Do you deny that there are some white supremacist groups on the right? Do you deny that the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville back in 2017 included racists carrying Nazi flags?
Racism exists on both sides, and it is highly visible.
I've said a few times that there are racists on both sides.
The "white supremacist groups" on the right have no political power.
The "Unite the Right" rally was organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer. Kessler was big Obama guy and an Occupy Wall Street moron. Richard Spencer says he's a liberal and he voted for Biden.
The left labels ALL racism "right wing". They lie. Don't fall for it.
You argued, for some reason, that it wasn't highly visible. I just gave you two easy examples of very visible racism. Arguing there is no highly visible racism on either side is a great way to destroy any credibility anyone has, because there are plentiful examples that are obvious to see on both sides... and if you are really going to try and argue that the Unite the Right rally didn't include those on the right, you're just going to show that you don't have any credibility at all left, but that you are even more delusional than leftist posters like "Fat Hurts" or "hunter where's the blow". This is not a winning argument for you to make.
Racism exists on both sides, and it is highly visible.
Democrats literally think black people are too stupid to get an ID.
Democrats literally think any black person who disagrees with them politically is just too stupid to know any better.
Mainstream Democrats are racist AF.
Watch 30 seconds of Joy Behar's show on MSNBC and you will see more extreme racism than you will find anywhere on the mainstream right.
I agree with that. Plenty of Democrats are racist. Plenty of Republicans are racist. This all sort of depends on your definition of racism which really could mean anything these days but I think it exists on both sides.
Joy Reid is the racist on MSNBC. Joy Behar isn't racist she's just really stupid.
I've said a few times that there are racists on both sides.
The "white supremacist groups" on the right have no political power.
The "Unite the Right" rally was organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer. Kessler was big Obama guy and an Occupy Wall Street moron. Richard Spencer says he's a liberal and he voted for Biden.
The left labels ALL racism "right wing". They lie. Don't fall for it.
You argued, for some reason, that it wasn't highly visible. I just gave you two easy examples of very visible racism. Arguing there is no highly visible racism on either side is a great way to destroy any credibility anyone has, because there are plentiful examples that are obvious to see on both sides... and if you are really going to try and argue that the Unite the Right rally didn't include those on the right, you're just going to show that you don't have any credibility at all left, but that you are even more delusional than leftist posters like "Fat Hurts" or "hunter where's the blow". This is not a winning argument for you to make.
Racism exists on both sides, and it is highly visible.
Name 1 "white supremacist" group anyone has ever heard of. And don't say the Proudboys... White Supremacist groups don't have minority leaders and members...
There were like 15 people at the Unite the Right rally.
I've said a few times that there are racists on both sides.
The "white supremacist groups" on the right have no political power.
The "Unite the Right" rally was organized by Jason Kessler and Richard Spencer. Kessler was big Obama guy and an Occupy Wall Street moron. Richard Spencer says he's a liberal and he voted for Biden.
The left labels ALL racism "right wing". They lie. Don't fall for it.
You argued, for some reason, that it wasn't highly visible. I just gave you two easy examples of very visible racism. Arguing there is no highly visible racism on either side is a great way to destroy any credibility anyone has, because there are plentiful examples that are obvious to see on both sides... and if you are really going to try and argue that the Unite the Right rally didn't include those on the right, you're just going to show that you don't have any credibility at all left, but that you are even more delusional than leftist posters like "Fat Hurts" or "hunter where's the blow". This is not a winning argument for you to make.
Racism exists on both sides, and it is highly visible.
I’m pretty pro capitalism which I think would disqualify me with the other leftists.
You argued, for some reason, that it wasn't highly visible. I just gave you two easy examples of very visible racism. Arguing there is no highly visible racism on either side is a great way to destroy any credibility anyone has, because there are plentiful examples that are obvious to see on both sides... and if you are really going to try and argue that the Unite the Right rally didn't include those on the right, you're just going to show that you don't have any credibility at all left, but that you are even more delusional than leftist posters like "Fat Hurts" or "hunter where's the blow". This is not a winning argument for you to make.
Racism exists on both sides, and it is highly visible.
I’m pretty pro capitalism which I think would disqualify me with the other leftists.
You stated that racism can't exist on the left if it exists on the right. Wherever you are on the economic spectrum, you're currently sitting on the left politically to think that's a reasonable statement to make.
I’m pretty pro capitalism which I think would disqualify me with the other leftists.
You stated that racism can't exist on the left if it exists on the right. Wherever you are on the economic spectrum, you're currently sitting on the left politically to think that's a reasonable statement to make.
Liberalism in 2022 is all about intersectionality.
I’m pretty pro capitalism which I think would disqualify me with the other leftists.
You stated that racism can't exist on the left if it exists on the right. Wherever you are on the economic spectrum, you're currently sitting on the left politically to think that's a reasonable statement to make.
I don't think I've ever said that racism can't exist on the left. You'd have to point it out to me. Also, "sitting on the left" politically and "leftist" mean two different things, at least to me. Leftist typically refers to socialists or communists. I don't think I'm that.
You stated that racism can't exist on the left if it exists on the right. Wherever you are on the economic spectrum, you're currently sitting on the left politically to think that's a reasonable statement to make.
I don't think I've ever said that racism can't exist on the left. You'd have to point it out to me. Also, "sitting on the left" politically and "leftist" mean two different things, at least to me. Leftist typically refers to socialists or communists. I don't think I'm that.
The word you chose to use was "live" rather than "exist", but otherwise that was a direct quote - which I quoted when starting this line of discussion.
I don't think I've ever said that racism can't exist on the left. You'd have to point it out to me. Also, "sitting on the left" politically and "leftist" mean two different things, at least to me. Leftist typically refers to socialists or communists. I don't think I'm that.
The word you chose to use was "live" rather than "exist", but otherwise that was a direct quote - which I quoted when starting this line of discussion.
I mean I do think in recent years, racism is "more" on the right than the left, but I never meant to imply it was some type of exclusive trait the only one side had.
The word you chose to use was "live" rather than "exist", but otherwise that was a direct quote - which I quoted when starting this line of discussion.
I mean I do think in recent years, racism is "more" on the right than the left, but I never meant to imply it was some type of exclusive trait the only one side had.
I feel like in the current political environment, racism is more blatantly obvious on the right but it clearly "lives" on both sides and I'd argue is probably more mainstream (but more subtle) on the left. But either way, saying that racism "can’t have 'always lived on the left' if it currently lives on the right" was a ridiculous and delusional statement to make which started us down this line of discussion. If that wasn't what you meant to suggest with those words, it's good that you didn't intend that but understand that you should probably have worded that differently if that's the case.
I mean I do think in recent years, racism is "more" on the right than the left, but I never meant to imply it was some type of exclusive trait the only one side had.
I feel like in the current political environment, racism is more blatantly obvious on the right but it clearly "lives" on both sides and I'd argue is probably more mainstream (but more subtle) on the left. But either way, saying that racism "can’t have 'always lived on the left' if it currently lives on the right" was a ridiculous and delusional statement to make which started us down this line of discussion. If that wasn't what you meant to suggest with those words, it's good that you didn't intend that but understand that you should probably have worded that differently if that's the case.
It was worded just fine for the person I was replying to, who seemed to take it how I intended for it to be taken.
I feel like in the current political environment, racism is more blatantly obvious on the right but it clearly "lives" on both sides and I'd argue is probably more mainstream (but more subtle) on the left. But either way, saying that racism "can’t have 'always lived on the left' if it currently lives on the right" was a ridiculous and delusional statement to make which started us down this line of discussion. If that wasn't what you meant to suggest with those words, it's good that you didn't intend that but understand that you should probably have worded that differently if that's the case.
It was worded just fine for the person I was replying to, who seemed to take it how I intended for it to be taken.
Ok, then it's worded fine for partisan posters who just want to argue that one side is racist and the other side is not. However, for people who are not so partisan and understand there is an unreasonable or unacceptable amount of racism on both sides, saying that it "lives" (apparently meaning "is predominantly on" rather than "is existent") is questionable wording -- unless you believe that there is an acceptable amount on the left (or if TheAdultInTheRoom believes there is an acceptable amount on the right, which might be the case given that he's arguing it isn't highly visible and denying obvious examples provided to him with weak excuses).
It was worded just fine for the person I was replying to, who seemed to take it how I intended for it to be taken.
Ok, then it's worded fine for partisan posters who just want to argue that one side is racist and the other side is not. However, for people who are not so partisan and understand there is an unreasonable or unacceptable amount of racism on both sides, saying that it "lives" (apparently meaning "is predominantly on" rather than "is existent") is questionable wording -- unless you believe that there is an acceptable amount on the left (or if TheAdultInTheRoom believes there is an acceptable amount on the right, which might be the case given that he's arguing it isn't highly visible and denying obvious examples provided to him with weak excuses).
How is the fact that NEITHER of the organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally are on the right a "weak excuse"? How is a a rally which has 15 attendees representative of the right even if the ringleaders weren't on the left??
Ok, then it's worded fine for partisan posters who just want to argue that one side is racist and the other side is not. However, for people who are not so partisan and understand there is an unreasonable or unacceptable amount of racism on both sides, saying that it "lives" (apparently meaning "is predominantly on" rather than "is existent") is questionable wording -- unless you believe that there is an acceptable amount on the left (or if TheAdultInTheRoom believes there is an acceptable amount on the right, which might be the case given that he's arguing it isn't highly visible and denying obvious examples provided to him with weak excuses).
How is the fact that NEITHER of the organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally are on the right a "weak excuse"? How is a a rally which has 15 attendees representative of the right even if the ringleaders weren't on the left??
Your examples were "weak".
It's a weak excuse that one of the organizers was formerly a liberal and therefore he (and the attendees of the rally, or the other organizer of the rally) couldn't have been on the right.
It's a weak excuse that the anniversary of the rally in DC only drew 15 people, and citing how there wasn't much turnout at the anniversary rally in DC, meant that there were only 15 people at the rally in Charlottesville in 2017.
It's a weak excuse that white supremacist groups not being households names aren't highly visible in general. That's like arguing antifa isn't highly visible on the left because most people can't name individual antifa groups.
I don't think nonpartisan observers or those on the left would remotely suggest that white supremacy groups or the Unite the Right rally weren't highly visible examples of racism on the right. I also don't think honest and unbiased posters on the right would argue that they aren't examples either.
It was worded just fine for the person I was replying to, who seemed to take it how I intended for it to be taken.
Ok, then it's worded fine for partisan posters who just want to argue that one side is racist and the other side is not. However, for people who are not so partisan and understand there is an unreasonable or unacceptable amount of racism on both sides, saying that it "lives" (apparently meaning "is predominantly on" rather than "is existent") is questionable wording -- unless you believe that there is an acceptable amount on the left (or if TheAdultInTheRoom believes there is an acceptable amount on the right, which might be the case given that he's arguing it isn't highly visible and denying obvious examples provided to him with weak excuses).
Right, it was confusing for people who I didn’t intend the message for. What a travesty. Looks like you’re catching up though.
The spread on Biden's job approval has hit a new high of -14.9 in the RCP Average. He's at 40.0% approval, 54.9% disapproval. Biden's all-time low approval rating was 39.8% on Feb 9. https://t.co/Qq6Vf51qSTpic.twitter.com/BTEfo4TiNd
How is the fact that NEITHER of the organizer of the "Unite the Right" rally are on the right a "weak excuse"? How is a a rally which has 15 attendees representative of the right even if the ringleaders weren't on the left??
Your examples were "weak".
It's a weak excuse that one of the organizers was formerly a liberal and therefore he (and the attendees of the rally, or the other organizer of the rally) couldn't have been on the right.
It's a weak excuse that the anniversary of the rally in DC only drew 15 people, and citing how there wasn't much turnout at the anniversary rally in DC, meant that there were only 15 people at the rally in Charlottesville in 2017.
It's a weak excuse that white supremacist groups not being households names aren't highly visible in general. That's like arguing antifa isn't highly visible on the left because most people can't name individual antifa groups.
I don't think nonpartisan observers or those on the left would remotely suggest that white supremacy groups or the Unite the Right rally weren't highly visible examples of racism on the right. I also don't think honest and unbiased posters on the right would argue that they aren't examples either.
WHAT white supremacist groups???? There not only "not household names" they are tiny organizations with ZERO power and ZERO support from main stream Republicans.
Meanwhile, Antifa and BLM burnt down half the country and robbed every Walgreens in the country in 2020 while prominent sitting Democrats including the Vice President of the United States proudly declared they would bail out any rioters who got arrested. Not that sitting Democrat DA's actually prosecute anyone they agree with politically.
It's a weak excuse that one of the organizers was formerly a liberal and therefore he (and the attendees of the rally, or the other organizer of the rally) couldn't have been on the right.
It's a weak excuse that the anniversary of the rally in DC only drew 15 people, and citing how there wasn't much turnout at the anniversary rally in DC, meant that there were only 15 people at the rally in Charlottesville in 2017.
It's a weak excuse that white supremacist groups not being households names aren't highly visible in general. That's like arguing antifa isn't highly visible on the left because most people can't name individual antifa groups.
I don't think nonpartisan observers or those on the left would remotely suggest that white supremacy groups or the Unite the Right rally weren't highly visible examples of racism on the right. I also don't think honest and unbiased posters on the right would argue that they aren't examples either.
WHAT white supremacist groups???? There not only "not household names" they are tiny organizations with ZERO power and ZERO support from main stream Republicans.
Meanwhile, Antifa and BLM burnt down half the country and robbed every Walgreens in the country in 2020 while prominent sitting Democrats including the Vice President of the United States proudly declared they would bail out any rioters who got arrested. Not that sitting Democrat DA's actually prosecute anyone they agree with politically.
Large scale protests create an environment where police will have a difficult time responding to widespread theft. Criminals will take advantage. It’s funny because I know several people who went to the Chicago protests and some of them were conservatives just checking it out. I’ll tell them they are antifa now lol
