They don’t have to take over the entire US, whatever that means. Just the Oval office, which they’ve done.
Others. Like the people at his rallies who have assaulted protesters and whose legal fees Trump claimed he would cover for committing said assault. Those others? Or others that have sent pipe bombs to various Trump detractors? How about the others who have written manifestos and committed murder using strikingly Trumpian rhetoric? What about those numerous others who have been emboldened to commit less horrific but no less racist acts against various minorities? And let’s not lose track of those others who despite everything Trump has said and done, will still proudly vote for him in the next election?
Are those the others you’ve been talking about?
Smear him? I quoted and linked him saying those things verbatim.
We already take in thousands of immigrants. LEGAL immigrants. Why should those who sneak across automatically get to stay for free?
Every country in the world has immigration laws. Why cant we?
We do, but a lot of them are dumb and counterproductive, and should be changed.
And democrats control major cities like Baltimore and Detroit with majority black populations and how has that been for them?
How has what been for them?
Do you really want to go with “Blacks make cities worse”?
He’s looking for the daily-double-down, Alex.
Is that the opposite of white supremacist? Democrat?
ETA: My point was that white supremacists don’t have to take over the entire US, whatever that means. And you counter with Yeah, but Democrats. Sheesh.
No I didn’t. Thanks for your input once again.
You did in post #193 and #195, but if I misinterpreted, then no problem!
I wasn’t talking about Trump. I’ve been talking about the supposed violent white supremacists named upthread.
They have been smeared as supporters of violence when they explicitly reject it. In the case of Molyneux he is verging on an extreme anti violence position. The only video I watched of his was when he was railing against Obama for laughing about and supporting American Blacks’ physical abuse of children.
Molyneux and Southern downplayed the nigh-genocidal violence of colonists against native Australians. They’ve also (of course) supported the violence-endorsing Trump and excused/defended his violent rhetoric. It’s a joke to call these dishonest, bigoted assholes “anti violence”. They’re very clearly tolerant and even supportive of certain types of violence.
And Gavin McInnes has explicitly said that he desires violence.
Your understanding of the views and rhetoric of these violence-endorsing assholes is factually incorrect.
Of course you will no more support the claim that they support violence than the other poster.
Trump is no more violent than Obama or Bush. Do supporters of Obama and Bush also get smeared as supporters of violence?
Wait… are you backing off your claim? Now you agree with me that Molyneux, Southern, and McInnes (who said, literally “I want violence”) are all tolerant or supportive of violence? If so, good for you for recognizing it, even if it’s obvious enough to the rest of it.
Ohferfucksakes! Do I have to do all your google homework for you?
Cite wherein Obama and/or Bush encouraged violence at rallies or defended white supremacists?
It’s obvious that they support violence? If so, you would support the claim. You continue to not support the claim.
Wait… let me guess… But IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN and DRONES!!!
When caught talking shit, change the subject. Amarite?
So you don’t believe McInnes’ own words (cited multiple times already) that he desires and supports violence supports the claim that McInnes supports violence?
It is funny that you will twist yourselves into pretzels to avoid supporting the claim that Molyneux and Southern support violence. Perhaps you should refrain from trusting biased secondary sources.
Believe it or not there are other ways to initiate violence, like starting wars.