-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Serious Political and economic discussion thread
- Thread starter Diophantine
- Start date
You know there's a saying racism is evil but those who play the race card are just as evil.
who says this? paul joseph watson? alex jones? lol. what a terrible equivalency
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-what-he-sees-illegal/?utm_term=.6572f52fc5c4
with how much conservatives complain that twitter banning alex jones (political pundit and violence incitor ud think theyd be in an uproar over the literal government saying theyre looking at censoring Google searches, the most iconic and ingrained information service but its ok because it benefits trump
with how much conservatives complain that twitter banning alex jones (political pundit and violence incitor ud think theyd be in an uproar over the literal government saying theyre looking at censoring Google searches, the most iconic and ingrained information service but its ok because it benefits trump
look man i'm going to try and help u out here and refrain from dogpiling on u like i'd like to. you gotta stop saying shit like this and "evolution hasn't been observed" and otherwise trying to validate creationism. although certain users would have you believe otherwise, there's actually nothing wrong with having a different opinion (and you certainly don't deserve to be shot for them...) but as soon you start going around saying legitimate nonsense like this post above you're going to start running into problems. it's painfully obvious that you lack contextual knowledge on these issues and you would be well served by trying to understand the contexts surrounding issues such as these before posting stuff that not only is just wrong but makes just so obviously makes no sense. i dont wanna be unhelpful and be like "read a book" like other users (which i wonder why is that allowed but "mods lol") but i do think it would help you if you tried to learn about the history that issues like racism stem from. i think american history is a good place to look at and personally i find it v interesting especially once you get to the 19th century (and quite relatable to the present as most/if not all history is).
Ok fair enough I get your point. America has a history of racism and it still very much exist. If we see racism and discrimination we must fight it. It's an evil thing. However as much as I am against racism and for equality I am also very much for justice for absolutely everyone including people NOT to be falsely accused of being racist. What the SJWs and the left has done is blindly shouting 'WHITE SUPREMACIST' to random white people with no explanation or evidence whatsoever regardless if they really are racist or not literally everywhere and let me tell you - absolutely no one is going to benefit from these meaningless name callings.
Here's a better good idea to combat racism:
1. Identify the person who is racist and the victim associated with the racist actions.
2. Gather evidence.
3. Bring him to justice (either via court or legal actions along with your evidence).
4. Teach people how to protect themselves from being a victim (if possible).
Although I'm not American I have 100% faith that America's laws operate in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' rather than vice versa. It's just not fair for some white people are automatically assumed to be 'supremacists' or racist simply because certain white people are. Why should certain people be stereotyped to be that way because of the mistakes of their ancestors during the slavery days or their parents/grandparents during the jim crow days?
Hey regardless on where you are on the political scale, liberal, conservative, centralist etc. at least you must agree this is the best way to combat racism and at the same time protect the justice for everyone. That's what I really meant in that statement
Here's a better good idea to combat racism:
1. Identify the person who is racist and the victim associated with the racist actions.
2. Gather evidence.
3. Bring him to justice (either via court or legal actions along with your evidence).
4. Teach people how to protect themselves from being a victim (if possible).
Although I'm not American I have 100% faith that America's laws operate in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' rather than vice versa. It's just not fair for some white people are automatically assumed to be 'supremacists' or racist simply because certain white people are. Why should certain people be stereotyped to be that way because of the mistakes of their ancestors during the slavery days or their parents/grandparents during the jim crow days?
Hey regardless on where you are on the political scale, liberal, conservative, centralist etc. at least you must agree this is the best way to combat racism and at the same time protect the justice for everyone. That's what I really meant in that statement
Last edited:
But to be honest it's kinda foolish for tech giants to just cut him off just like this. After all he has 2 million subs on youtube and a ton of other followers on social media. Cutting him off will just significantly decrease the traffic to these sites and revenue generated via ads. Not exactly the wisest decision made in a business standpoint.
I have a strong feeling Mark Dice, Paul Joseph Watson or even Milo Yiannoupolous' will be next.
(Edit) as much as I despise The Young Turks, I honestly think they're the worst kind of SJWs on youtube (although they're good for memes) by no means do I believe they should have their channel taken down if the YouTube CEO is a conservative. Opposing views exist to make you have a more competitive spirit to debunk/debate those opposing views or make you think twice of your existing view.
So censoring Alex Jones might really backfire for these tech giants. Just gives people an extra reason to listen to him/follow him if he comes back in some form or another.
Last edited:
The evidence that someone is racist is when they say racist things. It's not about finding a secret shoebox with their KKK card. This is old bullshit.
Nobody is stereotyping. White supremacy is far stronger right now than it was five, even two years ago. People march down our streets with swastikas on their foreheads screaming about how they hate Jews and love that their president is endorsed by David Duke, and people like you say, "where's the evidence?"
There's reason why moderates and conservatives take issue with the ban. Alex Jones was not the only person that's been censored/demonetized/kicked off a platform outright. Candice Owens, Lauren Southern, and PragerU among others all have experienced similar issues, when none of them were actually convicted of anything. They were punished because they had different views. The reason that people have an issue with that is because it stifles free speech, that, and liberal voices who have done the same thing and worse (NY Time's new editor Sarah Jeong is a pretty glaring example) are untouched. There's a massive double standard in the situation. Yes, they do have the right to regulate their business as they please, in theory. Bear in mind though, some of these corporations, however, are no longer considered private, one, and two, regulating speech is a pretty dangerous road to go down because it's an absurdly demanding and highly subjective job that is not worth the reward imo. If you say someone should be punished for hate speech (even though personally I don't believe in that because it's still free speech), that comes down to what's offensive. Anything anyone says is offensive to someone else. You see where you run into issues? I have an issue with any free speech that gets limited, the only exceptions being if said speech is used to call for violence (ex: shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater). That's why I would preferably leave free speech alone on platforms, or, at the very least, specifically define what is considered hate speech so any policy can be objectively followed. Let's be honest here as well, if someone says something mean or offensive, you can ignore it as opposed to taking the attack as a literal gunshot wound--you get over it. In this world, for really anything, not just words, you need thick skin.
I don't believe he has said any garbage like "evolution has not been observed," or really anything that is truly offensive, mind you. He hasn't said any nonesense either, to me at least a lot of what he's been saying has been common sense. I agree with him. If you play the race card on someone, majority of the time, that is, by dictionary definition, racist. That's a big reason why the two of us were arguing against white privilege in the modern era in earlier pages on the thread, because it is completely racist and untrue. If you want to talk about racism though, I'll gladly give you a very mock history lesson, because I did actually take a pretty good amount of American History.
So, racism has, does, and will always I'd imagine, exist. We all are pretty unanimous on that. I think the best point to start here is the Civil War. The war was originally fought to preserve the union, as quoted by Abraham Lincoln. Southern Democrats voted to secede in order to preserve slavery, which was the biggest thing keeping the south's agricultural economy afloat. Abraham Lincoln threatened that by the Republican Party's platform, which is to stop the spread of slavery into new territories (not abolish it completely, at first). The south fires first at Fort Sumter, and the bloodiest war on American soil begins. Fast-forward to the end of the war, the Emancipation Proclamation, a military move, was used to free southern-owned slaves in union-captured southern territories, the 13th amendment is passed to the anguish of the Southern Democrats and Northern sympathizers, and Reconstruction begins. A good thing to note, at this time, only one Republican in office has ever owned a slave in their lives. Ulysses Grant, soon to be president, was the only one, but it's also good to note he was previously a Democrat who had a wife from the deep South who was also a previous slave-owner.
Soon after Lincoln is assassinated, black males are also given the right to vote as free citizens. Black communities then did prosper for a little while because in a lot of communities, blacks were in charge. Andrew Johnson, a Northern Democrat and Southern sympathizer, was in charge of reconstructing the south. Veering from Lincoln's original plans, he accepted money from Southern sympathizers, and turned a blind eye to any laws that were passed to lessen black voting power (grandfather clause, the literacy test, etc.). The KKK was also created under Nathaniel Forrest, to create fear and scare blacks out of voting. White racist Democrats take back control, and the era of Jim Crowe is about to begin.
A big thing people like to bring up to most conservatives being "racist," they like to refer to the southern strategy (the plan Nixon supposedly used to almost win a few states in the deep south, without, funny enough, using any racist rhetoric or promises to appeal to racist whites) and how that started the party "switch." Ironically enough, a switch didn't even begin until the late 1930s when FDR was in office. Why did blacks vote for a Democrat that was still decently racist and had a lot of policy against them? Because they were given a copious amount of welfare through the Great Depression. Their families had support. Going to the 1960s, mainly the time of the civil rights act (another thing people site), despite a Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, in office, 23 southern Democrats voted against the Civil rights act. Republicans were 80% in favor of it, and Johnson caved in. He even said himself "I'll have those n****** voting for us for decades." How many of those Democrats switched to the Republican party afterwards? Only one. Again, where is this massive switch? Jump to 1994, where the consensus is that the South switched to Republican. What happened? Did it take a span of 60 years for racist white democrats to decide the republicans are better for their causes? No, there was a new generation of people that probably didn't even have a grandparent that lived through slavery. Let's look at today now, but before I do, let's put aside the fact that KKK and neo-nazis support the Republican party because no Republican has taken any donations, any lobbying, or really have given any significant support to those groups. That being said, we can consider those irrelevant. You can make the same argument for Antifa for the modern Democrats, so I think it is very fair to ignore the extremes here. Which party is the one that STILL brings up the race card in any of its platforms? I'll leave that one for you to answer, but here's the hint, one of them doesn't give a shit about race at all, period.
If you want to hear more about this, look into who Dinesh D'Souza is. He just made an entire movie about everything I just outlined, and thensome. If you don't feel like paying money to see a movie, he's also talked about this in lectures that can be found on YouTube that are very enticing. Here's one, he gets to where I talk about at ~36:00
Soon after Lincoln is assassinated, black males are also given the right to vote as free citizens. Black communities then did prosper for a little while because in a lot of communities, blacks were in charge. Andrew Johnson, a Northern Democrat and Southern sympathizer, was in charge of reconstructing the south. Veering from Lincoln's original plans, he accepted money from Southern sympathizers, and turned a blind eye to any laws that were passed to lessen black voting power (grandfather clause, the literacy test, etc.). The KKK was also created under Nathaniel Forrest, to create fear and scare blacks out of voting. White racist Democrats take back control, and the era of Jim Crowe is about to begin.
A big thing people like to bring up to most conservatives being "racist," they like to refer to the southern strategy (the plan Nixon supposedly used to almost win a few states in the deep south, without, funny enough, using any racist rhetoric or promises to appeal to racist whites) and how that started the party "switch." Ironically enough, a switch didn't even begin until the late 1930s when FDR was in office. Why did blacks vote for a Democrat that was still decently racist and had a lot of policy against them? Because they were given a copious amount of welfare through the Great Depression. Their families had support. Going to the 1960s, mainly the time of the civil rights act (another thing people site), despite a Democratic President, Lyndon B. Johnson, in office, 23 southern Democrats voted against the Civil rights act. Republicans were 80% in favor of it, and Johnson caved in. He even said himself "I'll have those n****** voting for us for decades." How many of those Democrats switched to the Republican party afterwards? Only one. Again, where is this massive switch? Jump to 1994, where the consensus is that the South switched to Republican. What happened? Did it take a span of 60 years for racist white democrats to decide the republicans are better for their causes? No, there was a new generation of people that probably didn't even have a grandparent that lived through slavery. Let's look at today now, but before I do, let's put aside the fact that KKK and neo-nazis support the Republican party because no Republican has taken any donations, any lobbying, or really have given any significant support to those groups. That being said, we can consider those irrelevant. You can make the same argument for Antifa for the modern Democrats, so I think it is very fair to ignore the extremes here. Which party is the one that STILL brings up the race card in any of its platforms? I'll leave that one for you to answer, but here's the hint, one of them doesn't give a shit about race at all, period.
If you want to hear more about this, look into who Dinesh D'Souza is. He just made an entire movie about everything I just outlined, and thensome. If you don't feel like paying money to see a movie, he's also talked about this in lectures that can be found on YouTube that are very enticing. Here's one, he gets to where I talk about at ~36:00
Hope that helps!
I'd actually disagree, I think White Supremacy is perhaps the weakest it's been in decades. I will concede Trump did appeal to white nationalists during his presidential campaign, but he himself is by definition a nationalist (as in pro US and US global independence), not a white nationalist (find something he said or put into that's considered white nationalist, and I'll gladly talk about it). I'll give you an example, the Unite the Right rally in Oregon. How many neo-nazis and KKK members attended? Out of the thousands, maybe 10 for every 1K at the very most. I'll even go to Charlottesville. Now granted, I disagree with the Presidents comments on that, I think both sides of the violence were equally as wrong in the whole ordeal, but the KKK and neo-nazis were completely outnumbered by SJW's and Antifa, who initiated the violence to my knowledge. The Unite the Right rally wasn't even meant to appeal to those groups, it was meant to appeal to conservatives (as in people who like smaller government).
I want to tell you something else. I agree with you that racism is definitely around, I just don't think you have quite gotten the scope of the context. I'll briefly clarify. With white on black and minority systematic racism, I disagree that that has major prevalence, if any at all. If you find evidence, I'll gladly talk about it with ya. The other way around (and you can really include anyone that isn't liberal that is black, minority, LGBT), however, a vast majority of leftists have been quite racist lol. Evidence of that? Here's Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, I could go on.
Last edited:
Then give examples as to why you think it's as commonplace as you're making it out to be, I seriously would love to talk about it and dive in if you're up to it mate. Let's get into an intelligent conversation about it. So what's your theory about racism that considers the context and power you're referring to?
Last edited:
u seriously trying to imply that the people calling racists out for their racism are the real antagonizers and that people who are racist should just be left alone? No one is going around accusing random ass people of racism just to suit their agenda, the people who are accused of racism routinely support or espouse policy that is in lie with white nationalist goals. Do you have an example of someone who was falsely accused of racism and left out in the whipping pits? Because most stories I see that blow up from racism happen because of several reasons, and all of them have to do with "yeah hes racist." You dont need to be in full on Klan gear in order to be considered racist, and you dont have to literally be lynching people to be racist. The progressive movement is all about exposing these ingrained biases in our culture, and pointing out the history behind those bias and to work to change them. They are quite literally doing their best to fight racism and discrimination.
I am white. not once have i been accused of being racist, or stereotyped as racist, or otherwise been "guilty until proven innocent." Do you not grasp the historical links between our justice system being an extension of a debtor's prison, where the poor go simply because they cannot afford to defend themselves a lot of the time for petty minor crimes (thats IF they didn't get falsely accused like many big city police force arrests, see Chicago or Baltimore). In a justice system set up specifically to benefit the middle / rich class (most people cannot afford to go in debt to pay for a decent lawyer, pay bail, or even come back if the police or law enforcement end up fucking up their residence on a mistake. Combine that with a historical precedent for preventing the black culture from acquiring any means of wealth, mostly through land until just very recently in the history of the United States. Combine those concepts and you get a justice system that is, at the very least, flawed enough to prevent equal justice, and at the worst intentionally designed that way. It's no wonder that people don't trust the justice system to fix these issues that are prevalent in america because the justice system is part of that system.
lets not even talk about how felons, despite the justice system intended to work not as a punishment system but as a reform system, disenfranchise people even after their time is served simply because "they haven't learned their lesson" or some moralistic nose-peering nonsense.
Sure bud. I agree that the best way to combat "evil" is to attempt to apply justice to it. Unfortunately, racism is so ingrained into our culture (this country was quite literally founded on the backs of slaves) that doing so is almost impossible at this point. Courts are not reliable, when many judges have been appointed specifically to keep these old fashioned disnefranchising laws in effect (see, Roy Moore); Hell you can look at conviction rates versus arrest rates and get a general idea of the picture there, or look at the cop to black people murder rates and see how the justice system is flawed, corrupt, and does not protect all civilians equally.
Last edited:
To all of the Liberals spitting out "RACIST" in the thread, and "white supremacy", which are words usually used a scapegoat by liberals using it against Republicans if they disagree with what they say. If conservatives are the ones who are racist, then why do they judge people by their ethics and morals, not by the color of their skin, and support treating all races equally rather than giving other races hand outs, Liberals on the other hand, believe the white race hold back minorities and want to redistribute hard earned money. They also have added Black and Brown to the LGBTQ flag, not white or tan for arabs and whites. If you are going to do something like that to promote race in the movement, it should be no races left behind, not just Black and Brown. If this post upsets some leftists, that's OK. You are fully entitled to your own opinion, I am just merely defending my position, and that all races should be perfectly equal and should not be judged by their color of skin as intended, but not one race should get special treatment if another doesn't.
Edit: yes I understand that welfare is given to poor immigrants mostly who are "struggling" but it is the immigrants responsibility to get employed, like all else. There are other issues with the left I believe like their foreign policy, SJWs, Military expenditure, some parts of their immigration policy, the right to bear arms, and a few others. But I will save those for another time perhaps.
Edit: yes I understand that welfare is given to poor immigrants mostly who are "struggling" but it is the immigrants responsibility to get employed, like all else. There are other issues with the left I believe like their foreign policy, SJWs, Military expenditure, some parts of their immigration policy, the right to bear arms, and a few others. But I will save those for another time perhaps.
Last edited:
Lauren Southern preached literal hate speech. Any censoring she received was damn well deserved. Your right to free speech (freedom of opinion) does not protect you from social consequences of the opinions you choose not does it entitled you to a platform from which to proselytize.
This is a joke right? The "ethics and morals" you have been espousing are not ones that are based in universal ethical principles, they are ones based on positions that are themselves inherently biased by race. Choosing an ethical position such as "don't have children out of wedlock" and then deriding a specific minority based on that is representative of your own internalized racism whereby you are applying your own personal values onto other races and cultures while remaining ignorant of the role of the government and the Christian religion and the predominantly white governing class in the US over the past 300 years that have specifically reduced the capacity for that class to conform to your own ethical value, which I'll reiterate is not a universal ethical principle!
The entire basis of these arguments is rooted in the fallacy of begging the question, you assert that x is true and therefore y (minorities) is bad but x has not been proven as true!
P.S. speaking as a white, male, Christian, with exposure to Lauren Southern et al via rebel media
checkmate liberals
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-...-participants-work-but-often-in-unstable-jobs
educate yourself man your perception of welfare workers seems limited to “they get money for nothing (and chicks for free) thats not fair also i bet theyre all on drugs too”
Calling "racists" out doesn't help the issue any, you're basically fueling the fire. I put up the example in my earlier post about NY Times Sarah Jeong. What did her comments do? It made her look absurdly stupid and it counters her claim of fighting against racism, when she's indeed performing the very thing she's fighting. You can't not say her comments were, by dictionary definition, racist. He's saying a lot of leftist tend to play that card, and it usually backfires badly. I agree you do not need to be a klansman to be racist. My issue is, the Progressive movement hasn't uprooted very much. I think personally it's made the entire race issue muddled and even worse than it actually is imo. I totally get where they're coming from is a place of good, I do not deny that, you guys want a better world like we all do. I don't agree with the route or methodology they're taking.
<- White and half jewish. I have been called out for my skin color from people that don't even know me (let alone knowing that half of my family were actual victims from eastern Europe). I only bring that up because it throws the race card right back into people's faces; it doesn't work, and it shouldn't be used. Thats what I mean by my disagreement with methodology, leftists are blaming people with white skin over problems completely unrelated to them, such as slavery. I shouldn't be blamed for that, and the people that should be are dead. No one has directly dealt with slavery from pre-1865, so no one should be blamed for it today. We need to move on, and look at each other as human being with the same god-given rights outlined in the constitution, because that is the reality.
I outlined the issues with the justice system in a much earlier post of mine on here, but I'll gladly grab it for you so I don't need to repeat myself.
Fear of gangs, same with the US, and that not only can be remedied with my above point, but it can also be solved with higher police presence. The big reason why during Jim Crow era minority communities were (and in some cases still are) statistically crime ridden is because of lack of policing. During that era, police in the south extremely rarely prosecuted black on black murders, only black on white. They didn't regulate stealing and other crime, so those people had more incentive to commit crime--they wouldn't get in trouble. Even today, the backlash towards the police is pushing for the same results: less policing, which is a terrible idea. If you wanna fix that issue, you do need increased policing of crime-ridden areas.
The thing is, cops are not killing only black people at absurd rates, for the most part, theyre on par with other races. Yes, there is a 70% black prison population in the US, (and Ive explained it before, and ill briefly explain it below), but as for cops killing only black people at disproportionate rates, thats largely untrue and exaggerated. Ive looked into BLM's 12 biggest cases theyve claimed are acts of injustice. Only in one or two cases had a real argument that the cop was possibly racist and unreasonably killed the suspect. The other 10, the victim either resisted arrest (and at times could have gotten the cop killed), or the cop was properly detained/fired or even locked up, or both lol. (If you want to talk more about this, I have the sources for the cases, Im just on mobile atm)
The gangs, drugs, and poverty are not because of racism, its largely due to underpolicing (which ive explained before in a previous post, this has been the case since post reconstruction and jim crowe). Thats why some black communities (and this can apply to really any poor community regardless of race, Camden NJ being a prime example thats attempting to get cleaned up, albiet not doing a great job atm) are in the mess theyre in. As opposed to people crying wolf and saying "police are evil," 90% of the time, theyre not, and the bad ones tend** to not stick around for long. You need someone regulating crime and not give people the incentives to do evil without consequences. Thats whats really gonna solve the issue, not throw money at it and hope the government will do its best.
The thing is, cops are not killing only black people at absurd rates, for the most part, theyre on par with other races. Yes, there is a 70% black prison population in the US, (and Ive explained it before, and ill briefly explain it below), but as for cops killing only black people at disproportionate rates, thats largely untrue and exaggerated. Ive looked into BLM's 12 biggest cases theyve claimed are acts of injustice. Only in one or two cases had a real argument that the cop was possibly racist and unreasonably killed the suspect. The other 10, the victim either resisted arrest (and at times could have gotten the cop killed), or the cop was properly detained/fired or even locked up, or both lol. (If you want to talk more about this, I have the sources for the cases, Im just on mobile atm)
The gangs, drugs, and poverty are not because of racism, its largely due to underpolicing (which ive explained before in a previous post, this has been the case since post reconstruction and jim crowe). Thats why some black communities (and this can apply to really any poor community regardless of race, Camden NJ being a prime example thats attempting to get cleaned up, albiet not doing a great job atm) are in the mess theyre in. As opposed to people crying wolf and saying "police are evil," 90% of the time, theyre not, and the bad ones tend** to not stick around for long. You need someone regulating crime and not give people the incentives to do evil without consequences. Thats whats really gonna solve the issue, not throw money at it and hope the government will do its best.
However, I will concede ground here. I do agree the justice system should do better to focus on rehabilitation. I saw this the other day that relates to just that, and the results are astounding. Nearly 80% of all of his convicted cases saw no return to the court. Granted, maybe a different methodology so it can be applied to a much larger population, but there are some serious results in what this man is doing with his court.
Racism isn't ingrained in our culture like you think it is. Racism is learned, so, it can be fair to say that racism can be unlearned. If you look at my last long response above, I outlined who actually is responsible racism and slavery. I won't repeat myself too much here, but the Democrats tend to be the ones that focus on race, Republicans have a pretty clean slate for the most part when it does come to race. If you look at unemployment stats right now even, Black and Hispanic unemployment rates have been at the lowest rates they've been in a while. That's really odd for living in this systematically racist society. Meritocracy does produce real results if you're willing to put the work in for it, and not victimizing yourself and others is a plus.
Hate Speech is Free Speech, and Hate Speech is extremely subjective. The term Hate Speech way too greyly defined, because, as I mentioned earlier, anyone can be offended over anything. My right to free speech does entitle me to a platform to be able to talk about what I believe is the truth just as much as it is your right, that's Free Speech. It doesn't protect me from social consequences, yea, but the same applies to you lol. Also, you may want to look into what Lauren Southern stands for exactly, she's a very interesting person.
EDIT:
I couldn't agree more, well said. tcr, btw I do not think this guy said "they get money for nothing (and chicks for free) thats not fair also i bet theyre all on drugs too,” let alone anything close to that. You don't need to virtue signal.
Last edited:
"get educated" all liberals seem to say this to prevent republicans from saying what they want lmao. It's called free speech, one of the amendments this country was founded on, silly liberals. You guys aren't as smart as you think, there is a reason liberalism is declining in America and a reason there are far more republican presidents than democrat presidents. And no, there is not a blue wave right now anywhere, quite the opposite. Liberals promote military and economic decline, and seem to be moving away from capitalism for socialism, which always works in the beginning, but always, always fails. Look at Venezuela. As for illegal mass immigration to the US, You may like diversity, as do I, but it undeniably increases crime and many are on welfare work, which is more of a burden on the government than a help, as for your welfare "argument", What??? lmao I never said anything about drugs or chicks, and your argument is weak that the left do actually want them to have work requirements 100% of the time, the left actually opposes that.
www.investors.com/politics/editorials/work-requirements-welfare-trump-executive-order/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...me-themselves-for-their-decline--they-got-so/
www.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/venezuelas-great-socialist-experiment-has-brought-a-country-to-its-knees/
a money redistribution is not necessary in america, you should work hard for your money, and in socialism, you run out of money to give back from rich people, which is why socialism always works in the beginning, but is doomed to fail. providing health care for free is one thing, but asking for tons of services for free is a strain on the government, and crying, holding up signs and whining about it won't make america socialist, something leftists fail to get.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/01/news/economy/black-unemployment-rate-record-low/index.html
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-unemployment-rate-record-low-may-jobs-report
Here are some links from CNN money and Vox (they can't be any more liberal this) and even liberal sources acknowledge the employment rate for blacks are better when Trump is in office compared to any recent president in office. And yet the blind false accusation for trump being a white supremacists from the left just makes me facepalm.
C'mon leftists Trump and the Republicans care more about blacks than the media wants you to think. The stats really show
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www...-unemployment-rate-record-low-may-jobs-report
Here are some links from CNN money and Vox (they can't be any more liberal this) and even liberal sources acknowledge the employment rate for blacks are better when Trump is in office compared to any recent president in office. And yet the blind false accusation for trump being a white supremacists from the left just makes me facepalm.
C'mon leftists Trump and the Republicans care more about blacks than the media wants you to think. The stats really show
The same way yall have been engaging us lol (my revoked ban should be enough to show that), only we've tried to stay respectful up to this point as opposed to shutting up because we want to show another side/actually tried to hear you guys ouy. This is the issue. Id love to have a debate and learn more about these political topics, but respect above all is what should matter most. It cant just be a one way street. No one is evil, and no one wants to harm anyone, I dont know how much clearer that can be. I cant speak for everyone else, but I personally love debating and the quest for knowledge. Lets keep it on that track.
Hate speech via Wikipedia: hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity
Hate speech via the Criminal Code of Canada:
- Section 318 makes it an offense to advocate or promote genocide
- Section 319(1) makes it an offence to communicate statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group, where it is likely to lead to a breach of the peace
- Section 319(B) makes it an offence to willfully promote hatred against any identifiable group by make statements (other than in private conversation)
- Section 319(C) provides defenses to the above (statements are true, good faith opinion from religious text, for public benefit and on reasonable grounds the person believed them to be true)
See: Southern, Lauren; Jones, Alex, et al
And no, your right to free speech does not entitle you to a platform from which to speak. You can walk down the street saying whatever you want but any given third party entity has zero obligation to let you use them as your platform to speak.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
