Posts made by royalcrown89

Irrationality (noun): the quality of being illogical or unreasonable.
Irrational (adjective): not logical or reasonable.

"Barack Obama is still currently the president of the US" = irrational.
"Private citizen Hillary Clinton is more powerful than the actual president in 2017" = irrational.
"Russia actually changed physical votes in the 2016 election" = irrational.
"#45 hasn't been the president since January 20, 2017 12:00 PM EST" = irrational.
"It is currently the year 2016" = irrational.

Many people in the president's administration may be highly incompetent and use doublespeak to confuse us, but we cannot allow that to change who we are as rational individuals. There are situations where you can be on more than one side; however, you cannot change reality to fit your perspective. My above examples are what you people have been doing on here, attempting to change reality. That is irrational no matter how you try to deflect from that fact, it is irrationality by actual definition. No, it is not still the year 2016. No, Hillary Clinton did not win the election. No, #45 actually is the legitimate president. With all of those truths, why are you attempting to deny the president's accountability using Hillary Clinton or any of the other aforementioned irrational reasons?

@Frederick:

@raphjd:

It's your side that keeps the "not our president" and "yeah, but if Hillary won" crap going.

There are still teachers/professors calling the election an act of terrorism/violence on the people of the US.

You guys are just as bad as the Tea Party wanting the country to fail to prove Obama was bad.

With Obama.. even though I despised him, I never hoped for the country to fail.  I dreaded how much damage Obama would do and whether the country could ever recover from it.  During the 8 year regime of Obama, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that Obama promised to end within the first year of his presidency are still going on.  ISIS was born and has thrived.  Terrorism has spread all over the world.  The debt went from $10 trillion to nearly $20 trillion. 
One reason Trump got elected is because there were enough people that realized that the USA could not endure another 4 years of the misguided policies of liberals like Obama.   The single biggest issue that boosted Hillary to nearly winning the election was her vow to make  taxpayer funded, guilt-free abortions, on-demand.. even up until the day of delivery.  Hillary must be very proud!   Evil Bitch!

@raphjd, 95-98% of what you say is wholly irrational…you know the rest.

@raphjd and @Frederick, Hillary being proud or whatever you think she is once again is irrelevant to anything going on right now. She did not win, there are no "what ifs" in reality. People speculate all the time but what effect does that really have on our reality? He is our president and he is doing an awful job. He is surrounded by highly incompetent people which is why the world is testing our country right now. Yes, both sides have been doing the "he's not my president" crap; the Tea Party and far-right racists did it with Obama and now left-wing extremists are doing it with #45; but the reality remains he was legitimately elected and is our president. He's in the White House and he is making decisions that can effect all of our lives and the lives of people around the world. He needs to be held accountable and I'm glad the media is doing just that. This recent Sean Spicer situation is proof that the media has gotten their act together and will hold this administration accountable to its atrocities.

You can shout until you are blue in the face, Hillary Clinton is not our president and you cannot use the "idea" of her to lessen the impact of #45's incompetence. That is very irrational because we live in reality and we deal with the real world, not make-believe. The "idea" of Hillary running in 2020 or running for mayor has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with #45 making important decisions based on God knows what.

@Seripus:

Considering that most democrats (corporate democrats) still view her as the leader of the party I'd say that discussing her actions is quite relevant and rational. Especially now that she's resurfaced and is looking to run a third time for president. Can you imagine, the woman that lost to DJT is going to challenge him again in 2020?!

It is possible to hold both DJT accountable and HRC. They're both horrible. One of them just doesn't hide it very well.

Is it 2020, sir? Has she said anything to make you believe she is running again? Where is your evidence? Where is video documented footage that she is running for president again? Is she the president right now? How can her actions effect us if she's not in the White House deploying troops, signing deals, meeting with our Congressional leaders? This is irrationality at its finest.

Edit: Hillary Clinton isn't the leader of anything. I am a registered Democrat and Hillary Clinton does not represent me, she is not my president, she holds no office with any power or influence in this entire country. This is my point. You people are attempting to say a private citizen who holds no office or official titles is the alt-president of the United States which is irrational. We do not have an alt-president, we have one president.

@Frederick:

@raphjd:

@royalcrown89:

The overwhelming majority of raphjd's opinions are wholly irrational based on wild generalizations. He uses the same exact examples to back up many different arguments, such as some situation where black students made white students walk through a creek or something and BLM protesters interrupting a Bernie Sanders rally. He uses very, very rare instances to generalize whole populations of people; hence, why I consider 95-98% of what he says to be wholly irrational. That's basically the best response you can give to him on here because once you try to bring rationality into the argument, he deflects. He's often deflected to arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which is why this thread (that he started by the way) was about the Pepsi ad and you're now arguing about domestic violence, feminism (he hates women with a passion), and gay bashing. I just use the typical 95-98% irrationality statement with him because it's basically the only response you can give to almost anything he says. Very rarely he'll make sense, but most of the time it's like trying to have a discussion with a real life Archie Bunker minus the occasional sympathy.

LOl, so says the person that screams RACISM any time a white person disagree with black people no matter the topic.  You are just another anti-white racist who is guilty of the dictionary fallacy, so you can claim that you can't be a racist.

I pointed out 2 proven lies by a Congressman, so I am racist in your eyes.    His being a liar has nothing to do with me or racism.

You are a liar and you know it.    I hate  feminism, not women and equality.     I have pointed out a countless examples of ways feminists fight against equality.   The only thing people like you have to refute my points is "you're irrational".   People like you have your religion, but haven't actually read your bible so you are clueless to the facts.

As for the topic shift, go back and read the thread, without your usual white hating racist lenses, and see that it shifted by itself.

I get attacked similarly.  Like you, I often point out actual examples to substantiate my comments.  In return, I get accused of being irrational, delusional, etc… yet they offer nothing credible to dispute my assertions.

I feel compelled to add something to your comments regarding people of a certain race.  When i was living on campus at a University, there was one fraternity comprised of people of one particular race.  If they ever had a fraternity comprised of exclusively white members, there would be lawsuits and a riot!  Anyway, this one fraternity was unlike any other in that they forced their pledges to undergo severe hazing and public humiliation.  Everytime that fraternity had a party, you heard about it because someone was always getting raped or shot.

Excuse you, but I have offered rational arguments to counter raphjd and HE DEFLECTS OR GOES OFF INTO SOME IRRATIONAL TANGENT ABOUT HOW MUCH HE HATES WOMEN. Also, you simply cannot use one instance to generalize an entire population of people unless you are talking about situations involving genocide and other mass scale instances of brutality. Show me a situation where MILLIONS of white people were massacred or held against their will by black people in America and were forced to endure awful second-class treatment at the hands of black people for decades to the point that it still has disastrous effects on the population of white people to this very day and I will agree with you 100%. The fact is you have no situation that even closely mirrors it; therefore, you resort to using very small and very concentrated isolated incidents to generalize an entire population of people. IRRATIONAL. I'm not going to spend a large amount of time trying to bring rationality to irrational arguments, so instead I write you off as irrational and do not take you seriously. Do the same to me, I do not care. I'm done wasting time on people who refuse to (1) use reading comprehension on here and (2) stop deflecting and actually discuss the topic at hand.

@Dene:

@raphjd:

How am I enabling domestic violence?!

Telling you to do your research DOES NOT enable domestic violence.     You making domestic violence a gendered issue is what enables women to abuse their partners; male or female.    This shows everyone that you are a self loathing feminist/vaginalist cuck.   70% of one sided domestic violence is by women, not men.

I fucking hate domestic violence with a passion.  How fucking dare you tell me I enable it by telling you to look at the facts.

++++

There's a long list of false flag hate crimes, even before trump.

In Charlotte, we had a White Supremacy hate crime incident.   Oh wait, it was a black guy who did the hate crime.

We had 2 cases of head scarf hate crimes, but they turned out to be lies by the girls.

We had the muslim woman whose car was grafittied.  Oh wait, she did that herself and was caught on CCTV.

It was a black member of the church that set it on fire.

Let's not forget all the rape cases.

Tawana Brawley and her mother was 30 years ago and fake hate crimes, for whatever purpose, have exploded.

Here's a site that lists 298 fake hate crimes in the US, but they admit it's no where near all of them;  http://www.fakehatecrimes.org  In fact, #298 is the Charlotte case mentioned above.

I was the victim of a hate crime 25 years ago.   These scum that you are excusing makes a mockery of what I and other real victims went through.

I did not excuse anyone… tell me where i excused anyone for this stuff (and tbh - how dare YOU mate, I never excused ANY behaviour, so do not ever say that again - in fact I ABHOR all of it but you seem to only mention small parts of it)

wow.. thanks for nothing - so much for debate

298 fake hate crimes out of millions that have occurred and you want me to suddenly think all victims are lying ? - I have seen hate crimes AND Domestic violence first hand - you aren't the only victim in the world

do your own research on BOTH sides - not just 298 extremist situations

I NEVER made it an gendered issue.. I said SPOUSES - read what i wrote to you and fred.. seriously.. you are yelling and being freaking obnoxious and accusing me of things i never did or said - that is not on at all - argue with me about things i said but don't ever say i said it was just a man on woman thing - i am more than aware of both sides not being angels

thanks for nothing

As many have mentioned - look up the word cuck.. you'll see what you are saying.. ironically, to gay men.

I hope you are happy with yourself.. what you said was way out of line.. angry or not - "not a safe space" or not -nothing i said deserved being spoken to that way or making me out to be some kind of apologist for hate crime or domestic violence by misinterpreting my words

my guess is most of you will either laugh or call me a snowflake - couldn't care less - don't attack the writer, especially for things they never said, attack the argument/opinion

The overwhelming majority of raphjd's opinions are wholly irrational based on wild generalizations. He uses the same exact examples to back up many different arguments, such as some situation where black students made white students walk through a creek or something and BLM protesters interrupting a Bernie Sanders rally. He uses very, very rare instances to generalize whole populations of people; hence, why I consider 95-98% of what he says to be wholly irrational. That's basically the best response you can give to him on here because once you try to bring rationality into the argument, he deflects. He's often deflected to arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which is why this thread (that he started by the way) was about the Pepsi ad and you're now arguing about domestic violence, feminism (he hates women with a passion), and gay bashing. I just use the typical 95-98% irrationality statement with him because it's basically the only response you can give to almost anything he says. Very rarely he'll make sense, but most of the time it's like trying to have a discussion with a real life Archie Bunker minus the occasional sympathy.

It doesn't matter that Hillary "came out of her cave" nor does it matter that OTHER PEOPLE speculated that she will make a run for NYC mayor. Hillary Clinton is a non-factor now and she is not our president, which means the actual president needs to be held accountable to the things he says and does. Hillary can go on TV and scream for 2 hours straight, it would not change the fact that so many of you #45 supporters refuse to hold the actual president accountable. Why are you so focused on an irrelevant person that's just as irrelevant as Mitt Romney or Bob Dole or Al Gore? One of the few recent losing candidates that has any ounce of power and/or influence is Senator John McCain because…you know...he's a freaking senator in the US Congress. At this point, any post about Hillary Clinton doing this or that is just irrational ranting.

Once again, it is the usage of the "idea" of Hillary that I am arguing against here; that and #45's incompetence. He is the president and his voters and supporters are not holding him accountable to the things he has said and has done since taking office. When you question them, the unified response is, "But what about Hillary Clinton?" as if you all think she's the president also, and well, it doesn't work like that. We have one president and he is grossly incompetent. The quicker you own this mess the quicker we can get to coming together and fixing the mess. It's already happening here in South Carolina where we've had meetings with voters from all parties and positions on the political spectrum. Our senator, Lindsey Graham, mentioned #45 and he was booed endlessly by all of us in person. He has no more constituent meetings scheduled due to how chaotic it got. People are angry, including those here who voted for #45. The majority of folks there were his voters and they booed his name every single time it was mentioned.

Something very disturbing to me on here lately is how much those of you who voted for and/or support #45 keep using the "idea" of Hillary Clinton to argue against our criticisms of #45. You also refuse to hold him accountable for the things he says and does as president. First, you all need to come to the realization that he won. He is legitimately the president of the U.S. no matter what the Russian investigations end up revealing, if anything at all. If his campaign colluded with Russia, that does nothing to change the fact that he won the electoral college and there is no evidence that votes were manipulated. Second, Hillary Clinton lost; therefore, your constant pointing to her to counterbalance #45's shortfalls is wholly irrational and defeats whatever your argument is. Third, you cannot make the argument that she "would've or could've" because we live in reality, not some dream world where we can read fortunes or determine what actually would've or could've happened. We have an unpopular, arguably incompetent, president and no matter how much you try to argue, "But what about Hillary?" it changes nothing about the fact that we have an unpopular, arguably incompetent, president.

You can shout it until you're blue in the face, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is not our president and she is not making decisions in the White House that will effect our everyday lives.

Frederick, the election is over and it's extremely counterproductive to keep going on as if we're still in the year 2016. Your argument falls flat due to the fact that Hillary Clinton is NOT our president and never will be. Why is it so hard for people who voted for and support #45 to hold him accountable to his words and actions? He won the election so either you yourself don't see him as a legitimate president or you believe we're still living in the year 2016; both of which are irrational beliefs. He is the legitimate president and we are in the year 2017. Why are you still debating the 2016 election now that it is over?

Lightening the mood with a joke or two helps mellow out the irrational rants, but it's still sad to see someone so deep into an alternate reality where Hillary, self-proclaimed pantsuit aficionado, won the election and needs to be impeached for allegedly taking PB&J sandwiches from Haiti children while calling them super predators :crazy2:

Why isn't 'fake news' in the title of this thread? After what happened in the last election, disinformation needs to be tagged as 'fake news.'

Yep, all of this disinformation and craziness is so relevant because Hillary Clinton is the 45th POTUS and Democrats run the Congress. It's sad that Agent Orange voters and supporters live in a false reality where Hillary won and must be stopped; meanwhile, in the real world we're stuck with a HIGHLY unpopular president with strange hair that's dangerously close to getting us involved in a war with North Korea  :crazy2:

@brianboru72:

@magentas:

Heck, this is a GAY website. Supposedly everyone here is a gay man, yet there are GOP loyalists here. the GOP is a party that has been against every single bit of LGBT rights since Stonewall, and there are gay Republicans. Even now, the GOP wants to end sane-sex marriage, and make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gays, as long as they pretend their bigorty is religious.

For a gay person to be a republican is like a Jewish person being a nazi, or a black person being in the KKK, or a black person being a republican, or a woman being a republican, or an atheist being a republican, or a Muslim being a republican…

Wow- I couldn't agree with this more! I was just talking to some friends about how much it baffles me that there are gay men who can blind themselves to all the hatred and vitriol that the right throws at us, and they still insist on supporting the very groups that want to take away gay rights.  ???  I can't figure this out.

And a special shout out to wohdin for your comment using eschatological conspiracy theorist- three words that I never expected to encounter at a gay porn download site- you made my day, sir!  :laugh: I couldn't agree more with your sentiments as well. 

While there are reasons why gay men would support the Republican party (mainly economic reasons) I too do not understand the fascination with wanting to see fellow gays lose rights in this country. It's almost heartbreaking and I've seen so much of it on here. I'm married and it bothers me that there are so many gays on here who would just love to see me lose that right and not be able to make important decisions that hetero spouses get to make all the time after they get married. How is it identity politics to want to have the right to have my husband listed as my husband in my will and the same with me in his? How is it identity politics to want to be able to make crucial healthcare decisions as many spouses have to do? God forbid something bad happens, and I can't make those important decisions because Republicans would have done something that causes the SCOTUS to declare same-sex marriages illegal or pass some kind of loophole legislation to undermine same-sex marriage. We all know it's only a matter of time before the Republican party falls back to the "ban the gays" stance to unite their party again once they hit those 2005-2006 level approval numbers and they got pushed out of Congress in many elections across the country. Barack Obama is gone and we're the default they used to unify their base with prior to Obama being elected. The Republicans simply cannot be trusted at this point. These are the same Republicans that fought tooth and nail against an important hate crime bill with Matthew Shepard's name on it.

I knew it was doomed the moment people in my state booed former Governor, current House member Mark Sanford and Senator Tim Scott at a recent town hall. I've attended meetings and marches with Republicans, Democrats, Independents, etc. and right now, everyone is very angry with the Republican party. There have been maybe a handful of #45 voters who are still supporting him tooth and nail, but the hundreds of people at most of the meetings I've been to are really upset. Was at one the other night and one of our state legislature reps was shouted down by a large group of elderly who are upset about the possible Meals on Wheels cuts. South Carolina is a safe red state but stranger things have happened, look at Virginia and North Carolina in recent years. Things aren't looking too well here for the Republican party for the first time in my lifetime.

You should not have been suspended for anything you posted. I'd hope you hire an attorney to help you regain access to your posts because you made no threats to anyone and Facebook shouldn't be able to ban people for making arguments or stating their opinions.

However, I'd hope you were this vocal when Senator Mitch McConnell and others launched vicious attacks on President Obama after the election, such as stating that the Senate and Republicans' number one goal was to deny Barack Obama a second term; the unprecedented obstruction the Republicans led for a very long time to block President Obama; and the countless investigations into the Obama administration that turned up absolutely no serious evidence of wrongdoing. #45 himself, although a private citizen then, launched an attack on Barack Obama claiming he wasn't born in the U.S.

@koliko6:

@royalcrown89:

@raphjd:

NOPE.  You do not get to control this topic.

You said anyone who voted for or supported Trump is guilty by extension.  Of course I'm not surprised at all that you're butt hurt because I use that same logic against you.

Since that is your claim, then it applies in all cases.  Or are you just doing this to scream "racism" again?

AND AGAIN, you don't get to dictate what is and is not allowed in this thread.

If you want to apply my logic to me, that's fine.

That's not what I'm arguing against. I am arguing that the election of #45 has inspired white nationalists and white supremacists to come out of hiding and take pride in their racism, and I used Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and his recent white nationalist and white supremacist language as an example. Instead of refuting my claims, which you must agree with, you've made attempts to equalize things that Hillary Clinton has allegedly supported (without any substantial proof to back up those claims by the way). Why are you trying to minimize the effects of white nationalism and white supremacy instead of refuting that they actually exist and they have damaging effects on society? Is it because Steve King's words are so well-known? Is it because the Republican party in Congress has given him chairmanship of committees and subcommittees despite his support for white nationalism and white supremacy? There has to be a reason why you do not take white nationalism and white supremacy speech coming from an elected official seriously. Is it because you yourself support it?

I condemn the things you accuse Hillary Clinton of yet I have not heard you condemn the hate speech from white nationalists like Steve Bannon, Steve King and #45 himself. Where is your condemnation? Where are your sources that prove what I'm saying about King, Bannon and #45 are wrong?

Accusing Steve Bannon of being a "white nationalist" is just delusional and detached from reality at this point. The only people that think Steve Bannon is some kind of anti-semite or racist are the uninformed that are insulated from facts. Even the ADL walked back their accusations of Steve Bannon being anti-semitic or racists. Literally the ONLY "proof" they could come up with is that the comment section on some articles had some racist trolls in them, which by that logic would also mean Youtube is responsible for racist trolls commenting on youtube videos, and would also mean youtube endorses racism.
https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/stephen-bannon-five-things-to-know
Trump has condemned racism, white nationalism, etc more times than any of us can count. I certainly condemn racism, in ALL forms, but the left has yet to condemn their own racist anti-white, anti-semitic people. The left was getting ready to prop up well known anti-semitic racist Keith Ellison as their DNC chair, and NOBODY condemned his hateful speech which emboldened anti-semitic "liberal" racists. Or the fact that the left supports openly racist policies such as BDS movement which has emboldened anti-semites everywhere. The left in America will go the same way as Corbyn's party if they continue to refuse to condemn racism on their OWN side.

“Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe. Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that’s just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements.” - Steve Bannon

You gave the same exact argument as Steve Bannon himself, which is another attempt at deflection. "Our side does it, but so does the left," is not a substantial argument to refute the claim. Why can't Steve Bannon come out against the disgusting things that a congressman in a position of power in our country's legislature (Rep. King) has said recently? He has not effectively come out against white nationalism and white supremacy, meaning no one outside of that realm believes him whenever he attempts to refute the claims made against him. You refute claims by proving your case, and he has yet to prove his case. Why didn't he say there's absolutely nothing about the "alt-right" movement that promotes white nationalism and/or white supremacy? Do you see the problem?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/quotes-from-steve-bannon-trumps-new-white-house-chief-strategist/

{Since this is already off-topic}
As for this constant bringing up of left-wing issues, I can agree there are racists and even anti-Semites on the left. The film "Get Out" showed just how ugly the left can be. There are many troublemakers on the left and there are even disgusting, vile beings on the left; however, those people are often kept from gaining any kind of power in anything. You brought up Keith Ellison. Is Keith Ellison the current DNC chairman, or are we living in reality where he didn't win? What committees have Keith Ellison as a current chairman? Is he the minority whip or minority leader or anything in the House of Representatives? Being deputy chair of the DNC doesn't come with some great policymaking power and he's not the one on TV making the case for Democrats, the actual chairman Tom Perez is. Well-known pervert Anthony Weiner was forced to leave Congress BY DEMOCRATS. Republicans, the party of Christian values, rarely do the same thing. I posted a thread a little while ago about a recent Republican state legislator in Oklahoma who was not pushed out of his seat by any of his Republican colleagues or the Republican voters after participating in child prostitution. The left deals with their troublemakers by removing them or keeping them from getting into positions of power, the right doesn't.

@raphjd:

I am calm.  Not sure why you'd say I'm not.

RC is claiming guilt by association, while ignoring his side's guilt by association.  Actually, he's demanding  :blink: that the topic is forbidden in HIS thread.

How is asking you to refute my claims "ignoring my side's guilt?" What you are trying to do is minimize what this topic is about by bringing an irrelevant argument. Like I've said, I made an argument backed up by reputable sources and instead of providing your own sources to refute those claims, you tried to deflect and you never even attempted to refute my claims. You know what that means? 95-98% of what you say is wholly irrational based on either some mild form of mental illness or just old-fashioned racism. Hard to discern which it is or if it's a combination of both. <<< my standard reply to you from now on (I gave you ample chances this time)

@raphjd:

NOPE.  You do not get to control this topic.

You said anyone who voted for or supported Trump is guilty by extension.  Of course I'm not surprised at all that you're butt hurt because I use that same logic against you.

Since that is your claim, then it applies in all cases.  Or are you just doing this to scream "racism" again?

AND AGAIN, you don't get to dictate what is and is not allowed in this thread.

If you want to apply my logic to me, that's fine.

That's not what I'm arguing against. I am arguing that the election of #45 has inspired white nationalists and white supremacists to come out of hiding and take pride in their racism, and I used Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and his recent white nationalist and white supremacist language as an example. Instead of refuting my claims, which you must agree with, you've made attempts to equalize things that Hillary Clinton has allegedly supported (without any substantial proof to back up those claims by the way). Why are you trying to minimize the effects of white nationalism and white supremacy instead of refuting that they actually exist and they have damaging effects on society? Is it because Steve King's words are so well-known? Is it because the Republican party in Congress has given him chairmanship of committees and subcommittees despite his support for white nationalism and white supremacy? There has to be a reason why you do not take white nationalism and white supremacy speech coming from an elected official seriously. Is it because you yourself support it?

I condemn the things you accuse Hillary Clinton of yet I have not heard you condemn the hate speech from white nationalists like Steve Bannon, Steve King and #45 himself. Where is your condemnation? Where are your sources that prove what I'm saying about King, Bannon and #45 are wrong?

@raphjd:

LOL, you don't like me not obeying your demands to only Trump hate, so I'm irrational.  Gotta love it.  :cheers:

If those that voted for Trump are X, Y and Z because they voted for Trump, then the same for those that voted for Hillary.

Just because Hillary didn't win, means nothing.  You and anyone who supported her hate gays and women, because Saudi Arabia supported her.

Your argument is irrational because you are attempting to refute my claims by bringing in Hillary Clinton, who is wholly irrelevant to this topic. Refute my claims with evidence that Steve King, Steve Bannon and #45 have never said a single thing defending white nationalism and/or white supremacy. Using Hillary Clinton as some "well she's doing it, too," symbol of false equivalence worked well while the election was happening but now it's over. We are talking about reality now, not make believe or what would've happened. The reality is we have people in positions of power (King, Bannon, #45) defending white nationalism and white supremacy because they now feel comfortable due to the election of #45. You may not take the effects of white nationalism and white supremacy serious but that gives you no right to attempt to minimize them to those of us who are effected by them in this country. If you want to make a thread about liberals supporting all of the bad things Hillary and Bill have supported, fine, make your thread with your own sources. No one is stopping you. But what you will not do is deride what this discussion is about just because you're uncomfortable with the topic. Where is your evidence that King, Bannon and #45 have never uttered a single comment defending or inspiring white nationalism and/or white supremacy?

It's just sad how quickly everyone got over Republicans spreading a lie that could have cost people their lives in that pizza restaurant; meanwhile, a Republican has been caught literally in the middle of a real child prostitution ring and it's no big deal. To make it worse, he served as #45's Oklahoma campaign's chairman! So ironic.