T1B

Stoked and encouraged by the president and GOP leadership.

Make no bones about it---if you voted for Trump and you vote for congressional GOPers, this is on YOU.

"There are fine people on both sides, both sides." -- DJT

Yes. It's all my fault. Tomorrow is Sunday. I'll try to be nicer.

Gee, I wonder what McCarthy is referring to?



Hey Wolftard, you gonna vote for Ron DeSantis? Of course you are.

Wolfman wrote:Yes. It's all my fault. Tomorrow is Sunday. I'll try to be nicer.

Stop trying to play the victim. Nobody is blaming you. But the fact is that the incidence of right wing, mostly white male, terrorism in this country is many times higher than any other. It doesn’t fit the Republican narrative, though, so keep stoking fear of ISIS and MS13 and ignore the real sources of danger.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Stoked and encouraged by the president and GOP leadership.

Make no bones about it---if you voted for Trump and you vote for congressional GOPers, this is on YOU.

So, by your logic, Trump being vehemently pro-Israel encouraged someone to attack a synagogue?


Yeah, buddy!

Why did you stick an apple AND an orange up your Proud Facist ass?

He was an anti-Semitic, Trump hater.

So do we blame Obama? Hillary? Well it was a shooting, so we know we have to blame the gun.

Or, it was a crazy person who had a gun.

The assault rifle and the electoral college hold equal responsibility here.

“Bowers posted several messages supporting parts of President Trump's political agenda, such as opposition to mass migration, while also implying that Jews and a "deep state" in the government were manipulating the president”

IMO he would be considered to the right of Pres Bone Spurs.

And if using the Political Compass (which is more accurate) he would be to the left and up. Near Hitler of course.



Don’t ask me how he is to the right on a linear chart and to the left on a two dimensional one.

Killian wrote: Or, it was a crazy person who had a gun.

Yep, just another crazy person with a gun. Keep telling yourself that.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Killian wrote: Or, it was a crazy person who had a gun.

Yep, just another crazy person with a gun. Keep telling yourself that.

Enlighten us, dipshit. How do you blame Trump when this guy hated him?

Mikey wrote:

Wolfman wrote:Yes. It's all my fault. Tomorrow is Sunday. I'll try to be nicer.

Stop trying to play the victim. Nobody is blaming you. But the fact is that the incidence of right wing, mostly white male, terrorism in this country is many times higher than any other. It doesn’t fit the Republican narrative, though, so keep stoking fear of ISIS and MS13 and ignore the real sources of danger.

How do you define "right wing"?

You and other lefties like to lump white supremacists (historically overwhelmingly democratic) and economic conservatives together. It is complete bullshit. You figure if you call Hitler "right wing" then call those who think local government can handle issues better than the federal government right wing, people will equate conservatives to Hitler.

Killian wrote: Enlighten us, dipshit. How do you blame Trump when this guy hated him?

It's not just Trump, it's the entire ecosystem of hate fostered by both the GOP and Trump. THIS dude didn't think Trump hated Jews enough.

And who do you think Trump talking about when he talks about globalists? And the whole both sides Charlottsville nonsense? Those are massive dog whistles for anti-antisemitism.

When David Duke loves you, you're doing something wrong.

smackaholic wrote:(historically overwhelmingly democratic)

About as intellectually dishonest as you can get.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:(historically overwhelmingly democratic)

About as intellectually dishonest as you can get.

Yeah, no it's not. But you look at everything through rose colored glasses and to you, the left has done no wrong, ever.

David Duke is a loathsome human being. Just like Robert Byrd.

Kierland wrote:“Bowers posted several messages supporting parts of President Trump's political agenda, such as opposition to mass migration, while also implying that Jews and a "deep state" in the government were manipulating the president”

IMO he would be considered to the right of Pres Bone Spurs.

And if using the Political Compass (which is more accurate) he would be to the left and up. Near Hitler of course.



Don’t ask me how he is to the right on a linear chart and to the left on a two dimensional one.

We don't know enough about this loser to know where he is on the chart. I think they got some people about right, others not so much. Barry and Hillary should be left of economic center and more authoritarian. Hitler needs to be more eco-left. Many try to paint him economically right, because he was OK with cronie-capitalism. Cronie capitalism is NOT capitalism. It is even worse than regular socialism and every bit as left. I think Ted and Newt should be much less authoritarian. I would like to see how they come up with these things.

Why would I not vote for Ron DeSantis? As part of the vast right wing, white supremacist evil Republican movement, it is my duty. Actually I already voted by mail for him, Rick Scott, Francis Rooney and the others who are promoting the destruction of the American way of life, polluted beaches with dead fish, poor people dying from lack of health care, and other fun things. It will be a pleasure to join the victory parade in November.

smackaholic wrote: I think Ted and Newt should be much less authoritarian. I would like to see how they come up with these things.

There is a test you can take. They probably plug in their known viewpoints to the test.


I’m down by Thomas Paine.

88 wrote:avowed socialist

Oh my, I'm sure you got the vapors.

88 wrote:DeSantis is getting my vote too. And I'm not surprised that Screwy thinks the next Governor of Florida ought to be an avowed socialist who accepted and lied about receiving gifts from undercover FBI agents.

You get to vote in Florida and Ohio?
And you say California is messed up...

Those black dots look distressingly like gunshot holes. I think I’m becoming triggered. Please direct me to the nearest puppy and safe space.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:(historically overwhelmingly democratic)

About as intellectually dishonest as you can get.

Why do you hate truth and facts? No the KKK was not started by the Democratic Party. However, Democrats started the KKK and had extremely close ties with their party. One of the first grand dragons spoke at the Democratic Convention.

And the Dodgers are from Brooklyn.

Left Seater wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:(historically overwhelmingly democratic)

About as intellectually dishonest as you can get.

Why do you hate truth and facts? No the KKK was not started by the Democratic Party. However, Democrats started the KKK and had extremely close ties with their party. One of the first grand dragons spoke at the Democratic Convention.

That is about the most goddamn historically retarded argument you could possibly imagine. Quit butchering history and get back to wearing shorts in the fucking Alps.

Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, wrote in an email that various "Klans" that sprung up around the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest -- believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon -- even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, said Emberton, author of "Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence and the American South after the Civil War."


So what part of Professor Emberton’s claim do think is the most historically goddamed retarded argument?

Left Seater wrote:Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, wrote in an email that various "Klans" that sprung up around the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest -- believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon -- even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, said Emberton, author of "Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence and the American South after the Civil War."


So what part of Professor Emberton’s claim do think is the most historically goddamed retarded argument?

Yes, if you want to go back 100 lifetimes, the Democratic Party was the "racist" party.

That all changed after WW2 when Democrats were promoting civil rights while the GOP became the refuge for racist white assholes in America. As Democrats have pushed for racial and social equality, it's the GOP that has become the party of racist hatred.

Fact

It changed big time in the 60s with LBJ getting on board the Civil Rights train and Nixon’s “southern strategy” convincing most of the bigots to jump parties.

Funny how the Republicans keep claiming to be the Party of Lincoln. He was the last one of them to be worth a shit.

Except maybe TR in some ways.

Mikey wrote:It changed big time in the 60s with LBJ getting on board the Civil Rights train and Nixon’s “southern strategy” convincing most of the bigots to jump parties.

Funny how the Republicans keep claiming to be the Party of Lincoln. He was the last one of them to be worth a shit.

Except maybe TR in some ways.

Let's be honest. Historically, there were racists in both parties, but it was the democrats that had ties to actual racist organizations such as the KKK.

Were southerners democrats because they were racist?

Not really. There were racist republicans as well. They were dems because they were still sore at Abe Lincoln. Balcks were at the time largely Republican because they appreciated what Lincoln and abolitionist Republicans did for them.

Then along came the TGWF, FDR. I suspect he didn't give a fukk about balcks anymore than most people, but he was a damn good politician and realized he could pull a good number of them away from the Republicans, if he promised them free shit. He had limited success. He would have had more, had it not been for racist democrats. A generation later, LBJ opened the free shit spigot up further and basically told the remaining racist democrats to STFU. He was as racist as anyone, but, like FDR, he could count votes.

So now, it's the early 70s. Most balcks have jumped the Republican ship. Not because the Republicans were all of a sudden racist, but because they bought on to the free shit promises. LBJ was right. Nixon's "southern strategy" was not based on promises to resurrect Jim Crow. It was to maintain an economically conservative government. and most southerners, democrat or republican were for that.

If you can point me to examples of Nixon promoting racist policies, I'd like to see them.

And while Democrat presidents may have signed on to civil rights legislation in the 60s, it would have gone nowhere without Republican congressional support.

Screw_Michigan wrote: As Democrats have pushed for racial and social equality, it's the GOP that has become the party of racist hatred.

Fact

Keeping minorities on the government teet, holding them to lower standards, and assuming you know what is best for them is as racist as it gets.

FACT.

Liberal Democrats fighting to maintain lower standards, says we can’t expect you to perform at the level of others. That is no different than saying you are mentally inferior. So sad, but you tell yourself it isn’t racist so you can sleep at night.

Left Seater wrote:Carole Emberton, an associate professor of history at the University at Buffalo, wrote in an email that various "Klans" that sprung up around the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians during Reconstruction. Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest -- believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon -- even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, said Emberton, author of "Beyond Redemption: Race, Violence and the American South after the Civil War."


So what part of Professor Emberton’s claim do think is the most historically goddamed retarded argument?

This. The KKK was the militant arm of the Southern Democrats.

Cliff Notes:

Conservative oppose affirmative action which was implemented in 1970 under Richard Nixon. It was good at the time but is no longer needed. Conservatives believe Blacks and other minorities have repeatedly proven they can compete with anyone without the benefit of lower standards. There are countless examples in every field at every level that show the Affirmative action policy is no longer necessary.

The conservative argument goes further:

Study after study shows affirmative action actually hurts many blacks and minorities because lowered admission standards often set up minorities for college failure,
leading to high drop out rates. Just as it would for whites if accepted to colleges with lower admission standards.

Those who call conservatives racist for these beliefs believe blacks and other minorities are not as capable as whites at succeeding. Therefor believe affirmative action is still needed a half century after it was first implemented.


Talking point 2:

Conservatives believe every voter should present an ID before they cast their ballot, just as European countries require to ensure elections are honest.

Those who call conservatives racist claim mandatory IDs are a ruse to prevent black & other minorities from voting since many of them just aren't capable of acquiring an ID.

It doesn't get more condescending than that.

Which party is really obsessed with race, and whose policies hurt blacks and minorities in reality?



Republican and Democratic party history summary.

What have Republicans done for women and blacks lately?

The answer, not much, because Republicans treat everyone equally.

The Democrats never have and still don't.

Today's Democrats treat blacks and women as victims who aren't capable of succeeding on their own. So the truth is, this is just a new kind of contempt.

There is a party with a long history of racism and sexism, but it isn't the Republicans.

Probably why there are so many brown and female GOP members of Congress and the Dems always send old white guys.

"White supremacist terrorism in the US"

There is no such thing, at least in the form that Screwy is imagining it. It is as real as that white supremacist terror attack against Jussie Smollett, the black fag actor in Chicago. But please, carry on with your bleating and braying of silly nonsense.

Rooster wrote:"White supremacist terrorism in the US"

There is no such thing, at least in the form that Screwy is imagining it.

Amazing the lengths Screwy will go to to try to tie anything and everything he doesn’t like to Trump.

That is no way to go thru life son.

Left Seater wrote:Amazing the lengths Screwy will go to to try to tie anything and everything he doesn’t like to Trump.

That is no way to go thru life son.

He literally murdered a church full of balck people.

If you don't want to believe that's white supremacist terrorism, then you're beyond help.

A) So all terrorism ends in death? You really are an idiot.
B) You have no idea what those numbers mean do you? You really are an idiot.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Left Seater wrote:Amazing the lengths Screwy will go to to try to tie anything and everything he doesn’t like to Trump.

That is no way to go thru life son.

He literally murdered a church full of balck people.

If you don't want to believe that's white supremacist terrorism, then you're beyond help.

Still less than the number of murders in some weeks in Chicago. But why aren’t you bitching about that? Doesn’t fit your political narrative so let’s not talk about it eh?

Look death is death, murder is murder. You want to make some worse than others but the end result is still the same. Is my dad any less dead because the murder weapon was a car vs a gun? Is rape any less rape when it is date rape vs a stranger breaking into the house? Of course not, but by adding unnecessary labels your racism shows and it allows you to pretend as if you care.

Left Seater wrote: Still less than the number of murders in some weeks in Chicago. But why aren’t you bitching about that?

Are you seriously conflating some "drug deal goes bad so homeboy gangstas it up" to an incel bowlcut trying to kick off a race war?

That's like equivocating "Big Tobacco" with Nazi Germany because they both "poisoned people"...

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:incel bowlcut

Be nice to Roostard