You posted a lot so i chose to only break down the first post that's a reply to me, although your other one is... kind of a sewerage pipe too.
I'd say you're incredibly misinformed if you believe that news articles from online blogs are reliable sources of information. These articles are always skewed to appeal to their biggest readerbase. This is how they build revenue. They cannot be trusted to report the legitimate facts.
Uh, you kind of adressed this in a nonsense way in the other post (And outright said "I didn't call them false" despite saying here that they won't report facts)
This is pretty much just a baseless "your sources are lies" without any kind of backing up to your argument. It's a little ironic since you refuse to use any sources yourself, but i'm not sure what response i can even have to you just outright dismissing any evidence that doesn't agree with you specifically
because it doesn't agree with you
For example, all your links about the "racist" voter supression only tells me one thing: You need a valid ID to proof yourself as a legal citizen of the United States to be allowed to vote for President of the United States. This is an entirely logical and reasonable thing to ask. It is not a racial issue, it's a legality issue. Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to vote for President. It is that simple, and that is how it should be.
Ok but you're just proving here that you didn't read
any of my sources since i posted links to
racially biased voter purging,
racially targeted gerrymandering and the one source i used that
did talk about voter ID laws opens by talking about how it
explicitly (and arbitrarily) only counts forms of ID that non-white people are less likely to have
. It is more than a little sad that you're dishonestly trying to discredit what i'm saying without even bothering to read my sources.
As for these articles who claim that Trump has "fascist" policies, they have no idea what they're talking about. Verbally attacking the mayor of San Juan on on social media? That's because she swore on TV that she had recieved no aid from America whatsoever, even though there were literal stacks of aid boxes from America right behind her. Mocking Kim Jong Un for his constant childish threats? Mocking him is the least we should be doing to that monster. In fact, these articles choose to defend an actual dictator who in fact does rival Hitler in cruelty.
This is, at best, a misunderstanding of what i was talking about and yet more evidence you didn't actually read my sources. At worst it's a gross misrepresentation of what i talked about, if you for some reason think that Kim Jong Un is a critic that donald trump lies about and attacks (Although he does, it's hardly defending the dictator to point out when trump is tweeting some garbage he misheard from fox news)
Wanting to have Hillary Clinton locked up? Had she not been so wealthy and influential, she would have been behind bars a long time ago. Just to name a few of her crimes, she was involved in Watergate, she embezzled relief aid for Haiti through the Clinton Foundation and she has sold state secrets to Russia and the Middle East for her own personal benefit.
Ok, i actually genuinely have no idea what you mean about the watergate part- the best i could find was
this snopes article but what it talks about doesn't even seem to be what you're talking about, so i'd kind of like to know a) where you heard this and b) what you think her part was because i'm very genuinely intrigued about this bogus conspiracy theory you've got going.
The idea of her embezzling money through the clinton foundation is kind of weird since
she and her family literally gets no monetary benefit from it whatsoever and while it's a fair call to say that her foundation (as part of the wider charity response to the haitian disaster, not solely them) didn't invest time, money and effort in the best places for long term rebuilding, they didn't skim any money off the top or anything and they didn't... not do any kind of charity work there? They just spent the $30 million they raised in ways that didn't build infrastructure back up in the best way, and focused too much on the short term
Doing away with Obamacare? Obamacare was good for the rich and poor, but for the majority of the middle-class it has made healthcare unaffordable.
This is
partially true but it's only true because of the nature of republican sabotage on the issue. Of course, the ACA isn't perfect (and fixes would've been great, if they hadn't been blocked by republicans whenever anyone tried to pass them). Republicans
sabotaged the pieces of legislation that kept insurers feeling secure and opting in to the ACA market which in turn harmed the middle class, as the funding designed to offset their costs couldn't cover the increased prices caused by insurers dropping out. The GOP also used their majority to refuse to allocate any more money to the ACA crippling it's ability to counteract their sabotage. A single payer medicare system would've been way better, but Obama's attempt to make it a bipartisan bill and work with republicans ended up backfiring when it turned out they were fine with hurting americans for political pointscoring.
I do take issue with the idea that we should throw the most vulnerable people in society under the buss just because the middle class was hurt a little by rising healthcare costs (not "unaffordable", but harmed)
Cutting food stamp programmes? There are tons of people out there who have the capability to work, but refuse to do so and just live off of welfare and food stamps.
I mean, i'm sure there's some people like that but it's incredibly dishonest to pretend that any large percentage of people do, and act like that's some kind of justification for cutting a program that people can barely survive on already? How would cutting that even help without undercutting it's fundamental usage as a safety net? If you're decreasing it below a liveable amount, you're just murdering the poor in the name of getting those (imaginary) dirty welfare sponges or whatever
And then these articles have the filthy guts to abuse the tragedy in Las Vegas to try and force their message. Every single one of these writers should be ashamed of themselves.
I have 0 idea what you're talking about? Do you mean people talking about gun control after an incident where a guy murdered a bunch of people with guns? Is this not literally the best time to talk about that issue, and is it not 100% relevant to bring up how a guy gets a hold of so much guns and ammunition and can just.... go out and murder people like that with pretty much no legal safeguards?
Oh, and all this nonsense about Russia being involved in the American elections? People like to claim that proof has been found for this, only to come up empty-handed when they have to present it. But by all means, if actual proof has been found of this outrageous claim outside of just some news article on some backwater liberal media blog, I'd love to see it.
Uh... Ok?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...quiry-george-papadopoulos-australian-diplomat
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...ol-russia-troll-army-internet-research-agency
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...utin-election-hacking/?utm_term=.549b50e07b72
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/...ia-infiltrate-campaign-team-2017-12?r=US&IR=T
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/spec...cly-signals-long-year-ahead/story?id=52049373
There's no debate over whether russian influence in the election occurred-
the entire US intelligence community and the government branches involved in them all agree on this..
The current FBI investigation is about
how much collusion happened between the trump campaign and the russian government. We already know for a fact that there was some communication and this communication included conversations about the election/how russian government contacts could help the trump team. It remains to be seen how much more was done.
And the idea that diversity if being forced in white countries... Do I really need to explain this to you? Have you not noticed that Europe is currently in a major crisis because they got forced to take in millions of incompatible immigrants? And yes, I say they were forced, because Poland (the only country who refused despite the order) has been blackmailed with sanctions that continue to go on to this day.
I mean
it wasn't at all just poland, but they were sanctioned for not taking their fair share of refugees during this refugee crisis, yes. It's actually only a crisis
because EU countries refused to accept their fair share of refugees based on population % and instead the ones willing to take them were saddled with far more than they have the infrastructure to support. That's the issue here.
"Incompatible immigrants" is just nonsense garbage and you should throw that completely unsupported idea that these refugees are physically unable to assimilate into european society or whatever.
And then there's all these campaigns about how Europe and America have to "open their borders". Exactly where do you see all the campaigns for the Middle Eastern or Asian countries to open their borders? Hell, where are the campaigns for Africa and South America? In fact, why are you suddenly an anti-semite when you say that Israel should have open borders? No, it's just the USA and Europe, primarily white populated countries,
It, uh,
doesn't take more than a very quick google search to see that you're completely wrong and that the west actually takes less refugees than non-western countries, but hey, may as well make that attempt to just lie and hope people don't look it up.
It's kind of ironic that some of the ones you mentioned there by name have some of the highest intake
that are forced to take in other races so they can suckle on that teat of modern welfare that the USA and Europe have worked for centuries to establish.
It's a) very unabashedly racist to claim that non-whites are just suckling the teats of welfare
and b) not even actually true if we're talking about refugees, facts are that they're more productive citizens than natural born ones. I imagine it's because, you know, they've fled from war and famine and want a good life for their families? Not because they've got some magic lazy genes from being not white
It's only the white people who are not allowed to have a continent for themselves, like literally all major races do.
Ignoring how racist and dumb that idea is anyway ("Major races" isn't a thing? Even if they were instead of a grossly racist lumping together of a ton of different ethnic and cultural groups into useless labels like "asian" and "african", why is "having a continent to themselves" even a thing that anyone should have? And do you not know that people that don't fit those definitions still live there? Are white south africans cryptids?) i've got to wonder which races are the "major" ones, and which continents they own.
Australia: ...Is that owned by the Aborigional australians? Are they a major race? Or is that a "white continent" that's just too contaminated by your standards?
Africa: I guess you've lumped together all the african ethno-cultural groups as "african" and just pretended that they're the only people who live on the continent?
North America: Is what you're been whining about here, and apparently mexico isn't part of it
South America: Uh, which "major race" owns this one? Is there even an umbrella term for the south american peoples?
Asia: Obviously, all people in asia are the same and there's no differences between any of the ethnic groups there. Japan is just like China's tasmania, right?
Europe: Too full of refugees to be allowed to be called white, i guess
Antarctica: ??? I guess I can get behind calling Penguins one of the major human races
And if you want to argue about Native Americans, learn your history and you'd know that the majority of the clashes were initiated by Native Americans.
This is just flatout wrong in every conceivable way? I don't even need to cite sources for this because they teach this being straight bs in school, and not even like american schools, i learnt this in my schooling on a completely different continent. I guess Wounded knee was just "their fault"?
I also don't even really get what you mean by this weird preemptive genocide exusing, do you mean that because the native americans "deserved" to be slaughtered then the country is just by default a "white country" now? Did they lose the rights to it when they incited that whole genocide thing against them? jesus
