OT. The Donald Trump (and Politics) Momentum Thread

[H_20]

as maybe a STANDARD rifle. But everyone is NOT using a standard rifle. There are MIL- SPEC AR-15. In many units, your allowed a CHOICE of Rifle.

Um ,where are you getting your info from? AR-15 is not milspec.

What units are allowed a choice of a rifle?lol

You can have an AR made of Mil Spec Parts.






Second. ELITE units in the Military are NOT using the same standard Rifles as the Grunts are. If you did not know that, well you need to learn that.

Yes, it's well know you can modified an AR-15 but the gun itself is a civilian rifle.

Special forces are the exception lol.

[IllmaticHandler]

Um ,where are you getting your info from? AR-15 is not milspec.

What units are allowed a choice of a rifle?lol

You can have an AR made of Mil Spec Parts.






Second. ELITE units in the Military are NOT using the same standard Rifles as the Grunts are. If you did not know that, well you need to learn that.

Yes, it's well know you can modified an AR-15 but the gun itself is a civilian rifle.

Special forces are the exception lol.

No disagreement there. Listen I am not against the Gun, I don't even think it should be banned, but I think its a stretch of saying its not a Assault rifle. 30 round mags can fight a small battle. You can storm many things with an AR-15

[thebuzzardman]

If something is holding 30 round clips...what else was it designed for. No rifle designed strictly for Hunting comes with a 30 round mag.

Personally, I like to try and pin a deer down with suppressive fire, so I can close with it and kill it.

That does not change the fact that it was not DESIGNED to hunt deer. We are talking about designed for, not what it can be APPLIED for.

I was joking. It's clear that's it's application is military/law enforcement.

[thebuzzardman]

You can have an AR made of Mil Spec Parts.






Second. ELITE units in the Military are NOT using the same standard Rifles as the Grunts are. If you did not know that, well you need to learn that.

Yes, it's well know you can modified an AR-15 but the gun itself is a civilian rifle.

Special forces are the exception lol.

No disagreement there. Listen I am not against the Gun, I don't even think it should be banned, but I think its a stretch of saying its not a Assault rifle. 30 round mags can fight a small battle. You can storm many things with an AR-15

I guess technically an AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle" as the civilian version lacks full auto/burst mode. But still, a semi automatic can put out a lot of rounds - as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, technically not an assault rifle but pretty obvious it's intent is not hunting.

[IllmaticHandler]

Yes, it's well know you can modified an AR-15 but the gun itself is a civilian rifle.

Special forces are the exception lol.

No disagreement there. Listen I am not against the Gun, I don't even think it should be banned, but I think its a stretch of saying its not a Assault rifle. 30 round mags can fight a small battle. You can storm many things with an AR-15

I guess technically an AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle" as the civilian version lacks full auto/burst mode. But still, a semi automatic can put out a lot of rounds - as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, technically not an assault rifle but pretty obvious it's intent is not hunting.

I can accept that. It is a very fine line, of Assault or No Assault. I remember watching youtube videos like a year ago, one person called it a defense rifle. I can see that name being used as well.

[CJackson]

No I'm saying just because assault rifles are illegal doesn't mean criminals won't get their hands on them.

so what? that is not an argument against banning something

many of the biggest mass killings were done by crazy people who had easy access to guns and you don't know if they would have known how to acquire the weapons thru other means

This is a very flawed logic. I live in a country with the strict gun laws, therefore getting a gun illeagally is close to ompossible. When people dont own guns, black market just doesnt exist either. I would be terrifield if we had US gun laws, this idea of guns making it safer is as backwards as it gets.

Then you misunderstood me. I do not want assault rifles sold to the public at all. I was saying it is too easy to buy weapons and mentally unstable people shouldn't be getting their hands on these guys as easily as they have been doing so.

[CJackson]

Read this is you want a professional perspective on assault weapons

I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html

Quote:

"I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (using semiautomatic mode), there is almost no distinction."

[BKAY]

Who cares what the exact type of gun he used was? Y'all are arguing semantics. Our gun laws are broke and need fixing. You can argue assault rifle definitions all you want, doesn't change a simple fact.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[IllmaticHandler]

Read this is you want a professional perspective on assault weapons

I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html

Quote:

"I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (using semiautomatic mode), there is almost no distinction."

I think thats kinda how I looked at them from his last point. Its why I say they are assault rifles.


I do understand that Nut Jobs can get them, but I am also of the stance that I see them as useful in the hands of people who are not Nut Jobs.

Let me ask you this, I see that your against the sale of them, but what do you do about the millions that are already in people hands legally. Do you propose that the Goverment snatch those away? I don't think they can do that, as let say as easy as regulating how you sell them.


I think it will be a war if you say the ones thats owned, you can't have anymore. Then wouldn't the people who already have them, have a clear advantage over the people who can't buy them anymore if they don't own one.

[CJackson]

Read this is you want a professional perspective on assault weapons

I Used an Assault Rifle in the Army. I Don’t Think Civilians Should Own Them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/16/magazine/i-used-an-assault-rifle-in-the-army-i-dont-think-civilians-should-own-them.html

Quote:

"I’ve taught college English for almost two years now, and for all the fulminating against the culture of political correctness, I’ve never seen language scrutinized like the language of armaments and gun control. There is a mechanical difference between the M-4 I carried in Afghanistan and a civilian assault rifle, but given the way we trained and shot (using semiautomatic mode), there is almost no distinction."

I think thats kinda how I looked at them from his last point. Its why I say they are assault rifles.


I do understand that Nut Jobs can get them, but I am also of the stance that I see them as useful in the hands of people who are not Nut Jobs.

Let me ask you this, I see that your against the sale of them, but what do you do about the millions that are already in people hands legally. Do you propose that the Government snatch those away? I don't think they can do that, as let say as easy as regulating how you sell them.


I think it will be a war if you say the ones thats owned, you can't have anymore. Then wouldn't the people who already have them, have a clear advantage of the people who can't buy them anymore?

Don't know about reclamation, but the argument that people need to be able to load up to compete leads to eventual chaos. The tipping point will be rhetoric as in bad people getting power and fanning the flames of division among races and classes of people. So you have to plan ahead for the eventuality somebody wicked could trigger waves of violence by emboldening people to "fight back" as if it that is some kind of right.

Defending yourself is a natural right, not necessarily once written in law as in if a room full people see you sitting peacefully and a guy attacks you for no good reason and you hurt him in self-defense then you are in the right. But when you have the ability to unload rounds of ammo into groups of people, reason does not always prevail and self-defense can also turn into pure anger and a reckless disregard for life.

There are too many scenarios that say nobody should have assault rifles, but we cannot plan for them all.

So cutting off the availability to the public is the first step. No more sales.

As far as those already in circulation, you have two basic options probably. One, go get them. Two, offer compensation and require them to be turned in and make it a federal violation if you are caught with them later. Make them illegal and give people very easy ways to surrender them.

With # 2 you don't go on a hunting mission and form posses to hunt down guns. You just make it damn clear you will be considered a criminal if you busted with one. A registry would be made to tally up who returned their registered weapon so you will be able to track most of them. After a certain time frame, they will get summons to appear in court if they have not.

That leaves some hold-outs who want to square off against the feds and fight so you would still have a handful of OK Corral situations but most people will still have their rifles and glocks and rooms full of BS weapons so nobody will be crying them a river if they lose an assault weapon they got compensated for except the gun lobby and extremists. So basically fuq the extremists.

It can be done. Politicians are scared to lose votes, but very soon they will lose more votes if they don't do it and thats how it happens.

[CharlesOakley]

Arguing with a gun nut

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

[knicksrbake]

Arguing with a gun nut

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/743749184117870594[/tweet]

[TrueWarrior]

You never explained why the video with the black teen was relevant

How is it not relevant?

We got guys in this thread calling black men/kids like him Uncle Toms, because they actually speak clearly, are educated, pull their pants up, and don't want to be on welfare. It's anti-intellectual attitudes like that that will continue to hold back the black community, and they do it to themselves. You can only be successful if you look/act a certain way in certain fields associating with certain people as a black person. You don't see this anywhere close to as much with any other culture in America. It's easier for blacks to blame whites while they collect food stamps, drop out of school, shoot each other, riot/loot, and run out on their kids. (Yes I know not all blacks are like this. Shutup.)

I'm not denying blacks have dealt with a lot of racism in this country, or that it's not very hard to pull yourself out of poverty, or pretending I know what it's like to be black, but it's about time they start holding themselves accountable no? What is whining about "institutional racism" doing exactly? Where is the evidence and what are they doing to fix it if it's there? Yelling "BLACK LIVES MATTER!" and being general asses interrupting events is accomplishing what? Black lives also apparently only matter when a white cop kills one of them.

We have had a black president for 8 years now and the black community seems to just be getting worse, with race relations being terrible, and Obama just fans the flames. Black communities have overwhelmingly voted democrat for the past 50 years, and even have many black leaders in public office/the police force (see Baltimore), but nothing is getting better.

Here are 5 facts about black on black violence:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/

The mainstream American media is, again, happily hitting the Black Lives Matter crack pipe in its pernicious pursuit of high ratings. These blood-lusting junkies were nowhere to be found when, with haunting predictability, Chicago news headline after headline detailed the carnage that has consumed dozens of communities in that city where black men kill each other with terrifying regularity.

Where were these Black Lives Matter protesters after the slaying of Chicago’s little Tyshawn Lee, the 9-year-old lured into an alley and shot to death by a black man seeking gang-related vengeance against his father?

Did little Tyshawn’s murder at the hands of a black gangster–an all too common occurrence in Chicago–not warrant wall-to-wall news coverage or Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson-style calls for “justice”?

No.

Why?

Because the ugly truth behind #BlackLivesMatter is that black people killing other black people does nothing to advance its political power in the same way that one white cop killing a black criminal can.

Despite the media’s overindulgence on white cops killing blacks, there is still a far-larger amount of black bodies being sent to morgues by black killers. Here’s five devastating facts, liberals can’t deny, that prove it.

FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.

According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.

FACT 2. Black People (mostly men) commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime.

In 2012, white males were 38 percent of the population and committed 4,582 murders. That same year, black males were just 6.6 percent of the population but committed a staggering 5,531 murders.

In other words: black people–at just a fifth of the size–committed almost 1,000 more murders than their white counterparts.

The figures above highlight a horrific truth that black racialists and white liberals routinely ignore: Lawbreaking black Americans, young black males particularly, put themselves in close proximity to (mostly white male) police officers at rates sometimes five to 10 times higher than whites. This is a recipe for disaster. Thusly….

FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.

DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides.

In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

There are five times fewer black people than white people in America and, yet, they consistently carry out a larger share of the crimes? Given this rate, it’s no wonder that there aren’t more assistances where cops kill black criminals.

FACT 4. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.

There have been almost as many deaths in one American city as there have been in the two major wars carried out by the U.S. military this century.

Chicago’s death toll from 2001–November, 26 2015 stands at 7,401. The combined total deaths during Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2015: 4,815) and Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan (2001-2015: 3,506), total 8,321.

FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.

University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.

Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.

What do you have to say about those facts? At what point is enough enough?

Meanwhile Asians and Indians actually make more money in this country than whites, so where's their "white privilege"? Why don't they get shamed? Could it be their culture? Hmmm.

Here's a couple more vids for the heck of it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5D2RvIQwQE[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9MCvK2MGs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZRj_a_2qM[/youtube]

You know what I find very funny too? How so many posters in this thread are incredibly quick to paint all Trump supporters racist and all cops as murderous pigs out for black blood, yet will throw out the "NOT ALL MUSLIMS!" crap when it comes to Islam.

[BKAY]

Arguing with a gun nut

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/743749184117870594[/tweet]

All you do is post memes and links. Do you have any original thought in your brain?

You see how easy it is to do
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/30/viral-image/viral-flawed-post-compares-honduras-switzerland-gu/


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[knicksrbake]

Arguing with a gun nut

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE[/youtube]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/743749184117870594[/tweet]

All you do is post memes and links. Do you have any original thought in your brain?

You see how easy it is to do
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/30/viral-image/viral-flawed-post-compares-honduras-switzerland-gu/


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Honduras indisputably has the highest homicide rate in the world, with estimates ranging from a rate of 90.4 intentional homicides per 100,000 people in 2012, according to the United Nations, to 103.9 per 100,000 population, according to the World Health Organization.

Switzerland’s homicide rate is among the lowest in the world, but the meme goes too far in saying it’s the very lowest. By the UN and WHO measures, the most recent Swiss intentional homicide rate is 0.6 deaths per population.

[A]ssault weapons were banned in 2003, and it’s been technically illegal to carry guns (openly or concealed) in public since 2007
So what more does he want?
At this point Honduras has established everything the Brady/Bloomberg/Obama axis has (publicly) shown its hand for. How much more “moderate” must people get?

http://www.examiner.com/article/honduran-gun-report-fails-to-recognize-truth-own-facts-and-numbers

[BKAY]

"There’s really no point in comparing the challenges of Honduras, a lower middle-income country in Central America beleaguered by corruption and violence from the drug trade and gangs, to Switzerland, an affluent country nestled in western Europe.

The post ignores a litany of cultural, political and socioeconomic factors that play into gun violence, or a lack thereof. The gross domestic product per capita, to name one, is $2,435 in Honduras and $84,733 in Switzerland, according to the World Bank.

Honduras doesn’t "ban" citizens from owning guns.

The Small Arms Survey says the most popular gun in Honduras is the 9mm handgun, "which can be legally purchased and owned" — undermining the meme’s claim that Hondurans are banned from owning guns. Because this weapon is banned in nearby Mexico, the UN has said the difference in laws fosters the exchange of illegal weapons between the countries.

But, again, Switzerland does not require "citizens to own guns."

The government issues a gun to men for their mandatory military service, but the gun is taken home under "carefully controlled conditions without ammunition," said Mikton, the WHO officer who is also Swiss.

"As soon as they have finished their military service — typically around 30 years of age — they have to return the gun," he said.

Swiss gun laws are more strict than the post implies, though less tough than some other European Union countries. Swiss law requires mandatory background checks on civilian handgun purchases and licenses for the concealed carry of weapons, and it bans automatic weapons."



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[CJackson]

You never explained why the video with the black teen was relevant

How is it not relevant?

We got guys in this thread calling black men/kids like him Uncle Toms, because they actually speak clearly, are educated, pull their pants up, and don't want to be on welfare. It's anti-intellectual attitudes like that that will continue to hold back the black community, and they do it to themselves. You can only be successful if you look/act a certain way in certain fields associating with certain people as a black person. You don't see this anywhere close to as much with any other culture in America. It's easier for blacks to blame whites while they collect food stamps, drop out of school, shoot each other, riot/loot, and run out on their kids. (Yes I know not all blacks are like this. Shutup.)

I'm not denying blacks have dealt with a lot of racism in this country or pretending I know what it's like to be black, but it's about time they start holding themselves accountable no? What is whining about "institutional racism" doing exactly? Where is the evidence and what are they doing to fix it if it's there?

We have had a black president for 8 years now and the black community seems to just be getting worse, with race relations being terrible, and Obama just fans the flames. Black communities have overwhelmingly voted democrat for the past 50 years, and even have many black leaders in public office/the police force (see Baltimore), but nothing is getting better.

Here are 5 facts about black on black violence:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/

The mainstream American media is, again, happily hitting the Black Lives Matter crack pipe in its pernicious pursuit of high ratings. These blood-lusting junkies were nowhere to be found when, with haunting predictability, Chicago news headline after headline detailed the carnage that has consumed dozens of communities in that city where black men kill each other with terrifying regularity.

Where were these Black Lives Matter protesters after the slaying of Chicago’s little Tyshawn Lee, the 9-year-old lured into an alley and shot to death by a black man seeking gang-related vengeance against his father?

Did little Tyshawn’s murder at the hands of a black gangster–an all too common occurrence in Chicago–not warrant wall-to-wall news coverage or Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson-style calls for “justice”?

No.

Why?

Because the ugly truth behind #BlackLivesMatter is that black people killing other black people does nothing to advance its political power in the same way that one white cop killing a black criminal can.

Despite the media’s overindulgence on white cops killing blacks, there is still a far-larger amount of black bodies being sent to morgues by black killers. Here’s five devastating facts, liberals can’t deny, that prove it.

FACT 1. Over 1,400 more black Americans murdered other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968.

According to FBI data, 4,906 black people murdered other blacks in 2010 and 2011. That is 1,460 more black Americans killed by other blacks in two years than were lynched from 1882 to 1968, according to the Tuskegee Institute.

FACT 2. Black People (mostly men) commit a grossly disproportionate amount of crime.

In 2012, white males were 38 percent of the population and committed 4,582 murders. That same year, black males were just 6.6 percent of the population but committed a staggering 5,531 murders.

In other words: black people–at just a fifth of the size–committed almost 1,000 more murders than their white counterparts.

The figures above highlight a horrific truth that black racialists and white liberals routinely ignore: Lawbreaking black Americans, young black males particularly, put themselves in close proximity to (mostly white male) police officers at rates sometimes five to 10 times higher than whites. This is a recipe for disaster. Thusly….

FACT 3. Despite making up just 13% of the population, blacks committed half of homicides in the United States for nearly 30 years.

DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black people committed 52% of homicides.

In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. Whites accounted for just 31 percent.

There are five times fewer black people than white people in America and, yet, they consistently carry out a larger share of the crimes? Given this rate, it’s no wonder that there aren’t more assistances where cops kill black criminals.

FACT 4. Chicago’s death toll is almost equal to that of both wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined.

There have been almost as many deaths in one American city as there have been in the two major wars carried out by the U.S. military this century.

Chicago’s death toll from 2001–November, 26 2015 stands at 7,401. The combined total deaths during Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003-2015: 4,815) and Operation Enduring Freedom/Afghanistan (2001-2015: 3,506), total 8,321.

FACT 5. It would take cops 40 years to kill as many black men as have died at the hands of others black men in 2012 alone.

University of Toledo criminologist Dr. Richard R. Johnson examined the latest crime data from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports and Centers for Disease Control and found that an average of 4,472 black men were killed by other black men annually between Jan. 1, 2009, and Dec. 31, 2012.

Professor Johnson’s research further concluded that 112 black men died from both justified and unjustified police-involved killings annually during this same period.

What do you have to say about those facts? At what point is enough enough?

Meanwhile Asians and Indians actually make more money in this country than whites, so where's their "white privilege"? Why don't they get shamed? Could it be their culture? Hmmm.

Here's a couple more vids for the heck of it.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5D2RvIQwQE[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9MCvK2MGs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ZRj_a_2qM[/youtube]

You know what I find very funny too? How so many posters in this thread are incredibly quick to paint all Trump supporters racist and all cops as murderous pigs out for black blood, yet will throw out the "NOT ALL MUSLIMS!" crap when it comes to Islam.

I asked you why it was relevant, right? Was that me ranting about racism or inequality? Nope. It was me saying OK please tell us what this means. And I asked because I had really only seen you either post videos or go off on a rant. And also because you and ill are in some kind of personal feud and it is better to just explain yourself and get out of that.

I don't really see an explanation of relevance though. I see your grievances and your anger and why you are fed up with a certain type of social expression. But nothing really about why this is relevant to the Trump campaign.

For instance, if you are pissed off that people have said supporting Trump makes you a racist, then how are you going to address that logically when you have all of this other baggage that is clearly wrapped around your frustrations over race relations and your anger over your perception of some group's sense of entitlement? That is really hard to do. So let me help (I'm not setting a trap, I mean that).

To talk about Trump the racist you need to talk about Trump and not you for starters.

If you separate your feelings first, then ask these questions:

1. Does Trump target racial groups or not?
2. Does Trump question the integrity of others based on matters of race?
3. Does Trump advocate policies that depend on racial identification for implementation?

Now, in this thread there has arisen a consensus among those who do not support Trump (which is not the same thing as a group with a single ideology, just those who oppose Trump and even those who may be neutral).

And that consensus has been, in answer to those questions, YES Trump is waging a campaign largely based on racial antagonism. Therefore the consensus has been he is a racist. And his party leadership has publicly stated his comments are racist.

Now why does supporting Trump make someone a racist?

Ask yourself: Is there a difference between between being a Nazi sympathizer and a full blown Nazi? I'd answer No, not in any meaningful way. If you support people who support genocide then it is fair to say you support racially based genocide.

Now is Trump a racist? Of course he is. It is well documented. There would be a lot more amicable debate in this thread if the case so far has not been every single Trump supporter unable to admit basic facts about this man's character and his tactics.

So it is hard to be empathetic towards a whole group of people who as a whole have demonstrated a remarkable ability to live in complete denial of some basic facts like Trump's overt racism.

Therefore, how can you not expect people to assume that an overt denial Trump's racism means you condone it and therefore you are just as racist as he is.

It is practically mathematical as in Trump is Racist = You Support a Racist = You Don't Even Have The Ability To Admit He Is A Racist = You Are a Racist

When a guy is so overtly cynical in his manipulation of the baser elements of human psychology, you don't get to cherry pick what you like about him and say you think it would be cool to have a businessman for a president and you don't care about his racial attitudes.

To even begin to approach that possibility, you'd first have to come to grips with Trump's racism and distance yourself from it, but if your only response is to get more inflamed over being called a racist then you are stuck in a cycle of resentments logic can't even begin to reach.

I see that because you are SO SICK of things in a way that shows you are extremely angry at anyone who feels entitled to treated a certain way based on historical precedents of abuse. So I see you to inflamed by this to deal with separating who you are from who Trump is and you falsely fan the flames of additional ill-conceived resentments over being called a racist.

So step back and deal with Trump's racism and then maybe we can deal with your resentments if that is even on the table. But I'm afraid that is all I can respond with because you did not explain the relevance of that kid in the video.

A black Trump supporter is merely that, a black Trump supporter. There is no system of logic that either validates the racism of a candidate or proves the candidate is not racist due to the existence of a black supporter of the racist candidate. All that proves is everything has outlying elements that are not typical.

The reason it appears the video was relevant to YOU was you felt the young man was talked down to by a PC black man. So be it. They could have handled it differently. But that is about all it validates.

So maybe your real topic is modes of discourse since you are very angry about SJW, but don't make anyone here out to be a SJW because we right call Trump a racist and nobody is baiting Trump supporters when we challenge them to admit what Trump is. The man is a vulgar buffoon and either you really do hold that clown in high esteem or you see him as an opportunity to stick it to those you don't like. I think it is the latter mostly to be honest. But, if that is the case, also don't kid yourself about his racism or what your alleigance to him means about that.

And finally, SJW is not the majority. It is a loud minority and these are the days of gay rights and trans-gender stuff and black lives matter and it will shift into something else in a few years. Seriously, get over it. Not everyone is aware enough to see their own narcissistic traits when they obsessively campaign for their group's rights. Yes, it makes a lot of them seem like smug, intolerant pricks while they argue for tolerance and acceptance and they can't see the irony of it.

Be a bigger man and see they don't understand that, but most of them are either very young and inexperienced and have yet to develop compassion for others outside their own self-identified group or they are not very well informed and will continue to be stuck in patterns of resentment and accusation.

Are you going to let yourself be someone who is stuck in a pattern of resentment and accusation and pretend Trump does not have some fairly evil tendencies or pretend those who oppose Trump are the same SJWs you despise?

There is more than Us vs. Them and Trump is all about creating boogeymen and building a mob. Many of his followers are some of the worst Americans I've seen in a long time and in ways that make SJWs look like harmless sheep. This is dark and ugly stuff Trump is messing with and I don't think you have been ready to acknowledge it. Maybe you will. Good luck with that

[Rasho Brezec]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5D2RvIQwQE[/youtube]

As cheesy and poorly acted as it was, Fresh Prince adressed some difficult topics very elegantly.

[TrueWarrior]

...

Appreciate the long reply. So you have nothing to say on BLM/black culture/facts which is what my post was mainly about then? You also didn't explain to me how I didn't show the relevance about that video at all. It's very straightforward. You wrote a lot of meandering words for something that could have been said in much less too, to be honest.

This is my stance on Trump though:

I recognize he is rough around the edges and sometimes takes things a wee bit too far, but he doesn't mince words and is cleary a much stronger leader than Hillary or Bernie. One criticism is he should never have encouraged any type of retaliation to protesters the few times he hinted at it, but Trump supporters have been a WHOLE lot LESS violent than the protesters. It's quite amazing the restraint most Trump supporters have shown actually, as the protestors usually provoke them and then cry foul if they say anything back. The left justifies it all by thinking Trump is literally Hitler though.

I believe Trump is very good for the future of right in this country. He doesn't really care about gay marriage, religion, and all that much which the right has used to alienate young voters for too long. There is an alternative-right popping up now as a reaction to the extreme left, which has gone off the rails, and Trump is capitalizing on it. People are tired of the sh*t, and aren't going to just "get over it" because it's only getting worse.

Trump doesn't target racial groups. Mexicans and Muslims aren't races, and illegal immigration and islam are problems that need to be spoken about. You can post some things that you think proves Trump is racist, and I can post many that says he's not. People are going to believe what they want to believe on this. Obama says a lot of stupid things about race too. We all have biases.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92lesEfuE8[/youtube]

^ Guy is plainly... a moron. Thought he was supposed to bring the country together, but all he's done is move us apart while continuing to spew false/twisted facts like a tumblrina. So it's not just a "loud minority". It's all the way to the President now.

Trump goes 0-100 in the other direction as far as politically correctness goes, and isnt afraid to polarize people. The PC/SJW garbage is a bigger issue than you're making it out to be, and Trump will end it. That "loud minority" is permeating every aspect of our lives now, and unless it gets checked it's only going to get more insane. Hillary encourages it. I can't imagine how it's like to be in college now with all this false rape hysteria for example. What a miserable country this is becoming.

You guys talk about Trump being a fascist a lot, but I see more fascism from the left with all the thought policing, censorship, and SJWs. Users on Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter along with searches on Google are being censored unless you're a zombie for the regressive-left agenda. This is a problem my friend, even if you completely disagree with what they're saying.

Here is a very popular gay Trump supporter who I assume/hope you know by now.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uae_ze77FPc[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksRB4faMU7o[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0obFgSeiQFw[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9Zz3IzU8AE[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IawEMxTroBk[/youtube]

Milo has had his twitter account taken down multiple times lately just because he's a gay, charismatic, anti-feminist, anti-SJW, gun loving Trump supporter who goes against the narrative and isnt afraid to talk about Islam, especially in relation to gays. Shutting down opposite discussion is not American. While Reddit has openly changed their algorithms for the first time in a decade because the Trump subreddit was getting too popular. Meanwhile when the Bernie subreddit was on the front page all day every day for months they didn't blink an eye. If you agree with these things, then you are the fascist.

I'm not going to be around tonight to respond to you if you respond back. Maybe we'll continue this tomorrow.

Edit: One more thing... Very funny to me how nobody here seems to like Hillary. Not one person is talking her up, because you guys know you cant defend the sh*t that crooked witch has done/said either. Easier to just try to make Trump look like Mussolini, and ignore her .

[Zooropa]

Thankful that And1's aren't anonymous so I can check the first page of this thread and make a mental note of what I'm dealing with and then dip.