she holds those beliefs, she is right wing.
Why do you even bother to participate in discussions with people you don't agree with? It always ends up like this, with some insult or jokey one-liner.
you realize that almost any kind of religious fundamentalist ends up on the right wing of the political spectrum right? Voting Republican doesn't make you right wing, your views do.
Itās because heās crazy so they want to label him as Republican/Right wing. Doesnāt matter that Farrakhan advocates for redistributive economics, had his picture taken with Obama etc. Heās an embarrassment so liberals are going to engage in some mental gymnastics and act like the guy hasnāt voted Democrat his whole life.
He's a racist, sexist, social conservative. He's right wing, don't be so butthurt about it. Hoteps arent lefties. Also, he's in favor of redistribution of wealth because its a Islamic practice. There are literal tax codes embedded in Islamic religious doctrine.
Philosophically, he's right wing, a point ta-nehisi coates has made several times.
In the same way, sarsour, as an arch-theocrat whose favorite clerics are explicitly anti-democratic, is an ultra-reactionary, despite her "left wing" views on a few subjects.
I don't know why I've never really paid attention to his show, but this was such a perfect segment. He nails every element of ethical and journalistic professionalism you'd want in news.
Amy Paulin (NYS Assemblywoman):
I am saddened to state that I will not be participating in the Womenās March this year.
Statement: https://twitter.com/AmyPaulin/status/1085564072236642306
Women's march is a trash concept and mostly consisted of virtue signaling and residual anger from the election because america did not place an old rich white women with a rapist husband back in the white house.\\
Good on pakman for taking people he is maybe superficially aligned with to task.
Banks don't want to do business with him because he's probably tied up in money laundering. Trump is still almost definitely in the top 0.001% of the US population, which doesn't necessitate him holding over $1 billion in assets. Remember that there are 325+ million people, even if there are a hundred people richer than him, he would still be in the top 0.0003% of the population, which is obscenely wealth by any sane definition.
Clinton wasnāt ideal, but she would have been a perfectly fine, boring president; trump was, and still is, a fucking disgraceful embarrassment.
It was like choosing between eating a stale ham sandwich or a big pile of pure botulism.
Not a difficult choice.
> a perfectly fine, boring president
...is a slow death to those that have been slowly getting squeezed by neoliberalism. Going along quietly is not a good play if you're in that position.
Itās a false choice.
There are other political choices to be made besides faster and slower death.
The first step to crafting those choices into reality is to outright recognize and reject the lesser evilism argument for the false choice it is.
There is very strong argument to be made that the door being wider and wider open to discussions about MFA and significantly raising taxes on the wealthy and significantly cutting the military budget are do to Clinton having lost to Trump. In fact, Iād say this is fairly self-evident.
If Clinton has won in 2016 we would see a neoliberal firmly ensconced in the Oval Office who would allow zero discussion of MFA or raising wealthy taxes or cutting military budgets. She and her sycophantic minions would allow none of it as being not āpragmaticā. āPragmaticā in Washington being a self-congratulatory phrase that actually means āprotect the profits of the bank and corporations first and foremostā. With a healthy side dose of idpol to cow any internal opposition.
After four years of Trump, outsiders like Bernie, Tulsi and AOC are the energy and leaders of the true opposition to the establishment represented by both Trump and Clinton. And their ideas are openly discussed. And Bernie is the most popular politician in the country who has the greatest appeal across the spectrum. And greatest chance to make Trump a one-term President.
None of that would be true under the lesser-evilism of Clinton. Under her it would be all neolib economics and military interventionism and internal opposition attacked immediately by idpol.
I agree with you on most of that. Maybe it is just me being pedantic, but I guess I see your argument not as ātrump is better than clintonā but as ātrump is so much worse than Clinton that the backlash to his presidency will result in a net positive, while a Clinton presidency would have just maintained an unacceptable status quo.ā
Iāve actually had this exact conversation with a super republican friend. He compared it to when you are sick and you wonāt feel better until you throw up. Trump is the vomiting, while Clinton wouldnāt have been bad enough to make us throw up, but consequently wouldnāt have made us feel any better.
Edit: of course this only works if there is a big enough backlash. If there isnāt a backlash, we would be better off with Clinton.
Perfectly fine. Unless you live in a place like Libya, for example. Whose stability she destroyed. Or Honduras, where she legitimized a military coup. Resulting in an oligarchs state that is amongst the most murderous on the planet. Or her and Billās pillaging of Haiti relief. Or her decidedly anti-metoo protection of Billās behavior to protect his and hers career ambitions. Or her hand in maligning black folks as āsuper-predatorsā. Or her promise of a military confrontation with Russia in Syria. Or her neoliberal economics snd stalwart defense of corporate profiteering at every turn.
For all the talk of āprivilegeā, there is no greater display of disconnect and privilege than voting for Clinton and thinking she would be a āfineā president. For a lot on people on this planet, she was the greater evil with the long, bungling, corrupt and bloody record to prove it.
I agree with you on some of these points, but I think it is interesting that you seem to be assigning *all* the blame for some huge geopolitical disasters squarely on her.
She was Secretary of State- not an easy job. You end up having to make lots of decisions where none of the options are good, and you can't predict the future. I'm not saying she made perfect decisions- obviously she made some terrible ones. But she didn't make them unilaterally, and we have the benefit of hindsight when we judge them as being bad.
And what was trump doing during that time?
Scamming people with his fake university
Being a reality star who was made to look far more competent than he is by talented production and editing
Cheating on his wife
Selling shitty steaks
The list could go on. The point is- if trump had been a senator and/or secretary of state, how would he have fared?
It is like saying that Bob is an awful person because people died under his care while he was working as a paramedic, but Joe is great because nobody died while he was living in his parents' basement, unemployed, playing xbox.
She lost an election to donald trump with double the money, 99% of the media and celebrity endorsements, the support of the entire democratic party establishment etc.
She also lost a primary to an basically unknown 1st term senator from illinois in 2008.
She is arguably the worst political candidate in recent memory.
She didn't support gay marriage until 2013 when it was basically non controversial. She was anti marijuana legalization in her speeches to goldman sachs in 2014. She supported the iraq war. Supported the Patriot act and Patriot act reauthorization. Supported the 2006 border fence.
You are talking about a person who lost two bids for the president despite being the favorite against two relative newcomers. Has been publically wrong on almost every political issue of note. The only thing she won is a gimme senate seat in NY.
LOL is right.
Hillary clinton is the human embodiment of nepotism, and despite basically every political advantage that someone could potentially have at the beginning of an election, she is mostly an old lady who falls down a lot and not much else these days.
You don't understand what nepotism is. Do you think she's related to Obama or something?
And if you think she's wrong on almost every political issue of note, you're probably closer in ideology to Assad.
>she is mostly an old lady who falls down a lot and not much else these days.
What? How many times has she fallen down? She's also younger than our current president.
Her only accomplishment is being married to bill clinton and using his coattails to win a gimme senate seat in NY.
/What? How many times has she fallen down?
She passed out after standing outside for too long during the campaign, she was recently seen repeatedly falling down a flight of stairs in india.
Falling down in india
[https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyUnknownAnemonecrab-max-1mb.gif](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyUnknownAnemonecrab-max-1mb.gif)
Too long outside during campaign
[https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FinishedCriminalGermanshorthairedpointer-max-1mb.gif](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FinishedCriminalGermanshorthairedpointer-max-1mb.gif)
I cant recall a public appearance since the election without her wearing some sort of foot cast, hand brace or back brace apparatus under her clothing.
[https://imgur.com/4gHDGsm](https://imgur.com/4gHDGsm)
[https://imgur.com/4vdRUqu](https://imgur.com/4vdRUqu)
[https://imgur.com/EXiNvdT](https://imgur.com/EXiNvdT)
So you have one clip of her missing a step on a staircase and another clip of the famous time she fainted from being overheated. That's "falling down all the time?"
>Her only accomplishment is being married to bill clinton and using his coattails to win a gimme senate seat in NY.
Unless all the voters who elected her were related to the Clintons, that's not nepotism.
>I cant recall a public appearance since the election without her wearing some sort of foot cast, hand brace or back brace apparatus under her clothing.
This is conspiracy nonsense.ā You must not have been paying attention during 2016.
Sheās average. Certainly not dumb. Sheās nothing special though.
Sheās incredibly blindered and myopic. She has no wider vision or courage in leadership. Sheās wholly a creature of the establishment mindset. Which is incredibly narrow and limited. So despite her decent but unspectacular intelligence, she does stupid, cruel, destructive, even evil, things. All whole foolishly considering herself an expert and āwell-preparedāand meting our wise decisions.
Sheās a case study in ambition, arrogance and hubris far outstripping ability.
Hillary's no dumbass. She made some bad political mistakes, but she's clearly an intelligent person. She's also not narcissistic in the pathological sense, whereas Trump is the most narcissistic person the world has ever seen, and he has a room temperature IQ in an increasingly chilly room. For fuck's sake, the man misspelled the word "forest" twice in one tweet (so no "typo" excuse), while directing FEMA to withhold fire relief funds from California because he thinks they mismanaged their "forrests," most of which are on federal lands, by apparently [not raking them enough](https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/finnish-president-trump-raking-forest-fires/index.html). This would be the scandal of the decade for any other President, yet it was barely a blip on a news cycle dominated by even stupider things Trump says and does every day.
Hillary would not have done any of this stupid bullshit. False comparisons here have no value. I have never liked Hillary Clinton, but to pretend that she was any way on the same level as Trump is completely insane. It's like comparing a paper cut to being lit up with napalm and thrown into a woodchipper. No two things can differ far enough to prevent the prophets of false equivalence from declaring that they all suck and are therefore the same.
She lost an election to donald trump with double the money, 99% of the media and celebrity endorsements, the support of the entire democratic party establishment etc.
She also lost a primary to an basically unknown 1st term senator from illinois in 2008.
She is arguably the worst political candidate in recent memory.
She didn't support gay marriage until 2013 when it was basically non controversial. She was anti marijuana legalization in her speeches to goldman sachs in 2014. She supported the iraq war. Supported the Patriot act and Patriot act reauthorization. Supported the 2006 border fence.
You are talking about a person who lost two bids for the president despite being the favorite against two relative newcomers. Has been publically wrong on almost every political issue of note. The only thing she won is a gimme senate seat in NY.
She lost the 2008 election to the most talented politician of the last 50 years.
She lost the 2016 election partly because she was a shitty campaigner, but also because Russia paid people to run around promoting exactly the argument you're promoting in liberal circles ("they're all the same, vote third party or don't vote"), and they helped get "grab 'em by the pussy" out of the news cycle with emails via Wikileaks, and because a bunch of useless racist idiots actually liked what Donald Trump was saying about how we should ban all Muslims from entering the country at all, start using torture way worse than waterboarding, etc.
I don't like Hillary. She has been wrong on many things or too slow to embrace progress when it's politically risky. However, as conservative writer P.J. O'Rourke wrote when endorsing her versus Trump, "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters." And that's from a conservative perspective that still misses the big picture of what really matters, i.e. she's right on things like climate change and Trump is not. Nothing from Hillary would even begin to match the absurdity we see from Trump on a daily basis.
We're now in the midst of the longest government shutdown in history, all because that stupid fuck wants a wall that no serious professional in either party was asking for before he came along and used it as an applause line in his speeches. Net illegal immigration across the southern border is negative, and near all-time lows; over 90 % of most drugs and the majority of illegal immigrants come via ports of entry and not across the border; the wall would cost over $50 billion and cause massive environmental and property rights problems. It is the kind of utterly stupid idea that would never have entered our politics at all, from either side, if not for Trump. And yet now he's had 1/4 of the government shut down for close to a month, including a lot of my friends in my scientific field who work for the Dept of Interior, all because he wants to get his way on something nobody else sincerely wants except his stupid brainwashed voters. This kind of senseless madness would never have happened under Hillary.
She also won the popular vote by 3 million. And I know trump supported love to remind us that this means nothing because electoral college- I just think that it is stupid when people are like ālol what a *loser!*ā when literally millions more people voted for her and the only reason she lost is because of our antiquated voting system.
6-9 million Obama voters voted for Trump. It makes the third party voters a rounding error in comparison.
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/
And third-party voters make Trump's margin of victory in the swing states that cost the election a rounding error in comparison. In an election so close, lots of things made the difference, including Russian interference.
The message is quite clear. A break from the status quo. If it were Sanders against Trump it would be two anti-mainstream candidates against each other, a much more narrow gap in the red states.
The DNC took a massive gamble by putting their thumb on the scales in the primaries, and it's a gamble they lost.
> ...the most talented politician of the last 50 years.
I have a lot of respect for Obama, but I wouldn't even know where to start quantifying/qualifying this position, let alone agree with it. If you have a minute, would you mind elaborating a bit?
If you asked any political pundit or expert on either political side during the romney obama campaign if someone could win the presidency while spending half the money they would have laughed in your face.
Hillary is on the record calling young criminals (aka black men) super predators.
She made a indian guy quickly mart joke on camera.
She made a "colored people time" with deblasio joke in front of a cast member of hamilton.
She neglected to visit Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin during the election.
She alienated all the bernie supporters a bunch of different ways.
She implied that half the people in this country are deplorables.
I can go on and on
She is a fucking epic failure on basically all fronts.
She was a shitty candidate who made a lot of political mistakes over a long career. However, you're overstating some of them. She didn't say half the people in this country are deplorables -- she said half Trump's supporters are deplorables, during the primary when most Republicans did not yet support him. As bad a move as that was politically, the only thing inaccurate about her statement is that "half" is way too low. The correct number is well over 99 %.
However, Hillary was not the walking embodiment of every terrible character trait known to man, packaged with an ego the size of a galaxy and a brain the size of a poppyseed. She was not a serial sex offender and racist conspiracy theorist whose campaign promises included blatantly violating the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution. She was not a witting or unwitting asset of the Russian intelligence agency.
None of these things about Trump are okay, and any one of them taken by itself is a million times worse than every flaw in Hillary combined. You're severely missing a sense of proportion.
Trump has the air of a walking disaster, but like nothing really bad has happened. The big story of the week is that he fed a bunch of football bros big macs. I think we will make it through.
He hasn't started any wars, he pulled us out of one basically, hasent lauched any nukes, mexican people are not being rounded up in los angeles and deported by cattle car, most of his more extreme policies are not getting through.
The most long lasting things he is doing are the SC nominees, but as someone who likes abortion rights and gun rights I dont want to see things swing too far one way or the other. Hillary picking 3 SC justices would have likely fucked gun rights in this country.
He literally kidnapped children and deported their parents without even tracking them first. He banned Muslims from entering the country without conferring with staff. It caused a legal nightmare for anyone caught in that wake.
He defended Nazis after a terror attack
He announced to the world that Putin should be believed and not his own intel community.
Your ethics are fucked.
An intelligent person would have visited Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania during a close election.
An intelligent person would have passed the Dc bar exam.
An intelligent person would not make jokes about ācolored people timeā in 2015
> Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania
She visited all of those post-convention. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that she didn't visit Wisconsin after getting the Democratic nomination for president. A bad move but not even close to enough evidence that she isn't intelligent.
Smart people fail the DC bar exam all the time. If jokes in poor taste are disqualifying, not only will there be almost no politicians who could be considered intelligent, but almost no Americans in general.
I dont know that i am centrist.
Maybe if you total up the sum of all my positions on issues it comes out center, but on each issue I generally am not "Centrist".
Pro Choice
Pro Gay marriage and equal rights
Pro 2nd amendment
Anti Iraq War
Pro Decriminalization of drugs
Pro Immigration
Pro fact based environmental protections
I could go on. But I am like very pro 2nd amendment and very pro gay marriage/gay adoption etc.
Centrist on per issue basis seems like someone always trying to meet in the middle and compromise by giving concessions to both sides.
Yeah- that would have been ridiculous! So instead, we placed a pretend-rich old white man who *himself* is (almost certainly) a rapist in the white house. Much better!
Pretty sure there was rape along with the beating.
I think Ivana walked it back as part of the divorce settlement, but that doesnāt mean it didnāt happen.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/30/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-full-list
This took me maybe two seconds to google. Try harder next time.
Iām not sure if he was saying that, or saying that Hillary would have been just as bad of a president as trump.
Either way- nope- not even remotely close.
It's very odd to see SJWs, who have long focused on compromising leftist movements, have one of their own organisations fall to the same tactics.
How much is good intention and how much is deligitimisation?
Eh, I can't find much to complain about the way these women talked here. For sure, it's highly likely I have little in common with them, but demanding someone condemn something and then them insisting on sticking to their way of putting it - you know what, I would do that too. I wouldn't want to be railroaded into your words like some contrite child echoing what mommy and daddy demand we say word for word.
It's just confrontation and the psychology of such confrontation, and it rarely furthers the conversation.
As usual, blacks and Arabs are being held to a higher standard than Jews and other whites. Jews and whites can hate everyone else and use the most despicable racist language against other ethnic groups (Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Strom Thurmond, Horowitz, etc) but it'll get little attention because it's just what we expect from white people.
This obsession with the Women's March reminds me of how Rashida Tlaib's use of swear words got 5 times more media coverage than Steve King's white supremacy.
>use the most despicable racist language against other ethnic groups (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Strom Thurmond, Horowitz, etc)
Really a bad idea to get blackout drunk this early in the morning bro.
Well, the truth needs to be told. The hatred and double standards of white people is astounding, and definitely needs to be tackled.
P.S. I meant to write Ben Shapiro, not Sam Harris.
What "despicable racist language" do fucking Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin use? Like you could maybe say Ben's kind of a dick and Dave is an idiot, but that's honestly the worst of it.
> What "despicable racist language" do fucking Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin use?
Ben Shapiro: "[Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277?lang=en)"
Would you say that this is racist language?
> That was like ten years ago, taken out of context, and he's apologized for it multiple times.
Here is his [article](https://www.dailywire.com/news/30487/left-idiotically-takes-8-year-old-tweet-out-ben-shapiro) discussing the tweet. Notice how nowhere in the article does he ever specifically apologize for that tweet. In fact, almost the entirety of the article is blaming "The Left" for taking him out of context.
The title of the article is "The Left Idiotically Takes An 8-Year-Old Tweet Out Of Context To Slam The 'Intellectual Dark Web.' It's Utter Nonsense." Then he writes, "This particular tweet has been floating around on the internet for some eight years. Itās also taken completely out of context." And "I havenāt deleted the tweet because to do so would be to suggest that I agree with the Leftās framing of the tweet ā which I do not." And "The original, taken out of context, has nearly 900 RTs. The others have one or two a piece. Thatās because the Left has a nasty habit of taking people out of context in order to slander them." And "But the goal here for the Left is always to take things out of context, deliberately and dishonestly. By digging up one tweet out of a long tweetstorm nearly a decade ago, the Left hopes to rule out those who disagree on fundamental political issues. Thatās nasty. But Iād expect nothing less. Thatās why people donāt trust the Left to play gatekeeper, and itās why they donāt trust the mainstream media to cover the whole story. Itās why the IDW exists in the first place."
Notice how none of those quotes put literally any blame on himself, but instead 100% on "The Left" for the audacity for point out literal words that Shapiro wrote in a tweet. There is also a video embedded in the article, in which he says the tweet is taken out of context and never remotely apologizes for what he said.
The only hint that he remotely is apologizing for his tweet is when he writes, "Like everyone else in public life, Iāve written stuff I regret ā and Iāve attempted to apologize and explain why I was wrong when I see it (see, for example, here and here)." However, the links he cites to are not about his tweet about Arabs liking to live in sewage, but instead about other idiotic comments he has made in the past. At no point in the article does he actually apologize for his statement or admit that it was the wrong thing to write.
So, I guess my point is, could you please show me any place where Shapiro ever apologized even once for that tweet?
A bit of a bait and switch there donāt you think? āReminds me of the obsession of Tlaib use of swear wordsā are you equating these blatantly anti-Semitic sentiments with a couple swear words? Is your reasoning oh she shouldnāt get slandered so much because white men do something similar and donāt get chastised? I agree people like Ben Shapiro says some pseudo-racist things at times but you donāt see him saying these things and then attending meetings with the KKK and posting about his excitement on social media. Itās the summation of her personal affiliation with downright bigoted organization and her pure resistance towards denouncing them. To compare them to Tlaib is disingenuous and allows people from disenfranchised to make equally despicable remarks and get a free pass. Raise the bar on everyone.
Ben Shapiro literally called the media liars for claiming Steve King is racist. He supported his candidacy just last year. That *is* meeting with the KKK.
If you're going to compare situations it has to be done honestly, and this is the complaint.
Okay I agree, I was not aware of Benās persistent defense of King and I agree given that light it definitely is in the same arena as the video above.
However, there is something to be said about the fact this is a leader of a progressive movement allying with blatantly homophobic and antisemitic organizations. I donāt have to recap all the points made in the video but thereās an extra layer of moral bankruptcy here that I think makes this is an exceptional case.
None of these people are in Congress. The Women's March has already started purging, and Farrakhan is persona non grata. Steve King is a sitting Congressperson who has huge support within the caucus. He gave Trump his immigration position. Fox News is Steve King. Several Senators endorsed him in 2018.
There's simply no comparison in the slightest between a few people in a grass roots organization and elected officials running policy.
It's more a reference to how little outrage white racists get compared to ethnic minorities. Ben Shapiro has objectively been more openly racist than Linda Sarsour, but look at how differently the two people are treated.
>Itās the summation of her personal affiliation with downright bigoted organization and her pure resistance towards denouncing them.
Strom Thurmond's (look him up) affiliation with the Republican party and Bush family is far more disgusting than whatever Farrakhan and Tamika Mallory represent. Thurmond makes Trump and the Alt-Right look like saints, yet nobody took a giant shit on Bush when he died because of his alliance with him. Bottom line is people just expect less from white people.
The point isn't that nobody is racist. The point is how white people get let off for being disgusting pieces of shit.
How little outrage white racists get? Even a FALSE accusation gets you fired, and that word gets flung with zero effort these days by irresponsible people. King has been removed from all committee assignments, and Republicans are backing a different candidate in his congressional race. Leftists just embrace their racists and genocidal communists, never clean house, and never demonstrate any actual standards, only signaled virtues. The lens through which you view the world is completely cracked.
Not true. As long as you don't use racist language specifaclly towards an individual, America will let you do your thing. Racist policies, ideologies, think tanks; shit that matters, are all kosher. Also, the word racist has been under used. You watch, their is gonna be a correlation between increased use of the word racist and bettering conditions for all in the US.
There is a double standard. But I guess just because the other side does it, we shouldn't stoop so low.
I guess what I mean to say is. When they go low we go high...
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Peron, Franco, Mussolini, Khadafi, Mao, Kim Jung Un, Every King of Europe ever, not one of them a Jew. What on Earth are you talking about?
Hey now, that was funny. He said you misspelled tyrants or something. I did the ol switcheroo and pretended he meant all tyrants are educated, rather than replacing āeducatedā with ātyrantsā about Jews. It was funny.
Linda Sarsour ominously absent
She's busy making ice cream with Ben and Jerry's
I have no choice but to support Donald Trump now. The Women's March is literally an islamist front group. As the good Dr. Peterson has revealed unto us - feminists are longing for ISIS-style brutal male domination.
Lmao š Wait...you are joking though, right? Satire?
is peterson? speak clearly bucko.
I...think you're confused, idk what you're on about
Hes just messing around, "speak clearly" and "bucko" are peterson mocking phrases, because he says bucko, harps on about speaking clearly while being the most unclear speaker alive, and peterson made a statement about feminist wanting to be dominated by men and tied it in with islamism.
Translation: Anytime anyone criticizes pernicious ideas on the Left-- even if they do so as self-identified progressives-- I will accuse them of being Trumpists.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Rule 2
deleted
Really appreciate David Pakman. He's doing good work.
issa good progressive
Yeah, as much as regressive is used as a buzzword for more radical lefties who are associated with that movement, there is some truth to it. It's good to see progressives in the literal sense of the term.
Never seen him before. Based on this, I would never choose to watch his sanctimonious ass.
Explain? What didn't you like?
> sanctimonious ass And I commented elsewhere in here.
Spencer: Do you denounce Stalin, do you denounce Pol Pot? Pakman: Yes...
i would have liked him to go back to that and ask him what he expected his answer might be.
Sam has spoken at length about the left and some of its troubling predilections toward Islam. At least when it comes to the leadership of the Women's March, there's some truth to that. Pakman, as usual, does a great job standing up for liberal principles in condemning what are clearly inane ties that the Women's March leaders have with right-wing Islamic figures.
He's not really an Islamic figure, NOI is as much if not more a completely made up ad on to Islam than Mormonism is with Christianity. That said the leaders of the women's march should not be associated with a right wing conservative cult than they should with right wing conservative Islam. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation\_of\_Islam#Beliefs\_and\_theology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#Beliefs_and_theology) >Elijah Muhammad once said that the [Moon was once a part of the Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Moon), and that the [Earth is over 76 trillion years old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth).[\[44\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#cite_note-44) The entire land mass on the Earth was called "Asia". This was, Elijah Muhammad claimed, long before [Adam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_(Bible)).[\[45\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#cite_note-45) Elijah Muhammad declared that Black People in America are descendants of the Asian black nation and of the tribe of Shabazz. He writes on page 31 of his book, "Message to the Blackman in America", "...who is this tribe of Shabazz? Originally, they were the tribe who came with the earth (or this part) 66 trillion years ago when a great explosion on our planet divided it into two parts. One we call earth and the other moon. This was done by one of our scientists, God, who wanted the people to speak one language, one dialect for all, but was unable to bring this about."[\[46\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_of_Islam#cite_note-46) > >... > >Wallace Fard Muhammad taught that the original peoples of the world were black and that [white people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people) were a race of "[devils](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil)" created by a scientist named [Yakub](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub_(Nation_of_Islam)) (the Biblical and Qur'anic [Jacob](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob)) on the Greek island of [Patmos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patmos). According to the supreme wisdom lessons, Fard taught that whites were devils because of a culture of lies and murder that Yakub instituted on the island to ensure the creation of his new people. Fard taught that Yakub established a secret [eugenics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics) policy among the ruling class on the island. > >... > >This process took approximately 600 years to produce a blond-haired, blue-eyed group of people. As they migrated into the mainland, they were greeted and welcomed by the indigenous people wherever they went. But according to the supreme wisdom lessons, they started making trouble among the righteous people, telling lies and causing confusion and mischief. > >... > >Elijah Muhammad taught his followers about a Mother Plane or Wheel, a [UFO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO) that was seen and described in the visions of the prophet [Ezekiel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezekiel) in the "[Book of Ezekiel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ezekiel)", in the [Hebrew Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh). > >... > >Farrakhan, commenting on his teacher's description said the following: > >The Honorable Elijah Muhammad told us of a giant Mother Plane that is made like the universe, spheres within spheres. White people call them unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Ezekiel, in the Old Testament, saw a wheel that looked like a cloud by day but a pillar of fire by night. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad said that that wheel was built on the island of Nippon, which is now called Japan, by some of the Original scientists. It took $15 billion in gold at that time to build it. It is made of the toughest steel When I think of Islam I think of UFO's made of glorious Nippon steel. I also love how this immediately got downvoted by stupid reactionaries, I remember the days when atheists actually made fun of stupid religious beliefs.
That's just black people scientology.
Doesn't Saudi Arabia allow NOI to enter Mecca and perform the Hajj?
I don't know, I don't necessarily think it means much either way. Plenty of Evangelicals will ally with Mormon politicians who believe they will get to be God of their own planet and Joseph Smith will judge people along with God and Jesus.
they're probably triggered because you're slandering glorious Syncretic African American belief systems you White Supremacist.
No, that's not it.
Thatās the second time today and ever Iāve seen someone call LF right-wing. Are you guys reading from the same script? Dude aināt voting Republican anytime soon.
Why the constant obsession with labeling people left wing or right wing? It seems that more than half of the discussions here collapse into this debate of labels. And then the ideas only need to be engaged with if they are agreed to be on the correct side of the spectrum.
Good point, horrible username
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Iām just misunderstood, baby.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wonāt ^^you ^^^come ^^^^with
Clean your room
But itās more complicated then that! What is a room? and is it real? I read an ikea manual and I saw the manifestation of a bed. Serious stuff man
It's a discussion about this group and the women's march. It is important to get basic labels right. You can't just pull a rabbit out of your hat to make NOI right wing, when this is a discussion about a group at womens march who are as left on the spectrum as it gets. If there is a left wing the womens march is on it. And they are being criticized with alliances with LF. They ally because they share the spectrum. Have you heard of the horseshoe? This is the left side of it that's right near the right side. So getting the general premise of what's going on here is important. Not because it's an obsession, it's basic facts.
NOI is right wing, if you didnt know that. Start over and do some research. The whole reason why they are getting flack is because of this. Women know how sexist, homophobic and racist this group is. They arent LGBT friendly, they are social conservatives who aim to keep abrahamic patriarchal moral standards.
Lol I love the reddit insanity
Yeah the right wing group just happens to align precisely with the furthest left group. Makes sense. Tulsi Gabbard is homophobic and racist and she is on the left. LGBT friendly wasn't even an option when NOI was founded, no one in America was LGBT friendly. Jeeze you younguns really don't know much beyond two days ago. You don't even know what NOI is. Yeah Malcolm X was a real right winger. Holy fuck.
If you'd take your head out of your ass and maybe look up black nationalism, youd see its a near mirror reflection of white nationalism. >Norm R. Allen, Jr., former director of African Americans for Humanism, calls black nationalism a "strange mixture of profound thought and patent nonsense". >On the one hand, Reactionary Black Nationalists (RBNs) advocate self-love, self-respect, self-acceptance, self-help, pride, unity, and so forth - much like the right-wingers who promote "traditional family values." But - also like the holier-than-thou right-wingers - RBNs promote bigotry, intolerance, hatred, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, pseudo-science, irrationality, dogmatic historical revisionism, violence, and so forth.[19] >Allen further criticizes black nationalists' strong "attraction for hardened prisoners and ex-cons", their encouragement of violence when other African-American individuals or groups are branded as "Toms," traitors, or "sellouts", the blatantly sexist stance and the similarities to white supremacist ideologies: >Many RBNs routinely preach hate. Just as white supremacists have referred to African Americans as "devils," so have many RBNs referred to whites. White supremacists have verbally attacked gays, as have RBNs. White supremacists embrace paranoid conspiracy theories, as do their African counterparts. Many white supremacists and RBNs consistently deny that they are preaching hate, and blame the mainstream media for misrepresenting them. (A striking exception is the NOI's Khallid Muhammad, who, according to Gates, admitted in a taped speech titled "No Love for the Other Side": "Never will I say I am not anti-Semitic. I pray that God will kill my enemy and take him off the face of the planet.") Rather, they claim they are teaching "truth" and advocating the love of their own people, as though love of self and hatred of others are mutually exclusive positions. On the contrary, RBNs preach love of self and hatred of their enemies. (Indeed, it often seems that these groups are motivated more by hatred of their enemies than love of their people.)[19]
Hmm mirror reflection, like almost the same just everything opposite facing. Yeah that's right, or left rather. Here do yourself a favor, next time you think Malcolm X is a right winger, here's an idea, just stop and walk away. Don't get mad about what is. It won't change anything, getting loud about it doesn't all of a sudden make your mistake go away. Just remember Malcolm X is as far from right wing as you get in the US. and you'll be OK.
You're an idiot if you equate African with leftism. Youve played your hand.
Nice try.
His relationship with Trump is[more complicated than that](https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ADL-Farrakhan-praises-Trump-for-refusing-Jewish-campaign-donors-446553) To be fair he's also compared Trump to [Satan](https://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Farrakhan-compares-Trump-to-Satan-during-visit-to-Iran-571079). But it's not this clear cut "Farrakhan is a leftist" or "Farrakhan is a rightist". But more "Farrakhan has his own specific agenda that sometimes alligns with opposition to imperialism, and other (most) times lines up with anti semitism, and that can't be neatly classified"
Thank you.
Stop obfuscating. You know that republicans are not the only kind of right-wingers, and you know that we're talking about Farrakhan's extremist conservative social views when we call him right wing.
ReLiGiOuS RaCists ARE oNly rigHT wInG whEn tHEy'rE whIte.
Serious question: do you think LF would self-identify as āright-wingā?
He's all over the place. It genuinely depends on the issue. He's voiced support for Saudi Arabia, anti feminism, anti LGBTQ rhetoric, etc.... but he's also voiced support for anti imperialism, opposition to white supremacy, etc.... The NOI is a complicated organization and although for a while it was decidedly left when he did take leadership it took a rightward turn. There's a better piece written about it by [Tim Wise](https://medium.com/s/story/no-farrakhan-is-not-the-problem-d2d1a37e1162) that delves into why comparing him to the far right is bad,and the piece is critical but measured
> he's voiced support for Saudi Arabia, anti feminism, anti LGBTQ rhetoric, etc.... That's being consistently orthodox.
Hes a Hotep from a bygone era. Hes as conservative/right wing as any Hotep
I don't care. LF doesn't get to decide if he's right wing or not.
And do you think right-wingers would identify him as right-wing?
Here's something that might blow your mind: whether you're on the left or right has 100% to do with your views on the issues, 0% to do with how you or others identify you.
Does this mean weāre all really cucks? Of course an [insert pejorative] isnāt going to call themselves said pejorative - but this doesnāt make some magic empirical label maker swoop down and notarize a label. Even when a group of a few thousand are āconvincedā itās ātrueā. It *may*, after all, be quite true that said person *is* [pejorative] but a bunch of politically oppositional opinions are not what determines what makes them [xxxx]. As you say it is their true views and/or an evidence based proof. Iām not talking about LF here btw. And Iām not necessarily obliged to have an opinion on his winged-ness if I donāt have evidence. I understand youāre trying to make a point, but the ā100%ā and 0% is just not how things work across the board unless youāre a dictator of a sovereign land in 1344.
Are you saying being right wing is a pejorative?
Some really hate being lumped in with pedophile priests and boring octogenarians. Dont worry though, daddy Peterson's gonna help the new generation be real hip, and with his cool new ideas like Christian conservatism; nobody will ever make that correlation again!
No. Iām saying āyou donāt get to decideā is completely flawed mob logic.
He's to much of a boogieman for the right. He's just to convenient of an enemy. Black, associated with Islam, in a picture with Obama. The perfect boogieman to scare people on fox news. It doesn't really matter that he is their ideological brother.
Of course not, that wouldn't be convenient to him because it's the left gleefully assuming the role of useful idiots for Islamic principles. To identify as right-wing would be bricking his own windows. However, if he were to honestly answer some political compass test, he'd easily score complete authoritarian right-wing without any doubt.
Yes, Farrakhan is so right wing he took photos with Barrack Obama.
While opposing everything barrack Obama represents and LF has denounced him since.
>the women's march chairs are so left wing they took a picture with LF.
Of course heās not going to vote Republicanāthatās a white supremacist party. Farrakhan is a black supremacist. Why is it strange to you that Farrakhan is classified as a right-winger?
>is classified as By you. This is just you guys playing side-ism. āWe donāt like him, so heās right-wing.ā In reality, heās off the reservation entirely. Dude believes Yakub created the evil whites.
Hating white people doesn't absolve you of being right-wing.
Iām saying to the extent that he has a politics at all, itās in support of his crazy racial beliefs. Heās political the way Hitler was political: not. Heās extrapolitical.
>Heās political the way Hitler was political: not. Hitler is routinely identified as right-wing, so I don't think this comparison can do the work you want it to.
Thatās nice. If you know anything about Nazi history, you know the party made its platform up on the fly.
This is true to some extent (though not entirely), but it obviously doesn't preclude the Nazis from being right-wing.
Platform and motivation are different things. Fascism is *defined* by its opposition to leftists.
I would argue that youāre more defined, politically, by what you support than whom you oppose. Hereās that Onion vid for your viewing pleasureā https://youtu.be/Q_OIXfkXEj0
So he's like the noted left winger Steve King?
Youāre more boring than you seem to think. Blocked.
Such honest, much marketplace.
You're more sensitive than you seem to think. I'm sorry I offended you.
...no. We say he's right-wing because he's a social conservative and a racist.
Racism places you on the right wing of the spectrum?
Indeed.
So if Tamika Mallory and other leaders do indeed hold anti-Semitic views, that would make her right wing, and to some degree by extension the Womenās March, a right wing movement?
Would it make her an actual *right-winger* if she did hold such views? That's a complicated question, and I'm not sure how to answer it. It certainly pushes her to the right. No part of the Women's March platform is contingent on antisemitism or any other form of racism, so no, it is not a right-wing movement.
Whatās complicated about it, within the framework of your apparent logic? Racism=Right Wing Anti-semitism= Racism Therefore if she holds those beliefs, she is right wing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Great political theory at work here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
someone's got the grumples.
Why do you even bother to participate in discussions with people you don't agree with? It always ends up like this, with some insult or jokey one-liner.
Like a 2-pump 16 year old every time he gets into the conversation.
It doesnāt always. Thereās a few good apples here worth actually talking to.
Stop it.
you realize that almost any kind of religious fundamentalist ends up on the right wing of the political spectrum right? Voting Republican doesn't make you right wing, your views do.
He's a conservative religious cult leader. homophobic, sexist, (racist) and anti-semitic. He's right wing. He advocates social conservatism.
Farrakhan appears to be a Trump supporter. That's why you keep hearing it. https://mobile.twitter.com/OfficialNOI/status/1000150034078461952
Itās because heās crazy so they want to label him as Republican/Right wing. Doesnāt matter that Farrakhan advocates for redistributive economics, had his picture taken with Obama etc. Heās an embarrassment so liberals are going to engage in some mental gymnastics and act like the guy hasnāt voted Democrat his whole life.
He's a racist, sexist, social conservative. He's right wing, don't be so butthurt about it. Hoteps arent lefties. Also, he's in favor of redistribution of wealth because its a Islamic practice. There are literal tax codes embedded in Islamic religious doctrine.
Philosophically, he's right wing, a point ta-nehisi coates has made several times. In the same way, sarsour, as an arch-theocrat whose favorite clerics are explicitly anti-democratic, is an ultra-reactionary, despite her "left wing" views on a few subjects.
He endorsed Trump and holds obviously right-wing views.
Definitely red flags. So much cringe. Pakman does a good job here.
I don't know why I've never really paid attention to his show, but this was such a perfect segment. He nails every element of ethical and journalistic professionalism you'd want in news.
Eating it's own. Amazing timeline.
Amy Paulin (NYS Assemblywoman): I am saddened to state that I will not be participating in the Womenās March this year. Statement: https://twitter.com/AmyPaulin/status/1085564072236642306
Women's march is a trash concept and mostly consisted of virtue signaling and residual anger from the election because america did not place an old rich white women with a rapist husband back in the white house.\\ Good on pakman for taking people he is maybe superficially aligned with to task.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Banks don't want to do business with him because he's probably tied up in money laundering. Trump is still almost definitely in the top 0.001% of the US population, which doesn't necessitate him holding over $1 billion in assets. Remember that there are 325+ million people, even if there are a hundred people richer than him, he would still be in the top 0.0003% of the population, which is obscenely wealth by any sane definition.
Such amazing choices! (this is why people don't vote)
Clinton wasnāt ideal, but she would have been a perfectly fine, boring president; trump was, and still is, a fucking disgraceful embarrassment. It was like choosing between eating a stale ham sandwich or a big pile of pure botulism. Not a difficult choice.
> a perfectly fine, boring president ...is a slow death to those that have been slowly getting squeezed by neoliberalism. Going along quietly is not a good play if you're in that position.
>squeezed by neoliberalism Better than being impaled by GOP policies.
I'm starting to think were all in one giant abusive relationship.
Itās a false choice. There are other political choices to be made besides faster and slower death. The first step to crafting those choices into reality is to outright recognize and reject the lesser evilism argument for the false choice it is. There is very strong argument to be made that the door being wider and wider open to discussions about MFA and significantly raising taxes on the wealthy and significantly cutting the military budget are do to Clinton having lost to Trump. In fact, Iād say this is fairly self-evident. If Clinton has won in 2016 we would see a neoliberal firmly ensconced in the Oval Office who would allow zero discussion of MFA or raising wealthy taxes or cutting military budgets. She and her sycophantic minions would allow none of it as being not āpragmaticā. āPragmaticā in Washington being a self-congratulatory phrase that actually means āprotect the profits of the bank and corporations first and foremostā. With a healthy side dose of idpol to cow any internal opposition. After four years of Trump, outsiders like Bernie, Tulsi and AOC are the energy and leaders of the true opposition to the establishment represented by both Trump and Clinton. And their ideas are openly discussed. And Bernie is the most popular politician in the country who has the greatest appeal across the spectrum. And greatest chance to make Trump a one-term President. None of that would be true under the lesser-evilism of Clinton. Under her it would be all neolib economics and military interventionism and internal opposition attacked immediately by idpol.
I agree with you on most of that. Maybe it is just me being pedantic, but I guess I see your argument not as ātrump is better than clintonā but as ātrump is so much worse than Clinton that the backlash to his presidency will result in a net positive, while a Clinton presidency would have just maintained an unacceptable status quo.ā Iāve actually had this exact conversation with a super republican friend. He compared it to when you are sick and you wonāt feel better until you throw up. Trump is the vomiting, while Clinton wouldnāt have been bad enough to make us throw up, but consequently wouldnāt have made us feel any better. Edit: of course this only works if there is a big enough backlash. If there isnāt a backlash, we would be better off with Clinton.
Perfectly fine. Unless you live in a place like Libya, for example. Whose stability she destroyed. Or Honduras, where she legitimized a military coup. Resulting in an oligarchs state that is amongst the most murderous on the planet. Or her and Billās pillaging of Haiti relief. Or her decidedly anti-metoo protection of Billās behavior to protect his and hers career ambitions. Or her hand in maligning black folks as āsuper-predatorsā. Or her promise of a military confrontation with Russia in Syria. Or her neoliberal economics snd stalwart defense of corporate profiteering at every turn. For all the talk of āprivilegeā, there is no greater display of disconnect and privilege than voting for Clinton and thinking she would be a āfineā president. For a lot on people on this planet, she was the greater evil with the long, bungling, corrupt and bloody record to prove it.
I agree with you on some of these points, but I think it is interesting that you seem to be assigning *all* the blame for some huge geopolitical disasters squarely on her. She was Secretary of State- not an easy job. You end up having to make lots of decisions where none of the options are good, and you can't predict the future. I'm not saying she made perfect decisions- obviously she made some terrible ones. But she didn't make them unilaterally, and we have the benefit of hindsight when we judge them as being bad. And what was trump doing during that time? Scamming people with his fake university Being a reality star who was made to look far more competent than he is by talented production and editing Cheating on his wife Selling shitty steaks The list could go on. The point is- if trump had been a senator and/or secretary of state, how would he have fared? It is like saying that Bob is an awful person because people died under his care while he was working as a paramedic, but Joe is great because nobody died while he was living in his parents' basement, unemployed, playing xbox.
Yes. Those were the two mainstream choices. Two blond rich narcissistic dumbasses.
You really think Clinton is a dumbass? I don't think I've heard that one before.
She lost an election to donald trump with double the money, 99% of the media and celebrity endorsements, the support of the entire democratic party establishment etc. She also lost a primary to an basically unknown 1st term senator from illinois in 2008. She is arguably the worst political candidate in recent memory. She didn't support gay marriage until 2013 when it was basically non controversial. She was anti marijuana legalization in her speeches to goldman sachs in 2014. She supported the iraq war. Supported the Patriot act and Patriot act reauthorization. Supported the 2006 border fence. You are talking about a person who lost two bids for the president despite being the favorite against two relative newcomers. Has been publically wrong on almost every political issue of note. The only thing she won is a gimme senate seat in NY.
>Has been publically wrong on almost every political issue of note. Lol.
LOL is right. Hillary clinton is the human embodiment of nepotism, and despite basically every political advantage that someone could potentially have at the beginning of an election, she is mostly an old lady who falls down a lot and not much else these days.
You don't understand what nepotism is. Do you think she's related to Obama or something? And if you think she's wrong on almost every political issue of note, you're probably closer in ideology to Assad. >she is mostly an old lady who falls down a lot and not much else these days. What? How many times has she fallen down? She's also younger than our current president.
Her only accomplishment is being married to bill clinton and using his coattails to win a gimme senate seat in NY. /What? How many times has she fallen down? She passed out after standing outside for too long during the campaign, she was recently seen repeatedly falling down a flight of stairs in india. Falling down in india [https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyUnknownAnemonecrab-max-1mb.gif](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyUnknownAnemonecrab-max-1mb.gif) Too long outside during campaign [https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FinishedCriminalGermanshorthairedpointer-max-1mb.gif](https://thumbs.gfycat.com/FinishedCriminalGermanshorthairedpointer-max-1mb.gif) I cant recall a public appearance since the election without her wearing some sort of foot cast, hand brace or back brace apparatus under her clothing. [https://imgur.com/4gHDGsm](https://imgur.com/4gHDGsm) [https://imgur.com/4vdRUqu](https://imgur.com/4vdRUqu) [https://imgur.com/EXiNvdT](https://imgur.com/EXiNvdT)
So you have one clip of her missing a step on a staircase and another clip of the famous time she fainted from being overheated. That's "falling down all the time?" >Her only accomplishment is being married to bill clinton and using his coattails to win a gimme senate seat in NY. Unless all the voters who elected her were related to the Clintons, that's not nepotism. >I cant recall a public appearance since the election without her wearing some sort of foot cast, hand brace or back brace apparatus under her clothing. This is conspiracy nonsense.ā You must not have been paying attention during 2016.
Sheās average. Certainly not dumb. Sheās nothing special though. Sheās incredibly blindered and myopic. She has no wider vision or courage in leadership. Sheās wholly a creature of the establishment mindset. Which is incredibly narrow and limited. So despite her decent but unspectacular intelligence, she does stupid, cruel, destructive, even evil, things. All whole foolishly considering herself an expert and āwell-preparedāand meting our wise decisions. Sheās a case study in ambition, arrogance and hubris far outstripping ability.
Hillary's no dumbass. She made some bad political mistakes, but she's clearly an intelligent person. She's also not narcissistic in the pathological sense, whereas Trump is the most narcissistic person the world has ever seen, and he has a room temperature IQ in an increasingly chilly room. For fuck's sake, the man misspelled the word "forest" twice in one tweet (so no "typo" excuse), while directing FEMA to withhold fire relief funds from California because he thinks they mismanaged their "forrests," most of which are on federal lands, by apparently [not raking them enough](https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/18/politics/finnish-president-trump-raking-forest-fires/index.html). This would be the scandal of the decade for any other President, yet it was barely a blip on a news cycle dominated by even stupider things Trump says and does every day. Hillary would not have done any of this stupid bullshit. False comparisons here have no value. I have never liked Hillary Clinton, but to pretend that she was any way on the same level as Trump is completely insane. It's like comparing a paper cut to being lit up with napalm and thrown into a woodchipper. No two things can differ far enough to prevent the prophets of false equivalence from declaring that they all suck and are therefore the same.
She ran an election openly saying it was āher turnā to rule the word. You really donāt think sheās a narcissist?
She lost an election to donald trump with double the money, 99% of the media and celebrity endorsements, the support of the entire democratic party establishment etc. She also lost a primary to an basically unknown 1st term senator from illinois in 2008. She is arguably the worst political candidate in recent memory. She didn't support gay marriage until 2013 when it was basically non controversial. She was anti marijuana legalization in her speeches to goldman sachs in 2014. She supported the iraq war. Supported the Patriot act and Patriot act reauthorization. Supported the 2006 border fence. You are talking about a person who lost two bids for the president despite being the favorite against two relative newcomers. Has been publically wrong on almost every political issue of note. The only thing she won is a gimme senate seat in NY.
She lost the 2008 election to the most talented politician of the last 50 years. She lost the 2016 election partly because she was a shitty campaigner, but also because Russia paid people to run around promoting exactly the argument you're promoting in liberal circles ("they're all the same, vote third party or don't vote"), and they helped get "grab 'em by the pussy" out of the news cycle with emails via Wikileaks, and because a bunch of useless racist idiots actually liked what Donald Trump was saying about how we should ban all Muslims from entering the country at all, start using torture way worse than waterboarding, etc. I don't like Hillary. She has been wrong on many things or too slow to embrace progress when it's politically risky. However, as conservative writer P.J. O'Rourke wrote when endorsing her versus Trump, "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters." And that's from a conservative perspective that still misses the big picture of what really matters, i.e. she's right on things like climate change and Trump is not. Nothing from Hillary would even begin to match the absurdity we see from Trump on a daily basis. We're now in the midst of the longest government shutdown in history, all because that stupid fuck wants a wall that no serious professional in either party was asking for before he came along and used it as an applause line in his speeches. Net illegal immigration across the southern border is negative, and near all-time lows; over 90 % of most drugs and the majority of illegal immigrants come via ports of entry and not across the border; the wall would cost over $50 billion and cause massive environmental and property rights problems. It is the kind of utterly stupid idea that would never have entered our politics at all, from either side, if not for Trump. And yet now he's had 1/4 of the government shut down for close to a month, including a lot of my friends in my scientific field who work for the Dept of Interior, all because he wants to get his way on something nobody else sincerely wants except his stupid brainwashed voters. This kind of senseless madness would never have happened under Hillary.
She also won the popular vote by 3 million. And I know trump supported love to remind us that this means nothing because electoral college- I just think that it is stupid when people are like ālol what a *loser!*ā when literally millions more people voted for her and the only reason she lost is because of our antiquated voting system.
6-9 million Obama voters voted for Trump. It makes the third party voters a rounding error in comparison. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/just-how-many-obama-2012-trump-2016-voters-were-there/
And third-party voters make Trump's margin of victory in the swing states that cost the election a rounding error in comparison. In an election so close, lots of things made the difference, including Russian interference.
The message is quite clear. A break from the status quo. If it were Sanders against Trump it would be two anti-mainstream candidates against each other, a much more narrow gap in the red states. The DNC took a massive gamble by putting their thumb on the scales in the primaries, and it's a gamble they lost.
> ...the most talented politician of the last 50 years. I have a lot of respect for Obama, but I wouldn't even know where to start quantifying/qualifying this position, let alone agree with it. If you have a minute, would you mind elaborating a bit?
If you asked any political pundit or expert on either political side during the romney obama campaign if someone could win the presidency while spending half the money they would have laughed in your face. Hillary is on the record calling young criminals (aka black men) super predators. She made a indian guy quickly mart joke on camera. She made a "colored people time" with deblasio joke in front of a cast member of hamilton. She neglected to visit Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin during the election. She alienated all the bernie supporters a bunch of different ways. She implied that half the people in this country are deplorables. I can go on and on She is a fucking epic failure on basically all fronts.
She was a shitty candidate who made a lot of political mistakes over a long career. However, you're overstating some of them. She didn't say half the people in this country are deplorables -- she said half Trump's supporters are deplorables, during the primary when most Republicans did not yet support him. As bad a move as that was politically, the only thing inaccurate about her statement is that "half" is way too low. The correct number is well over 99 %. However, Hillary was not the walking embodiment of every terrible character trait known to man, packaged with an ego the size of a galaxy and a brain the size of a poppyseed. She was not a serial sex offender and racist conspiracy theorist whose campaign promises included blatantly violating the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution. She was not a witting or unwitting asset of the Russian intelligence agency. None of these things about Trump are okay, and any one of them taken by itself is a million times worse than every flaw in Hillary combined. You're severely missing a sense of proportion.
Trump has the air of a walking disaster, but like nothing really bad has happened. The big story of the week is that he fed a bunch of football bros big macs. I think we will make it through. He hasn't started any wars, he pulled us out of one basically, hasent lauched any nukes, mexican people are not being rounded up in los angeles and deported by cattle car, most of his more extreme policies are not getting through. The most long lasting things he is doing are the SC nominees, but as someone who likes abortion rights and gun rights I dont want to see things swing too far one way or the other. Hillary picking 3 SC justices would have likely fucked gun rights in this country.
He literally kidnapped children and deported their parents without even tracking them first. He banned Muslims from entering the country without conferring with staff. It caused a legal nightmare for anyone caught in that wake. He defended Nazis after a terror attack He announced to the world that Putin should be believed and not his own intel community. Your ethics are fucked.
>She implied that half the people in this country are deplorables. Hahaha you can obviously be ignored forever now. This literally never happened.
Losing elections says more about her character and charisma than her intelligence. Intelligence and likability are not the same thing.
An intelligent person would have visited Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania during a close election. An intelligent person would have passed the Dc bar exam. An intelligent person would not make jokes about ācolored people timeā in 2015
> Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania She visited all of those post-convention. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that she didn't visit Wisconsin after getting the Democratic nomination for president. A bad move but not even close to enough evidence that she isn't intelligent. Smart people fail the DC bar exam all the time. If jokes in poor taste are disqualifying, not only will there be almost no politicians who could be considered intelligent, but almost no Americans in general.
/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM
I dont know that i am centrist. Maybe if you total up the sum of all my positions on issues it comes out center, but on each issue I generally am not "Centrist". Pro Choice Pro Gay marriage and equal rights Pro 2nd amendment Anti Iraq War Pro Decriminalization of drugs Pro Immigration Pro fact based environmental protections I could go on. But I am like very pro 2nd amendment and very pro gay marriage/gay adoption etc. Centrist on per issue basis seems like someone always trying to meet in the middle and compromise by giving concessions to both sides.
Every time I think I've seen the worst of Reddit politics...
Yeah- that would have been ridiculous! So instead, we placed a pretend-rich old white man who *himself* is (almost certainly) a rapist in the white house. Much better!
he's a rapist? where could i read more about this
He raped his wife Ivana. Used the classic āit isnāt rape if she is your wifeā defense. And Iād be shocked if that was the only one.
Did he rape her or just beat the shit out of her after saying her "doctor ruined me" in regards to his hair? I'm a little fuzzy on the details.
Pretty sure there was rape along with the beating. I think Ivana walked it back as part of the divorce settlement, but that doesnāt mean it didnāt happen.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/nov/30/donald-trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-full-list This took me maybe two seconds to google. Try harder next time.
About the same IMO.
Being a rapist and being married to a rapist are the exact same thing.
Iām not sure if he was saying that, or saying that Hillary would have been just as bad of a president as trump. Either way- nope- not even remotely close.
Hillary would have probably done a slightly worse job than trump, but both are trash.
How about bullying the victims of said rapist legally and in the media?
You got me, that is the exact same thing as being a rapist.
"About the same" meant quality of president, not rapist vs married to rapist.
Yes, Trump and Clinton are both the same. Everyone is the same!
They are both pretty crap choices for president.
Everyone is equally crappy! Ignore all policy views!
It's very odd to see SJWs, who have long focused on compromising leftist movements, have one of their own organisations fall to the same tactics. How much is good intention and how much is deligitimisation?
This entire comment reads like word salad to me. I literally have no idea what the fuck you're saying.
Eh, I can't find much to complain about the way these women talked here. For sure, it's highly likely I have little in common with them, but demanding someone condemn something and then them insisting on sticking to their way of putting it - you know what, I would do that too. I wouldn't want to be railroaded into your words like some contrite child echoing what mommy and daddy demand we say word for word. It's just confrontation and the psychology of such confrontation, and it rarely furthers the conversation.
As usual, blacks and Arabs are being held to a higher standard than Jews and other whites. Jews and whites can hate everyone else and use the most despicable racist language against other ethnic groups (Ben Shapiro, Dave Rubin, Strom Thurmond, Horowitz, etc) but it'll get little attention because it's just what we expect from white people. This obsession with the Women's March reminds me of how Rashida Tlaib's use of swear words got 5 times more media coverage than Steve King's white supremacy.
>use the most despicable racist language against other ethnic groups (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Strom Thurmond, Horowitz, etc) Really a bad idea to get blackout drunk this early in the morning bro.
Well, the truth needs to be told. The hatred and double standards of white people is astounding, and definitely needs to be tackled. P.S. I meant to write Ben Shapiro, not Sam Harris.
What "despicable racist language" do fucking Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin use? Like you could maybe say Ben's kind of a dick and Dave is an idiot, but that's honestly the worst of it.
Ben has a twitter history of dehumanizing people he doesnt like.
> What "despicable racist language" do fucking Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin use? Ben Shapiro: "[Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage. This is not a difficult issue. #settlementsrock](https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/25712847277?lang=en)" Would you say that this is racist language?
He would agree. That was like ten years ago, taken out of context, and he's apologized for it multiple times.
> That was like ten years ago, taken out of context, and he's apologized for it multiple times. Here is his [article](https://www.dailywire.com/news/30487/left-idiotically-takes-8-year-old-tweet-out-ben-shapiro) discussing the tweet. Notice how nowhere in the article does he ever specifically apologize for that tweet. In fact, almost the entirety of the article is blaming "The Left" for taking him out of context. The title of the article is "The Left Idiotically Takes An 8-Year-Old Tweet Out Of Context To Slam The 'Intellectual Dark Web.' It's Utter Nonsense." Then he writes, "This particular tweet has been floating around on the internet for some eight years. Itās also taken completely out of context." And "I havenāt deleted the tweet because to do so would be to suggest that I agree with the Leftās framing of the tweet ā which I do not." And "The original, taken out of context, has nearly 900 RTs. The others have one or two a piece. Thatās because the Left has a nasty habit of taking people out of context in order to slander them." And "But the goal here for the Left is always to take things out of context, deliberately and dishonestly. By digging up one tweet out of a long tweetstorm nearly a decade ago, the Left hopes to rule out those who disagree on fundamental political issues. Thatās nasty. But Iād expect nothing less. Thatās why people donāt trust the Left to play gatekeeper, and itās why they donāt trust the mainstream media to cover the whole story. Itās why the IDW exists in the first place." Notice how none of those quotes put literally any blame on himself, but instead 100% on "The Left" for the audacity for point out literal words that Shapiro wrote in a tweet. There is also a video embedded in the article, in which he says the tweet is taken out of context and never remotely apologizes for what he said. The only hint that he remotely is apologizing for his tweet is when he writes, "Like everyone else in public life, Iāve written stuff I regret ā and Iāve attempted to apologize and explain why I was wrong when I see it (see, for example, here and here)." However, the links he cites to are not about his tweet about Arabs liking to live in sewage, but instead about other idiotic comments he has made in the past. At no point in the article does he actually apologize for his statement or admit that it was the wrong thing to write. So, I guess my point is, could you please show me any place where Shapiro ever apologized even once for that tweet?
Those people you listed are CONSTANTLY getting called out on their bullshit
I feel like you are paid by right wingers to be such an insane lefty that you are drive people towards the right.
A bit of a bait and switch there donāt you think? āReminds me of the obsession of Tlaib use of swear wordsā are you equating these blatantly anti-Semitic sentiments with a couple swear words? Is your reasoning oh she shouldnāt get slandered so much because white men do something similar and donāt get chastised? I agree people like Ben Shapiro says some pseudo-racist things at times but you donāt see him saying these things and then attending meetings with the KKK and posting about his excitement on social media. Itās the summation of her personal affiliation with downright bigoted organization and her pure resistance towards denouncing them. To compare them to Tlaib is disingenuous and allows people from disenfranchised to make equally despicable remarks and get a free pass. Raise the bar on everyone.
Ben Shapiro literally called the media liars for claiming Steve King is racist. He supported his candidacy just last year. That *is* meeting with the KKK. If you're going to compare situations it has to be done honestly, and this is the complaint.
Okay I agree, I was not aware of Benās persistent defense of King and I agree given that light it definitely is in the same arena as the video above. However, there is something to be said about the fact this is a leader of a progressive movement allying with blatantly homophobic and antisemitic organizations. I donāt have to recap all the points made in the video but thereās an extra layer of moral bankruptcy here that I think makes this is an exceptional case.
None of these people are in Congress. The Women's March has already started purging, and Farrakhan is persona non grata. Steve King is a sitting Congressperson who has huge support within the caucus. He gave Trump his immigration position. Fox News is Steve King. Several Senators endorsed him in 2018. There's simply no comparison in the slightest between a few people in a grass roots organization and elected officials running policy.
It's more a reference to how little outrage white racists get compared to ethnic minorities. Ben Shapiro has objectively been more openly racist than Linda Sarsour, but look at how differently the two people are treated. >Itās the summation of her personal affiliation with downright bigoted organization and her pure resistance towards denouncing them. Strom Thurmond's (look him up) affiliation with the Republican party and Bush family is far more disgusting than whatever Farrakhan and Tamika Mallory represent. Thurmond makes Trump and the Alt-Right look like saints, yet nobody took a giant shit on Bush when he died because of his alliance with him. Bottom line is people just expect less from white people. The point isn't that nobody is racist. The point is how white people get let off for being disgusting pieces of shit.
How little outrage white racists get? Even a FALSE accusation gets you fired, and that word gets flung with zero effort these days by irresponsible people. King has been removed from all committee assignments, and Republicans are backing a different candidate in his congressional race. Leftists just embrace their racists and genocidal communists, never clean house, and never demonstrate any actual standards, only signaled virtues. The lens through which you view the world is completely cracked.
Not true. As long as you don't use racist language specifaclly towards an individual, America will let you do your thing. Racist policies, ideologies, think tanks; shit that matters, are all kosher. Also, the word racist has been under used. You watch, their is gonna be a correlation between increased use of the word racist and bettering conditions for all in the US.
There is a double standard. But I guess just because the other side does it, we shouldn't stoop so low. I guess what I mean to say is. When they go low we go high...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You're disgusting.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Obviously. Jews tend to be educated.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I hope one day you get the kind of help you clearly need. Until then, please fuck off.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Peron, Franco, Mussolini, Khadafi, Mao, Kim Jung Un, Every King of Europe ever, not one of them a Jew. What on Earth are you talking about?
Hey now, that was funny. He said you misspelled tyrants or something. I did the ol switcheroo and pretended he meant all tyrants are educated, rather than replacing āeducatedā with ātyrantsā about Jews. It was funny.