Trump Haters Behaving Badly

PJ is correct that both groups include racists. The Trump base includes about 5% racists, while the BLM group includes about 95% racists.


Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
You are no doubt right there are racists in the BLM movement...just like there are racists in Donald Trump's base. Am I wrong? In either case are those peoples racist actions sanctioned by the group? Or are they just assholes that just happen to be in those groups? If you cant apply your own principals evenly then they aren't principals - they're just bullshit gotcha points utilized to attack political opponents.

But in any event my original data about hate crimes stands uncontested by anyone here.


Something like this will happen to the United States within the next decade. Multiple dirty bombs are detonated simultaneously by Muslim terrorists killing 8,000 Americans in 8 different American cities. Another 100,000 Americans are exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.

When this happens, 90% of Americans will demand that all Muslims be rounded up and kicked out of our country.


Quote

Originally posted by: ecomstoc
Watching history channel last night about Pearl Harbor attack. Even the greatest democrat FDR didn't get it right.

A month later, a reluctant but resigned Roosevelt signed the War Department's blanket Executive Order 9066, which authorized the physical removal of all Japanese Americans into internment camps. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-ushers-in-japanese-american-internment

Hopefully Donald Trump won't follow this model for deportation of illegals.


As I said earlier there are problems with the study that pj posted earlier as reported by the NY Post

It turns out that the SPLC is funded by george soros & that it donated al most $14k to the clinton campaign.

The SPLC partnered with the American Federation of Teachers, which formally endorsed Hillary Clinton, to circulate the questionnaire among its 1.6 million mostly Democratic members.

Now for the really good stuff

But the SPLC acknowledges that it has not independently verified any of the claims. It collected most of them on its website, many anonymously.

The group won’t use its $315 million in assets to investigate the “hate crimes,” or at least help alleged victims file police reports or provide them counseling or other assistance, but it has offered “sympathy.” The center counted people mentioning “build the wall” as 467 incidents of hate.

The SPLC self-censored results from a key question it asked educators — whether they agree or disagree with the following statement: “I have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students.”

Asked last week to provide the data, SPLC initially said it was having a hard time getting the information “from the researchers.” Pressed, SPLC spokeswoman Kirsten Bokenkamp finally revealed that “about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question.”


I can't see what problems Hoops' is talking about because he's too embarrassed to link the source of his information...oh wait, he mentioned it. The NY POST.... I understand why.

The tabloid that told us Obama fudged the unemployment numbers thinks the SLPC is not credible.. Readers can decide for themselves which is fake news.

edited to add: THE SLPC is a statistics hub...not a medical center. Criticizing them for not offering care to victims is about as moronic as criticizing the NY Post for not doing the same. But these ae the kinds of points Hoops runs too when the data undermines his argument.

pj is welcome to disprove any of the facts in the article

1- Splc is funded by the very liberal soros
2- The study was funded by the AFT, which heavily supported by clinton
3- the splc members donated to the clinton campaign
4- it did not & will not verify any of the claims of hate crimes
5- It deliberately withheld data that went against their base thesis
6- Claiming that the statement "build the wall" is an example of hate. Most would think that is an opinion & an example of freedom of speech

I presented statistics from a reputable source that readers can see. You countered with uncited, paraphrased talking points you claim you read in a right wing tabloid. As usual.

I'm not interested in the game of whose source is more credible - especially when you're too embarrassed to post yours. Readers can decide for themselves.



To summarize pj's "reputable source"

A) it is funded by and staffed by people with a particular bias
B) they produce a "study" in conjunction with the AFT who have the same bias
C) they intentionally leave out stats that don't fit their agenda
D) they won't even bother to verify the claims it has posted as fact
E) they call "hate" any reference to building a wall



I'm glad Hoops could bring light to media bias.....with his uncited reference to a Rupert Murdoch tabloid.
Most Liberals have proven over and over that they fully support the utilization of lies to promote their political agenda. With this in mind, Boiler has decided to assume that anything coming out of Liberal's mouth is very likely a lie if politics is involved.

It's prudent to never trust a liar.


Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
pj is welcome to disprove any of the facts in the article

1- Splc is funded by the very liberal soros
2- The study was funded by the AFT, which heavily supported by clinton
3- the splc members donated to the clinton campaign
4- it did not & will not verify any of the claims of hate crimes
5- It deliberately withheld data that went against their base thesis
6- Claiming that the statement "build the wall" is an example of hate. Most would think that is an opinion & an example of freedom of speech


Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now