The New York Times is a far-left rag, everything they say is extremely suspect.
Sure - so look for other sources. I've found lots… won't take you long! Including from the county itself, explaining this... painfully clearly... so everyone would understand.
Don't take my word for it... check! And stop just listening to a tiny group of people who have been constantly proven to be wrong.
@bc22:
Infowars was mentioned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars
Use your own judgement in viewing that link or any link that comes up in regards to that site and the owner/host. Wikipedia itself is of some dispute but it is easy enough to research elsewhere.
The same Wikipedia that has feminist edit-athons to put articles in feminist slant?
The same Wikipedia that I proved isn't always factual?
Nice to see you agreeing with someone of a different view to yours!
He literally said this to you… so... yep! The very same Wikipedia.
Hey, you admitted you weren't interested in reading the threads here to educate yourself.
If you claim to watch news from YouTube, then you should have some sort of idea about liberals advocating tribunals, blacklists, and whatnot to punish conservatives.
I am very happy to condemn people on either side who have done awful things. What Emanuel Samson did is awful. But you're wrong (again) for saying that race is the only difference between the two people. That's… an incredibly naive thing to claim... and so easy to disprove it's almost childish. Did they have the same parents? Same upbringing? Live in the same country their whole lives? Go to the same schools? Have the same teachers? Think the exact same way, just have different colour skin? Clearly... no.
Typical liberal deflecting from what I was saying.
You didn't hear about him because he is black and shot up a white church in a racist hissy fit. MSM didn't cover it because it doesn't advance the liberal agenda.
If he was another Dylan Roof (aka white racist), then everyone would know his name.
Typical right-wing lack of understanding, misrepresentation and misquoting…
And again incorrect (wow... you really don't have people checking you very often, do you?).
What I said was that I don't have time to read through all the posts on this forum. You can check - it's in black and white for you, just a few posts up. Rather different from not being interested. Please do not misrepresent what I say to suit your own agenda - I will make you look silly if you do. And I would prefer to have an adult conversation about these things.
I do indeed claim to watch NEWS from YouTube... not spurious nonsense claims made by conspiracy theorists. So no, I've come across no NEWS to the nature of what you're claiming. I still think there are likely to be people like that out there - but not newsworthy. A few people being silly is hardly worthy of my attention... there are so many silly people out there.
Nor are they something that could or should be used to demonise a group of people from which you don't agree with. That's lazy and childish.
I'm not deflecting at all from what you're saying - I'm taking what you're saying and showing you there is significant nuance to it that you're not representing, simply because you want to make your point. I've warned others of this in the past and I will warn you of it to: do that to me and I will pick apart your point relentlessly until you're proven to be wrong so clearly it's inescapable for anyone to not notice. Up to you... but I would strongly encourage you to come up with better arguments.
I have heard of Emanuel Samson. I'm not sure why you think I haven't... I do condemn him for what he did (revenge for racial injustice is not good cause to harm others - and certainly not murder others). But if you think revenge for injustice is the same as racial hatred... then you are misguided at best, or being willfully ignorant at worst. All the articles I can see from a simple google search on Emanuel Samson are on normal main stream media outlets... I don't know why you think it wasn't (this is super easy to disprove your claim... just Google his name...).
And why has Dylan Roof become more well known? Well, it's probably for a number of reasons - none of them because he was white and not black. I can think of 2 reasons right off the bat:
1. It was a racially motivated attack... which is much more hated by the general populace than a 'revenge for racial prejudice' attack...
2. He killed 9 people instead of 1... (mass murderer instead of 'just' a murderer)
There are probably more, but I'm a good representative for what others will no doubt see of the same two crimes.
Let's get this right, you had a private convo with her, which you have no proof of, so you label her a racist.
Ah, so you are a remoaner.
The EU is shite.
Don't change the subject - again - stick to the topic. I know you're being proven wrong - again - but you need to stick with what you've said.
No, it wasn't a private conversation - there were a number of people there - and you're right, I have no proof of it. And yes, I do label her a racist. I have enough direct evidence to support my belief in that. Sadly I can't share it with you to prove it… but I would be happy to stand up in court and recount my tale, where I accused of defamation.
That's the problem, you don't know anything about what is going on or has gone on. As you said, you don't have time to educate yourself on it. That is the problem.
Liberals are extremely low information people. They don't know anything outside of what MSM tells them. You guys should ditch your normal news outlets and watch YouTube to get your news. There are plenty of news outlets there that source their materials quite well.
Your media outlets are omitting things that make your side look bad, so you never, ever hear about it except in places like this.
As an example, everyone knows who Dylan Roof is, but virtually no one knows who Emanuel Samson is. They both did the exact same thing with the same outcome. The only difference is the races are switched. Emanuel Samson is black and shot up a white church in a racist hissy fit. He also survived this arrest. Dylan Roof is the poster boy for "white privilege" because he killed a bunch of people and survived his arrest.
It justified saying that all liberals are the same when you people refuse to call out your side's bad behavior.
LOL, you really must have your head buried in the sand. Universities are cesspits of liberal indoctrination.
Yet more baseless and misrepresentative statements… let's try on what you like doing to you:
right-wing, alt-right zealots are typically low information people who don't understand anything, aren't very well educated and believe in every conspiracy theory spouted by every non-credible person they come across but don't believe anything from anyone credible... because... reasons...
Would you like me to treat you as if you're just another of these uneducated, racist, right-wing nutters? Or would you like me to continue to treat you as a sensible person who can have a reasoned debate from different points of view?
If you want to continue to badly characterise the opposing view points, then I'm really not sure why anyone would bother with you. You simply aren't worth the time if you aren't able to have a more nuanced conversation.
I get a lot of my news from YouTube - but I know how to vet my sources. Sources who don't produce the sources of their own information are scrapped. Sources who don't produce reliable reporting, are scrapped. Sources who are not very intelligent... are scrapped. I also try and listen to sources of information from views I don't ascribe to, to make sure I'm not trapped in an echo chamber.
Do you do all these things too? Or do you just believe in whatever you hear that you happen to agree with??
I am very happy to condemn people on either side who have done awful things. What Emanuel Samson did is awful. But you're wrong (again) for saying that race is the only difference between the two people. That's... an incredibly naive thing to claim... and so easy to disprove it's almost childish. Did they have the same parents? Same upbringing? Live in the same country their whole lives? Go to the same schools? Have the same teachers? Think the exact same way, just have different colour skin? Clearly... no.
It is NEVER justified to make the claim that everyone other than you is all the same... particularly when you complain so vociferously about people doing the exact same thing to you. You are either going to be better - or you're going to be the same as they are. Which is it?
And... can I ask... have you been to University? What did you study?
The goal of socialism is communism. Liberals talk all day about how socialism is great, and that the police are an example of socialism. Well then they want to defund the police. With wellfare, the pond eventually dries up, it's over. It's similar to democracy when the masses realize they can vote the largesse of the treasury into their own pockets, and there's nothing left. Socialist systems are in place to create dependency, and liberals defend their socialist nature, but they never wonder, "maybe the socialism that's been introduced, is the problem."
Why do we have so many problems with our wonderful socialist systems? Could it actually be that we never had any of these problems until socialist systems were introduced? That's what I think. We never had the problems we do today, because of the socialist systems put in place, like social security, which obviously is about to dry up. It's socialist security and every year the pay check is less and less. The ultimate result of such bullshit is that they'll be left with a measly 100 a month. It's already gone down many times. Socialism is very different from populism and claiming that populism is white nationalism needs to be established, it so far is merely a belief system. There are white nationalists who are populists. But they're not the same. And claiming that Trump is a white nationalist and that all his supporters are Hitlerian is ridiculous. Nothing of the sort. You'll get a $100 check each month to pay your rent, then you'll get the corrupt police when you don't pay it. That's what's coming.
Cuz socialism sucks. The real problem is that you are labeling populism as racist, when it has nothing to do with race. If Biden said the N word 13 times on live TV, it doesn't mean the entire dem party is racist. They are, but just making a point. You are trying to say that populism is racist, and that's just what the globalist powers that be want. Socialism IS Communism, and Populism is NOT White Supremacy.
And in regard to you asking about what defines a communist, it's clear that Biden and Harris and Obama are blatant communists, as is Bernie. They have all the same symbols and logos of the "Dawn of a New Day," Communist Manifesto, crap. Just look at all them talking about the "Dawn of a New Day." They always use that Communist phrase, and always use the same logos that Stalin did. It's obvious.
I'm sorry, but your whole premise here is demonstrably wrong…
Socialism does not = Communism (that's why they have 2 different ism names!). I'm guessing you've never studied political theory... else this would be really really obvious to you. I recommend that, if these things really do worry you, you go out and learn as much about these things as possible - ideally from people who know about them. Saying Socialism is Communism is... akin to saying fire is water... to those of us who do know a fair bit about these things...
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, France, Greece... these are all socialist states (ish... it's complicated... they mix socialism with capitalism and that means some people see them as socialist, some as capitalist... depending on your world view!) - and none of them would ever go to communism.
Let’s have a reliable source then please.
Let me guess, you are talking about crap like CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc, etc.
Ideally, a reliable source is a source that has been shown to at least have a majority of the time reporting accurate information. And, even more preferably, it will have been reported in numerous outlets and able to point back to the state legislature having made the same announcement…
So far... nothing. Only InfoWars is claiming this story... no one else besides the InfoWars copy and paste people.
The AP do not, indeed, make the call... the state legislature do. And both GA and PA have certified the result... and no source on any of their own government websites are claiming they are going to overturn that decision (which would be quite a remarkable thing...).
Ok, we need to establish what evidence is… and what it means.
Evidence is not a claim: as an example, I can claim that there is a chocolate teapot orbiting the earth at 20m miles… if you asked me what evidence I have for this, and I say: "I've said it, don't you see the evidence!"... you would... rightly... ignore me. If I produced images captured by a number of different telescopes around the world showing you a chocolate teapot orbiting the Earth at 20m miles... then you might believe it!
Giuliani (careful of your spelling!) has - once again - just made a bunch of claims. The same claims he made before. The same claims he did not make in court, to avoid perjury. He's only ever willing to make these claims in public where he can say whatever he wants. But ask him to take this into a courtroom and prove what he's saying… he has not done so.
This video is just another 18 minutes of Giuliani saying the same things he has since the beginning... nothing new or exciting or worthy. I wish I could get my 18 minutes back...
You're right - it is just a theory… or a claim. He never provided any evidence to support this belief and has since never provided any proof. So it seems like it was just another of his spurious claims.
I'm certain people on his team prepared - evidenced by the number of lawsuits that were filed shortly afterwards. The problem is the proof... which a court will require. And, in court, perjury is a thing... so they can't lie. And in every instance where a case was brought before a judge, the prepared and organised team produced... nothing. And/or admitted that their claim was... not quite right ("there was a non-zero number of people in the room" being the most famous response).
So I think you're right - they did prepare. But sadly for them, there was nothing actually that went wrong and so they couldn't continue.
Adam Kochenderfer, from the Detroit Free Press:
In Oakland County’s 15th County Commission District
Wasting my time looking this up and serving it to you on a silver platter.
6,000 votes switched because of proven fraud
So if you have actually looked this up… as you claim... you would know the reason for this was not fraud, but error... and the error was human in origin... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/technology/no-software-glitches-are-not-affecting-vote-counts.html
So perhaps it wouldn't be such a waste of your time to actually look this stuff up, rather than desperately making claims about things that haven't happened?
He didn't pack the court. Roosevelt? Obama left them vacant. That was dumb. He obviously was setting the stage for the Freemason Trump to take power. This is all just a show. The Electoral College is there so we in say, Dallas, Texas, or Toledo, Kansas, don't become subject to the United States of Commifornia, where everyone is fleeing. However, in the instance that the Legislture (Pelosi) or the majority wants to contest, each State will send 1 elector, meaning Trump wins. You just don't like the system. How about Trump's tax cuts for 65% of people? Biden will eliminate that. Talk about authoritarian. Just for starters.
This is just an unclear stream of consciousness… I'm not going to put it together sensibly for you. Would you like to try again and make it clear what you are attempting to say? Maybe you were tired when you wrote this...
The electoral college was not set up for you to not become "the United States of Commifornia" - whatever that is... it has a very clear reason for it being introduced. You should look into its history... and why it's there... and you would immediately know then that it is indeed, as I described it... antiquated and outdated.
LOL.
Priti Patel (UK Home Office Sec.) is a racist because she is against illegal immigration.
Typical liberal mindset.
Look, if you're going to do this and create straw men like this… I'm going to say things like:
Typical right-wing Alt-right type mindset, who doesn't understand my points, doesn't ask questions about my points to get that understanding, makes assumptions to support their world view and make themselves feel better and tries to be 'right'...
Would you like me to do that? As I doubt we will get very far if we do...
So, by now, you should have realised I don't say things without the ability to back them up. That should have been your first clue...
Second, you have created a straw man argument... this is fallacious and doesn't make you look very clever. I did not say that Priti Patel was racist because she was against illegal immigration - you did. I said she was a racist.
No, Priti Patel is not a racist because she is against illegal immigration. Priti Patel is a racist because she is a racist. I've spoken with her in private (unfortunately!) when I was amongst a group of people that she trusted and she revealed her racist views to that group. She's not terribly bright, so she wasn't aware that some of us might not hold the same views as her, but were keen on hearing her views. This was whilst she was in Mrs May's government before she was sacked.
Granted this is hearsay - not really evidential! But it does give me my belief that she is a racist.
I would strongly encourage you not to misrepresent something I say in the future. By all means, call out when I say something that I can't back up and support… but I hope, by now, it will be rare.
As to illegal immigration and being against it... personally, this is a silly standpoint. It's illegal for a reason... meaning that all law-makers agree it's something that they are against... else they would just all it... immigration. Patel has no answer for illegal immigration, and indeed is one of the people who caused the UK to leave one of the institutions which was helping it reduce illegal immigration.
At no point have we denied anything??? Are you serious? You're whole statement is a denial. Of the obvious.
As you still don't seem to understand this… let me spell it out for you:
1. You stating something is obvious, does not mean it is the case...
2. You stating something is the case, does not mean it is it the case...
3. You believing something, does not make it true...
4. Evidence is something which is hard to refute, not easy to refute...
Those 4 things mean: not one piece of evidence has been provided yet which makes the vote in any way look invalid.
There are loads of claims - none backed up with evidence. There are a lot of people who believe it was invalid... but they've not come up with any evidence either.
So you either believe one of these two things:
1. The Trump campaign is intentionally losing its court cases... and wasting millions of dollars on recounts... for fun...
2. You are so much smarter and more capable than everyone in the Trump campaign as you've managed to find all this 'proof' that the vote was rigged, but somehow... none of them are using it...
So please, which one is it?
:-X
Nice work! You finally got ManHandler to admin he said something incorrect… 
(ManHandler: I'm teasing you... keep your cool).
So ManHandler... is your position that the data has been updated, meaning the article is no longer valid... or that the data on their site is wrong and showing the wrong thing... ?
I'm not attacking queer people. I'm gay. You are actually the one being offensive associating gay people with dick suckers. Dick sucker could be a girl. It's over half the population. It's like me saying "you stupid sheep." Why don't you find it offensive when liberal technocrats say we're all "weak? (like sheep)." They do. I've been through the training. Doesn't that mean sheep to be suckled upon? Cows to be milked? You think the politicians in the democratic party care about you? Not saying I think the repubs do either, I know neither one do, and we're fighting each other over their words. Did the church brainwash you into thinking that dick sucking was bad? Did they tell you that sucking dick is gay?
Sucking dick is all great here I thought… I didn't think that dicksucker was the same thing as the f word. Does cocksucking mean homosexual? Or is there a difference? I know some gay dudes that don't liek to suck it, and some girls (not from experience). It was made in jest. Get over it. More feigned victimhood and attention seeking and virtue signaling. That's all you guys know how to do. Noted, I said twit **** and I won't use that word again. That word is not acceptable on this forum, but cocksucker seems to be ok, and that doesn't mean the f word, the 6 letter word.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.... the use of the term cocksucker, is because in that position you are vulnerable. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, and if you feel shame from the word, that's your problem. I know it makes you feel vulnerable, hence the reason you're so offended by it. So you wanna not feel the shame of putting that juicy dick in your mouth... if you feel shame, that's your problem. I knew you did though, hence the reason I trolled you. There. Now you understand I'm pressing your buttons. And you guys said you'd never respond to me again, but now you're all on the pounce. I control you. Like a marionette. Just like that big slurpy you intend to suck upon salaciously like the cock hungry bitch that you are.
I'm offended by your stereotype that gay people and dicksuckers are the same thing, and offended by the idea that you'd try to twist my words around to say that's what I represented. I was not talking about gay people when I called the FBI dicksuckers. I was talking about the FBI being incompetent and why do we have them if lawyers can expose all this election fraud but they aint got nothing to say. You want to defund-ing the police? There they are. Now you're defend-ing them? You call the police fry em pigs like bacon. That's the police. Suddenly they're good. There was a celebrity recently who called for defunding the police, then she had to call them. Police are "good" when you call it "socialism" then it's bad so defund it. Just nothing works with libs.
You can't win either way. You're either gentrifying or white flighting, you're appropriating or ignoring, etc. You're the borg. You have no individualism, just a bunch of blue hair and tattoos like you're special.
I see you've created yet another straw man argument here… this is not the reason the man gave for being offended. If you read what he wrote, you will see why he finds it offensive. Just because you don't doesn't mean someone else won't.
So your entire paragraph is... meaningless. It's literally arguing about something the person didn't say and didn't mean.
See, liberals have forced "queer" on us and called us names if we complain. But that's ok because they are the "good" people who get to decide everything.
I got into a Twitter argument with the head of HuffPo about this and she demanded that I am a homophobe for being against "queer" despite me pointing out the history of the word which is why so many of my age hating it.
So, being older… you should also be aware of how language changes. What might be inoffensive to you, could be highly offensive to someone else... and vice versa. Also being older, you're the one who will have to accept what the younger generation wants - as they are less familiar with this concept... and it's also down to you to educate them about it. (I recommend: telling stories!)
I would imagine, rather like most people who come across you here, the Head of Huffington Post was probably going by what you are like as a person... and associating that with homophobia, rather than you disliking the word queer. I also suspect that you only explained latterly why you disliked the word. (I could be wrong, but I'm guessing, based on our interactions here... happy to be proven wrong!).
You can't defend yourself on any position. You're the racists. The group Proud Boys is actually run by a black dude. You're a bunch of liars. The fact that you don't have anything relevant to post is the problem. Why don't you post a topic about your ideology and see how people react? I want to hear what you think, cuz that tells me what I think. I don't want to censor like you by labeling this as white nationalism. The problem is you act like this is white nationalism when you can easily click "New Topic." It's ridiculous. You act like you're not welcome here but you don't say anything. It's not white nationalism. That's stupid. That's your belief system, not facts. It's you guys who are the racists.
Here's an example. You think it's ok for Mexicans to jump over the fence. Why can't they just come across the border legally? I guess they got something to hide. Everyone knows there's a lot of crime in Mexico. Trump said rightly so that they're criminals, because if they weren't criminals, they'd just go through the border patrol like the non-criminals do. He was talking about the mass crime coming from those who crossed the border illegally, and it's serious. It's got gangs and drugs and rape. But oh it's so racist right? No, it's you who have the stereotype that all Mexicans are poor and helpless and therefore everyone of them should be set free. Just today there was a serial murderer who came into the country a third time, because of liberal policies in California. It's sick. You're sick.
1. Yes we can - I've done it to you plenty of times already…
2. Proud Boys being run by a black person does not mean they are not racists (they can still be racist if they are black... shocking, I know...). In the UK there is an Indian decent, highly educated woman running the home office - who is definitely a racist.
3. I haven't lied to you once - but if you're going to say an entire group are liars because of individuals in the group, you should probably exclude Trump from your group... as he's, so far, one of the worst liars in the history of the US presidency... only worse as a liar because it's so public. His lies are being flagged everywhere... which is... pretty bad!
4. "we don't have anything relevant to post" ... hmmmm... I think your view of what's relevant and my view of what's relevant are going to be two different things... aren't they? So you might not view it as relevant... but I don't really think that matters, as it is relevant to me. And you - are unable to make this claim. It's a foolish claim - which does you no good.
5. You demonstrably do not want to hear what other people think - it's clear from your reactions to everything I've been patiently trying to explain to you. You deny it, try to ignore it, tell people you're not going to read it... basically, you do everything short of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la la la la la" at the top of your voice... This... doesn't encourage anyone to want to talk to you or with you. I've already wanted to stop bothering wasting any time on you at all because of this reaction. If you do truly want to engage with people, this route will ensure you never do.
6. Labebelling something and censoring it are not the same thing... obviously. They're even different words so you can tell...
Labelling: putting a label on something so you can discuss it
Censoring: removing something from view so as to prevent others from seeing it
I do encourage labelling - and yes, if you post white supremacist gibberish, I will label it as such. If you post hate speech, that's against the law and can get you in trouble - but they are not the same things. There is an argument for why certain things are labelled as hate speech and removed (and you get in trouble for them) - and that's the thing called the Paradox of Intolerance. It's incredibly difficult to get one's head around, but basically… if you allow certain freedoms of speech, eventually you end up with no freedom of speech. So... to protect freedom of speech, you have to curtail some freedom of speech... a paradox! This is why hate speech laws exist. And all sensible people support them - and also support the constant monitoring of them to make sure they do not become overly censorious (a task for all demos to undertake, constantly!). So I applaud and encourage people to always be vigilant for overly censorious laws and rules - but always also with the mind to the paradox outlined above. If you are a good citizen, this is what you must and should do.
5. We don't act as if something is white nationalism... but... if it is around... people often don't want to be a part of it (unless they are convinced by it's arguments... and that's certainly not me!). And most people would rather not be around it and not waste their time with it. I don't mind a lively debate… and I can easily hold my own against very capable interlocutors. But that is not everyone. Most will simply - leave. So... again... your choice: make the forum a more welcoming place for views other than your own, or be isolated to your own little bubble of 2 or 3 people who only say the same things as each other and you never make any friends. Entirely up to you
6. A belief system does not make a person a racist... unless that belief system includes an 'I'm better than you because of things I have no control over' clause. So racists are people who believe, for example, that being white means they are superior to black people. This does not follow if the person believes their political outlook, or their intellectual capability or anything else which they themselves have worked on and improved (there's an argument there about if they think their intellectual capability is somehow inherent in their skin colour... which we'll just leave for now, but suffice to say that's not at all what I'm talking about - education is!). So again, you're using a word incorrectly. I would really really encourage you to stop doing this. With a word like gaslighting (which you continue to use incorrectly elsewhere), it's understandable... as the concept is a bit more complex. But with racsits/racism, you really should understand the principles behind those words. There really is no excuse for that. So it's either lazy thinking which made you make the claim above that someone's political views made them a racist (which is wrong) or you have a significantly greater lack of understanding of these topics than I first thought... which is concerning, and really doesn't make it easy to believe much of what you say. If you want to improve trust and get people to believe in what you say first... then you really must work on the words you use.
So now... your example. And there really are so many worrying holes in your example that... it is almost pointless to go through them all for you. But I will make a start.
Believing all Mexicans are criminals is the same silly failure of logic as believing all Liberals are Comunists, all Trump supporters are racists and all Biden supporters are 'true believers' (or whatever silliness you called them before). This is so patently silly that... it really doesn't deserve our time to go over and you should be saddened you needed to use that claim to make your case. BUT - you try to redeem yourself by suggesting that 'only the criminal' would want to enter the country illegally... well, that is an interesting claim! So... we need to look into it. Why do Mexicans (and other citizens from the countries they are in) want to go to the USA and what would possess them to do that illegally, other than their own criminality? Well... thankfully, there are people out there who have answered this for us! Here is a good start: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/why-don’t-they-just-get-line - in short… there is no such line, or it's woefully inadequate for the numbers involved. So... they can't do what you are suggesting they do. And so... turn to illegal means. So that takes care of your initial (flawed) assumption and (flawed) logic. And we're only 4 lines in...
Line 5: "Everyone knows there is crime in Mexico" - yes... and everyone knows there is crime in the USA. So what? What has that got to do with the price of eggs? Unless you're retreating to your previous, now disproved, claim and also somehow insinuating that, because there is crime in a country, all people from that country must be criminal? I sure hope that is not the logical leap you're attempting to make... else maybe we should label you a criminal as well, because there is crime in your country?
Line 6 is a repeat of lines 1-4... and is already shown to be nonsense...
Line 7: So... this claim is that, effectively, illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime in the USA than local native citizens, correct? Well, aside from the federal crime of having entered the country illegally (so excluding that statistic from the data), we can see that... it's not the case. Immigrants are less likely to commit a violent or property crime - and we can also see by the data that areas with higher immigration have lower cases of violent or property crime than areas of lower immigration. I can find no data at all that support there being any other type of crime wave occurring - and I can't find any statistics on drug use. So… please do feel free to provide your carefully selected and tested sourced information that proves there is:
a) a crime wave from Mexican illegal immigration
b) that Mexicans have a higher propensity towards crime (any type) than natives as illegal immigrants to the USA
For the avoidance of doubt:
But it is a particularly interesting conundrum, one which I would love an answer to!
Why would a majority of white women vote for someone who has, for his entire life, denigrated women?
Some of it could be explained by racism - sure. I'm certain some of them were, just by demographics. But it couldn't possibly be all of them. (the fact that they are accommodating and or acquiescing to racists is a different charge that would be difficult for them to get away from… but that's another matter).
I think it's interesting to look at the campaigning that was done by the Trump Campaign targeting white women specifically: it talked up to their fears about their communities and housing being destroyed by the 'Democrats wanting to build more affordable housing' (no point going into whether any of this is true or not for the purposes of this question. The Trump Campaign did this - and it's on record, so we can at least see that).
So I think it's much more plausible that white women voted for Trump out of fear and the want to protect what they have at the moment (status, income, tax advantages, etc), which is a perfectly understandable and rational position to take to the ballot box.
It's also interesting to see the split when you break down white women into whether they were more college-educated or not - and in that case, only slightly more than half of white women voted for Biden if they were college-educated than if they weren't. So again, no real demonstration that it was a matter of education either.
Leads me to think that, largely, they were protecting their status quo - and were willing to go along with a group of people who are racists, and to support someone who is a misogynist - in order to do that.
I think this makes much more sense than the rather base explanation of "they were Nazis".
Educated white females voted for Trump 50+%.
Do you think they are nazis because they are white?
Um, no? Why would anyone think that?
Have a read through the entire section and see what is said and by who.
Liberals refused to call out their own for the violence and when I finally convinced a few to do it, they got shit all over by their fellow liberals.
Liberals are calling for tribunals to punish Trump supporters. Even before the election, they were calling for communist-style re-education camps.
Let's not forget that your side has done nothing but call my side every IST and PHOBE there is, plus many other names.
Ok… I don't really have the time to go back through every post... but I think you make my point for me beautifully.
Some Trump supporters are racists - not all Trump supporters are racists. These statements can (and are) both true.
Some Liberals are calling for tribunals to punish Trump supporters (not seen this myself, but I can imagine some people have done this) - not all Liberals think that tribunals need to be called to punish Trump supporters. Again, both these statements can be (and are) true.
To use a broad brush approach to your opposition is - pointless. It can be disproven super easily... and stifles conversation, not improves it. This is the case for anyone who does it - regardless of their political or social leanings.
So... I can see you're particularly upset about some violence you have had done to you or have perceived to have done to you... or believe has been done to others from those who you think of as 'Liberals'. I don't know terribly much about these incidents, so if you go through and explain to me how you see it as having happened, I'll take a look and give my view on it.
I have seen posts by some... let's just say, well-meaning but not very clever... people calling for re-education camps. I understand why those people think that's something that should be done, but... I think everyone can agree... it's not. A good solid education would be good to see being given to all USA's citizens - but that's to advance them well in life. Education systems do not teach liberal beliefs exclusively - indeed at university level (certainly in the courses I've ever been in) the tutors are at pains to attempt to present all sides equally and encourage the students to form their own opinions, based on evidence, which they can rigorously defend against challenge. This is a key tenant of university-level education. It is also the item most noticeably absent from those without a university education - most of the time (not always, some learn it through their life experience). And even then, belief can sometimes trump reason - and override that training... such that some people still believe things which are demonstrably untrue. Sadly some people who are anti-Trump are not as well trained as this - and so fall into the same errors of thinking and logic that other no-to-Trump people can see him making.
But none of this means that 'Liberals' are all like this. That's a failure of logic. I could forgive you for saying: "all the Liberals I have met and known are like this" - but that would be, by your own admission I'm sure, an unrepresentative sample size and... meaningless.
I don't particularly like taking sides in things, often finding that working through disagreements ends up with a better overall solution. But for the sake of your view - that 'one side has called you and your group every IST and PHOBE' name there is... again, this shouldn't be a brush to tar everyone with, just because there are a large number of those exact people in the group to which you feel you belong. I, personally, could not stand to be amongst them because I am not one of any of those things - and don't put up with being around people of that sort. But that does not mean everyone who does support the same person as those people, is also a whatever it is the others are. eg: you might be a Trump supporter, but I will go by what you do and say to determine if you are a racist or whatever else. I've not interacted with you long enough to know yet.
BUT - you do have a tendency, which is unhelpful to your thinking, of labelling everyone else and tarring them with the same brush... just as some of them do to you. You have made the same error of logic. So... if you want that to NOT happen to you... my suggestion would be to NOT do it to anyone else. And no, resulting to that just because someone else has done it is... not a good enough excuse, as I'm sure you know (and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have worked with your parents either... "but he/she did it first!").
So if you want to actually engage in conversation - start with finding out why about something that you are finding difficult... not reacting in the same way.