If ever there was an expert on bridges.
Yeah. Did you?
Anyway, that’s fine; “Democrat party” says it all as far as whether anyone should take you seriously. I don’t put people on ‘ignore’, but I promise not to engage you further in this thread.
If you were honest, you would admit the antifas are disowned by the Left. Unless you want your side associated with the Nazis and the Klan, White Supremacists in general, and racists.
Didn’t Trump supporters attack protestors at rallies? Before you start slinging accusations, make sure your own trash can is clean.
It’s funny that with all the vitriol in the thread that “democrat party” has you triggered.
Why can’t it be both?
Eat shit, asshole.
Your senile input again? :rolleyes:
You plan on stalking my every post again?
I’m waiting for you to source that claim. You know, with a quote from Nancy Pelosi or some other Democrat leader decrying the leftwing fascist cowards.
Have at it! Go ahead, try and form some kind of association between Nazis and the GOP that’s more substantial than a daydream of Democrats hoping to find something morally wrong with Republicans.
You don’t want me to cite the evidence of what racists Democrats and leftists in general are. The KKK and the Democrat party are joined at the hip. White supremacists? How about tens of thousands of Democrats who voted for a white felon in the 2012 primaries rather than voting for Obama, their president? As for leftists, it’s shocking how many of Common Cause libs want to torture and/or lynch Clarence Thomas.
Got cites? Because I’ve got plenty of Trump supporters being attacked.
A deranged lunacunt?
OK. Why should anyone take me seriously? I don’t.
But I’m probably better at arguing for my views than you are for yours. So I think it’s wise that you’re bowing out.
[Moderating]
Calling other posters cunts is a violation of the Pit language rules. Please avoid this in the future.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
A few decades ago, I would have said they were on the fringe but you cannot deny that white supremacists have started to gain more power in the party than they used to have. What used to be an annoying thorn in the side of typical Republicans has become a festering wound and the infection is spreading. The altright is the embodiment of that change. Here’s an article explaining how a network of individuals embedded the altright literature with white supremacist rhetoric: https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/heres-how-breitbart-and-milo-smuggled-white-nationalism?utm_term=.hl4EnJzQ2Z#.ab4B5WDQOJ
Here is another article noting the rise of white supremacism in the GOP since Trump’s nomination/election: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/charlottesville-and-the-rise-of-white-identity-politics/
So the Democrat party has a long history of affiliation with racists and the KKK, up to electing an ex KKK-Klucker named Robert Byrd so often to the Senate that he DIED in office.
Meanwhile, there’s no evidence that ANY Republican has been elected on a Nazi ticket or through Nazi voting blocs.
Got facts, not innuendo from a real source? (BuzzFeed?! Puh-leaze!)
Yet more innuendo not based on facts. Republicans want a color-blind society. Democrats want everybody to be sorted by color so as to determine their victimhood status. As such, the GOP is going to be attractive to a large majority of Americans (witness how they’ve overwhelmed the Democrats in recent elections) as well as unattractive supporters such as the few hundreds of Nazis who’d rather vote for Republicans because they’re for strong defense, patriotism, and love of America than Democrats who have demonstrated that they’re not very strong on such issues.
Yeah, the facts are in that article. It heavily quotes numerous emails by leading figures in the altright which you’d know if you were actually interested in having a discussion and had actually read the article. By the way, what was your problem with the 538 article? Trying to say that there isn’t a growing tide of white supremacism in the Republican Party by saying that no Republican has been elected on a nazi ticket (whatever that means) is ridiculous. Those two things things are not mutually intertwined.
I strongly suspect that you’re not here for an actual, honest discussion. So, you can go ahead and reply and have the last word.
Aw, poor little baby, what’s the matter? Are those big mean liberals picking on you?
I would think you’d know - plenty of 'em have been mean to you on this board.
From the point of a non-American, it’s an awkward question.
Because I don’t want to sound partisan; I don’t want to just blanket say: “The other side is 100% wrong!”
But compared to my worldview, and most outside the US, the Democrats are quite right-wing, and too much in the pockets of their donors, but more-or-less reasonable on most issues.
Whereas the GOP are the wacky nightmare party. Not only do I completely disagree with them on basically everything, they are currently in a meltdown of denying reality (even when it means contradicting themselves) and calling everything they don’t like “fake news”.
If I can’t reason with a group of people, how can I work with them?
THEN. FUCKING. BAN. HIM.
Jesus fucking christ, why is this so difficult? You’re a mod. He’s a troll. You agree that he’s a troll. I’ve seen numerous posters who were far less egregious and far more interesting banned after a few days. Take the trivial fucking step to make this board that much better and ban the fucker. 4chan /b/ would not be improved by his presence.
If you believe the way that article characterizes democrats is anywhere near realistic, you are part of the problem. As basically everyone who wrote in pointed out, that’s not what liberals are like. It’s just a bizarre strawman argument. The people telling you this are liberals.
(And to answer your previous challenge: I have no idea what the author of the article means by “socialism”, but there is not a single member of Congress, republican or democrat, who supports nationalizing the means of production in most or all industries. Most of them support the existence of a government, and things like nationalized prisons and education, but if that’s enough to get one called a socialist, then most republicans are socialists too.)
You want to prove you’re something other than a troll? Here’s an easy way to do it. Make this thread again, but actually spend the time to try to understand the differences. Don’t just listen to some right-wing source strawmanning liberals (if you honestly believe that the left believes that “your race defines you”, you have not understood any part of the liberal position on race), actually spend time to understand the real differences, and understand the real positions held by real liberals. It might help to ask some of us. Hell, that’d be another way. Start this same thread saying, “I hold positions X, Y, Z, etc. What positions do liberals here disagree with, and to what degree?” Because you do not understand how liberals think. You have little to no understanding of how we think, what we believe, or what the basis for our actions are. So trying to make a thread like this is just stupid.
Conservatives tend to be capitalists. Liberals tend to be socialists. Conservatives believe people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Liberals believe your race defines you. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity. Liberals believe in equality of results. Conservatives believe in freedom of speech. Liberals are fine with silencing people that disagree with them. Conservatives believe in small government. Liberals believe in a frighteningly powerful central government dictating your every move.
The reason you get called a troll is because most of us would like to believe that nobody is stupid enough to take that seriously. I personally believe that anyone who is stupid enough to take that seriously has no place on this board.
Hey look, a new poster. Welcome to the SDMB. Let’s see if we can teach you some useful concepts.
Every single time one side goes after popular norms, that side will say one of two things:
- It’s well-founded based on this specific exception,
or - The other side did it first, we’re just leveling the playing field.
Right-wingers on this very forum defended the unprecedented rejection of Merrick Garland by pointing to Bork. Democrats thought it was a specific exception to reject Bork. Democrats defend Obama’s executive orders by pointing to Bush’s, and claiming that it’s a specific exception because Congress is so ineffectual. And so on, and so forth.
Neither excuse actually helps uphold our norms, and if we keep on “leveling the playing field” like this, soon we won’t have a playing field.
A free and independent press is a crucial aspect of any free democracy. The same laws that protect MSNBC also protect Fox News, Breitbart.com, and every other source you use for your news. If Trump actually succeeded in stripping MSNBC of its broadcasting rights, what’s to stop the next democratic president from saying, “Turnabout is fair play” and banning Fox News?
This is your model of reality, right? So, based on this, we should be able to make some predictions. Without looking it up, why don’t you tell me what percentage of coverage of Hillary Clinton was negative in tone on the following networks in the lead-up to the 2016 election?
- MSNBC
- NBC
- ABC
- New York Times
- Washington Post
According to your model, I’d predict very low numbers. What would you guess?
Why is this relevant? Breitbart is essentially a mouthpiece for the far right, and has run incredibly positive coverage of Donald Trump (at times it gets quite hilarious - like when their coverage of Trump sharing top secret information with Russia focused not on the fact that Trump shared top secret information with Russia, but that the Washington Post had the audacity to publish the story to begin with!). Does that mean we should revoke its press rights? Or do they have the right to be a news outlet with a slant? Are you in favor of the fairness doctrine?
How would you even establish which news sources are “abusing” their position to help one party or another? And how would you ensure that, when the democrats regain power, they don’t use your justification in the same way on your favorite news sources? Remember, you may think that MSNBC is hopelessly biased in favor of the democrats, but the democrats think that Fox News is hopelessly biased in favor of the republicans, and they have all kinds of data to back up that assertion. Turnabout is fair play, as you established at the start of this post. Be very careful what you wish for.