Lol this is terrible. Trump was straight up sued - twice - for violating the FHA. Because he refused to rent housing to people that weren't white. How is that for passing the racist test?

"afaik the only litmus test for racism is whether you have actually raped someone to death with a Sambo doll while reciting Mein Kampf in the original German"

WTF



I think this account is real?

So how did trump get it

He claimed his daddy’s success as his own, and his daddy played along.

PokerDharma

Do you not remember what happened when Obama was president that might've made more people unemployed compared to now?

Also I don't get what black and Hispanic unemployment rates have to do with Trump, they have been trending this way since 2010.

the college republicans platform as quoted is nothing but reactionary white christian male garbage, i dont know why you're talking about your co-workers and ****

those kind of awards always remind me of a lot of the attorney awards that are given out. If a firm buys a couple tables at their fundraiser there's a very likely chance their new associate will suddenly be a "superlawyer" or whatever.

i have a bunch of totally derp lawschool friends that have racked up some of those awards and couldn't lawyer their way out of a parking ticket.

Lol it’s truly amazing how fast they made this switch, like within months of trump taking office. He evaporated 30%+ unemployment in a matter of months! Wow!

Like the mental gymnastics involved to go from “shadow unemployment is actually 40%” to “unemployment is 3.8% thank you god-king trump!” is so fascinating to me.

If you are a Muslim immigrant from certain countries, you don't get to see your family again.

If you are a refugee lawfully seeking asylum, you have your children ripped away from you and maybe even made into de facto orphans.

If you are gay, Trump wants you to be able to be fired for it.

Trump tried to remove the health insurance of millions of people, but thankfully he failed.

Trump is slashing environmental regulations that will result in thousands of premature deaths.

If you are a Hispanic citizen born near the Mexican border, you may have your citizenship challenged and then stripped, and then you get deported to a country you never knew and barred from returning.

If you are a black person, funding for combating white supremacist groups was eliminated. If you are killed by a cop, Trump assumes that you must have deserved it. If you want to vote, Trump will do nothing when the Georgia secretary of state illegally purges you from the voter roll.

If you want birth control, Trump thinks you should have to pay extra for it if your employer wants to impose his religious beliefs on you.

I didn't purposely ignore your question; please forgive me for not answering it directly. It's really close, and I think it probably depends on how it's promoted, and again may come down to whether or not the person promoting it actually has a power of people. So it's a matter of where we draw the line. At what point is it free speech versus true encouragement to act violently or criminally. I think a lawyer would have a field day with the word "should" here.

Maybe there's a spectrum here where wearing a Nazi uniform just makes for a ****ty person, isn't quite inciting someone to act violently, and therefore protected by free speech, but holding meetings where it's easily proven you now have power over a group of people to actually get them to act out is therefore a criminal act nor protected by free speech.

Tough spot for sure.

For the 100th time, it is absolutely awful to draw anything economically from unemployment alone in the 21st century. It actually meant something 30 years ago when unemployment correlated with wages and other factors, but it no longer does.

Well said and fair point which again is what makes this a tough spot to just rule on. My questions were more directed at justification to deliver someone a beatdown which a few people seemed to support. If we were to indeed make hate speech unprotected by the 1st amendment then we're onto a slippery slope of what defines hate speech. For example, there was a fairly recent case in Europe where someone made a remark regarding the Prophet Mohammad and was fined for it. The comment wasn't even derogatory or hateful. Just a comment that he took of a 7 year old wife, nothing more.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding anecdotes. I assume the comment regarding minorities praising him. I'm not sure how that is an anecdote rather than just hearing peoples' positive opinions of a person.

They weren't telling jokes / stories about him - many minorities genuinely approve of him. Did you see the reception they gave him at the Summit on Black Youth? They definitely weren't booing him.

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I assume this is directed at me. Did I make any statement that men were oppressed?

https://twitter.com/GOPTeens



I honestly can't tell if this is a parody account or not. What a world we live in.

Well said and I 100% agree with you. But does that justify you delivering a beatdown to someone you believe is spreading hate propaganda?

These slippery slope arguments are not good. Canada has hate speech laws. So does the EU. Both places are in much, much better places wrt discourse than the USA.

Dharma, is "I don't think beating up Hitler would have been justified" really the argument worth going for here?

How is our society sexist against males?

I never said, "Trump created the lowest unemployment rates...". I even dropped a disclaimer that he doesn't get all of the credit. I asked how he made it ****tier since the trend line is continuing to drop lower.

Also, I don't think a ton of us are advocating violence here. I mean, I wouldn't sneeze at national punch a Nazi day, but I probably wouldn't personally participate.

That @GOPTeens account is one of the best parodies I've seen for a while.

I tend to balk at generalizations that's all. My point being that not 100% of republicans are reactionary christian fundamentalists. Sometimes I'm surprised by the people that vote red. People that are absolutely NOT Christian.

And just to be clear, this isn't some left-wing woo-woo "He's killing people!" type thing, this is according to the EPA.

It's

Lol. I chortled.

If it's hateful enough yes. Inciting violence is a form of violence.