Someone was listening

[PaulS]

Violent video games

I wonder if the shooter thought he was helping to stop an "infestation"?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Violent video games

I wonder if the shooter thought he was helping to stop an "infestation"?

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "invasion" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "infestation" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

Sounds like an attempt to "fix" what Trump said. I have used the word infestation many times. I guess I've been fixed into a racist.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "infestation" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

she did say deplorable. and is she in the oval
office at the moment?

Spence, why didn’t we see this level of carnage (mass shootings and garden variety gang violence) in the 1950s? Is it because we had better laws back then? Were guns not available back then? Did Eisenhower single
handedly suppress violence? Or is it all Trumps fault?

Or is violence correlated with the breakdown of the nuclear family?

Have fun answering that. You can’t, not in a way that doesn’t take a big dump all over your worldview.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

she did say deplorable. and is she in the oval
office at the moment?

Spence, why didn’t we see this level of carnage (mass shootings and garden variety gang violence) in the 1950s? Is it because we had better laws back then? Were guns not available back then? Did Eisenhower single
handedly suppress violence? Or is it all Trumps fault?

Or is violence correlated with the breakdown of the nuclear family?

Have fun answering that. You can’t, not in a way that doesn’t take a big dump all over your worldview.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Safer for who?

The average black man who feared being killed because he looked at a white woman?

A guy who could be picked up at random from a Georgia street and lynched?

Safer for the black driver looking for a gasoline station willing to sell to him? Or a restaurant? Or if he needed a hospital and the only one who admitted blacks was 100 miles away? 300 miles?

Safer for a union organizer who feared being shot down or clubbed to death by the company’s thugs?

Safer for people with polio?

Safer for car drivers who had no safety belts or airbags?

Safer for all those kids sitting around lead paint and asbestos?

Safer for those guys being conscripted and sent off to the hell that was Korea?

Safer for the homosexual who could be chased down and beaten and the police wouldn’t care?

Safer for the women who needed an abortion but could only seek out “back alley” operations?

Safer for the people who had to deal with the Mafia?

The answer is NO. It wasn’t safer.

Was it better for women who had no outlets for their talents except housework, motherhood, and the companionship they offered their husbands?

We did get some things in the 50s, TV, gas guzzling cars, suburbs, malls, the FBI, partisan politics, the Cold War and the Red Scare, consumerism, disposable appliances, the Pill (debuted in 1960, but “birthed” in the Fifties), Playboy, counter-culture, preemptive wars.

But don't worry Trump is the only one who can save you from something that has been improving since the 80s, just like he's saving you from the economy that has been consistently growing for a decade and he claims that nobody else could.

And remember there's always a tweet for that, if only he thought his tweets applied to him.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

2:01 PM · Nov 8, 2013·Twitter Web Client

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Safer for who?

The average black man who feared being killed because he looked at a white woman?

A guy who could be picked up at random from a Georgia street and lynched?

Safer for the black driver looking for a gasoline station willing to sell to him? Or a restaurant? Or if he needed a hospital and the only one who admitted blacks was 100 miles away? 300 miles?

Safer for a union organizer who feared being shot down or clubbed to death by the company’s thugs?

Safer for people with polio?

Safer for car drivers who had no safety belts or airbags?

Safer for all those kids sitting around lead paint and asbestos?

Safer for those guys being conscripted and sent off to the hell that was Korea?

Safer for the homosexual who could be chased down and beaten and the police wouldn’t care?

Safer for the women who needed an abortion but could only seek out “back alley” operations?

Safer for the people who had to deal with the Mafia?

The answer is NO. It wasn’t safer.

Was it better for women who had no outlets for their talents except housework, motherhood, and the companionship they offered their husbands?

We did get some things in the 50s, TV, gas guzzling cars, suburbs, malls, the FBI, partisan politics, the Cold War and the Red Scare, consumerism, disposable appliances, the Pill (debuted in 1960, but “birthed” in the Fifties), Playboy, counter-culture, preemptive wars.

But don't worry Trump is the only one who can save you from something that has been improving since the 80s, just like he's saving you from the economy that has been consistently growing for a decade and he claims that nobody else could.

And remember there's always a tweet for that, if only he thought his tweets applied to him.

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Leadership: Whatever happens, you're responsible. If it doesn't happen, you're responsible.

2:01 PM · Nov 8, 2013·Twitter Web Client

i was talking about gun violence, that was crystal clear. racism was worse then, good to see a kool aid drinker admit that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i was talking about gun violence, that was crystal clear. racism was worse then, good to see a kool aid drinker admit that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It still exists
You don't need to read the El Paso killer’s manifesto. Just turn on Fox News.
Shortly after a gunman murdered 20 people in a Walmart in El Paso, TX, on Saturday, the hashtag “#whitesupremacistterrorism” began trending on Twitter. The “terrorism” portion of that epithet references the alleged shooter’s apparent intent of “coercing and intimidating a civilian population” with the massacre. The suspect is described as a “white supremacist” because of his ideological rationale for carrying out the act, as described in a manifesto posted to the web forum 8chan shortly before the attack.

The alleged killer wrote in the document that he wanted “to exact revenge against ‘the Hispanic invasion of Texas,’ to forestall what he called ‘cultural and ethnic replacement,’ and to ‘reclaim my country from destruction,’” echoing the perpetrators of similar mass shootings, as National Review’s editors noted in denouncing him.

Those ideas, once again drenched in blood, were at one time largely restricted to fringe forums populated by hardcore white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. But in recent years, you could have easily heard them recited while watching a random night of Fox News’ prime-time lineup.

Fox personalities have worked to mainstream the racist conspiracy theory that non-white immigrants threaten to “replace” white American populations. Hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, whose shows regularly revolve around the purported dangers immigration poses to the cultural fabric, have been particularly taken with that argument, and they are not subtle in its promotion.

“Your views on immigration will have zero impact and zero influence on a House dominated by Democrats who want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever increasing number of chain migrants,” Ingraham told her audience shortly before the 2018 midterms.

“It's not a conspiracy theory, it's happening in public,” Carlson has argued. “[Democrats’] political success does not depend on good policies, but on demographic replacement, and they'll do anything to make sure it happens.”

Carlson is particularly beloved by white nationalists, who believe he “is making the white nationalist talking points better than they have,” as the son of the founder of hate website Stormfront put it in March. The Fox host regularly warns of the dire consequences immigration poses to the country. He has said that immigration “is absolutely destroying America” and will “change this country completely and forever”; argued that “we’re being invaded” by migrants in a way that could trigger a national “collapse”; and claimed that “we are importing people from places whose values are simply antithetical to ours,” putting the nation’s ability to “survive” at risk.

The description of migration across the southern border as an “invasion” has become so common on Fox that it hardly warrants mention at this point. That is simply the language the network’s personalities -- even its purported “straight news” anchors -- use to describe migrants, often as Fox airs B-roll of columns of Hispanic men marching north.

Though the alleged shooter's ideas seem to echo what Fox airs every night, the language in his manifesto differs from the network's in one small way: Its references to race are explicit, while Fox’s commentators often talk around that. But this is largely a distinction between text and subtext. The invaders who Fox hosts keeps warning might destroy the country through demographic replacement are Black and brown, as both the hosts and their audience know.

The network appears deeply committed to airing talking points previously confined to the fever swamps. Their use has continued even as white supremacists enact mass murders, and Fox has defended Carlson and Ingraham from advertiser boycotts triggered by their bigoted language on immigration.

Fox’s use of this rhetoric of demographic replacement and migrant invasion has not occurred in a vacuum. It has been mirrored by Republican politicians, including President Donald Trump, who similarly deploy those racist tropes. That's no coincidence -- both Fox and the GOP depend on riling people up with racist appeals for their success. Their behavior won't change unless their incentives change.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Newsweek had an article stating in the past year or so Trump has bought over 2200 facebook ads mentioning an "invasion" and nearly all about immigration.

But...but...but Clinton said deplorable! Give me a break.

Cue the straw talk Jeff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by PaulS

See below for how that article started out. Doesn't sound like Pres. Trump did it willingly. This was after calling Neo Nazi's 'fine people". He had to read from a teleprompter bc if he didn't we all know he would have put his foot into his mouth again.

You might also want to read that other thread I bumped up.

Do you know where old DS has been lately?



President Donald Trump, facing mounting pressure from Republicans and Democrats alike, did what he declined to do over the weekend during an event at the White House on Monday when he directly condemned white supremacists and neo-Nazis in a brief statement to reporters

He didn't call NeoNazis fine people, he called people supporting their right for free speech fine people. There were people on BOTH sides, protesting to remove and protesting to keep the statues. Those were the people he called "fine people". Not the Neo Nazis or White Supremacist nor the Antifa protestors (also assholios).

I know you are a smart guy but on this one you are intellectually lazy - not sure though if by design or by default.

So Paul, please set aside a little over 4 minutes, watch the following video, the unedited segment when Trump spoke of both sides. Then still tell me that you honestly believe he was calling the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists "Fine People"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He didn't call NeoNazis fine people, he called people supporting their right for free speech fine people. There were people on BOTH sides, protesting to remove and protesting to keep the statues. Those were the people he called "fine people". Not the Neo Nazis or White Supremacist nor the Antifa protestors (also assholios).

I know you are a smart guy but on this one you are intellectually lazy - not sure though if by design or by default.

So Paul, please set aside a little over 4 minutes, watch the following video, the unedited segment when Trump spoke of both sides. Then still tell me that you honestly believe he was calling the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists "Fine People"

bingo. it’s a complete media
myth that he was referring to white supremacists as fine people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnR

He didn't call NeoNazis fine people, he called people supporting their right for free speech fine people. There were people on BOTH sides, protesting to remove and protesting to keep the statues. Those were the people he called "fine people". Not the Neo Nazis or White Supremacist nor the Antifa protestors (also assholios).

I know you are a smart guy but on this one you are intellectually lazy - not sure though if by design or by default.

So Paul, please set aside a little over 4 minutes, watch the following video, the unedited segment when Trump spoke of both sides. Then still tell me that you honestly believe he was calling the Neo Nazis and White Supremacists "Fine People"

Here's another short video that further corroborates yours: