The Alt Right is entirely racist, specifically white supremicist, and it is itself - this is its identity - a specialized cadre of the current American fascist movement. So yes, "they" are all fascist, if you have managed to stay on topic and are talking about the Alt Right. But it's not clear who you are talking about, actually, because you go on with this: Now Sanders is talking about the Democratic Party, not the Alt Right. The Alt Right is Republican, and/or "Independent" (but voted for W twice and McCain/Palin over Obama because he wasn't sure Obama was born in the US and he suspected Obama hated white people). And Sanders is talking about the economic issues all of we Sanders supporters - Left, me, people like me - have been banging on about all those years (the reason we didn't back Clinton in 2008), and he is advising against the Dems imitating the Republican reliance on identity politics. Even though Trump won via identity politics (plus electoral fraud and manipulation of various kinds) , ran as a man of "the people" for the people who were white working class voters in the swing States, ran a populist campaign for a population of a certain kind, Sanders recommends another path. But that other path is closed, long past rejected, by the Alt Right. So if you want to run candidates as Sanders recommends, you will be running against the Alt Right. Flatly against. Breitbart will not be your ally, at all - you will get no help from some imagined fraction of the Alt Right that is not racist or fascist, but instead cares about - say - the economic interests of the black and brown working class, even as they conflict with those of the white male corporate wealthy.
I recall him doing some - he must have repeated that 47% remark a thousand times during his campaign. But overall there was far less rancor than this campaign, because neither candidate was engaging the deplorables. This time they were absolutely engaged. And Trump did it far more effectively, and won.
47%... are you confusing Romney for Obama? let me make this simple: the deplorables are not stopped by calling them names, in fact they get off on it. Hey Iceaura you will love this:
Also unstoppable via namecalling are libtards, Democrats, liberals, elites, socialists, "the Left", "Bernie Bros", "people like you", and so forth. Keep slinging the dumbass, misdirected insults - it actually illustrates your point about namecalling, although I'm not sure you have grasped the context. btw: If you did listen to that, you might have made a note of how often he claims that these "Nazis" are a small group, ridiculous, laughable almost, and without connection to power. That's while he was warming up to dissembling and deflecting the issues surrounding police killings of black men, and rolling out the "white lives matter" meme on the ramp of the statistic that police kill twice as many white men as black men. So while you ponder the implications of that video's diminution and near dismissal of white people's racism - as a laughable triviality one can avoid simply by avoiding guys with those haircuts, rather than a structural, ubiquitous, and fundamentally significant political fact in the United States - keep this in the back of your mind: Steve Bannon, Alt-Right honcho, is arguably going to be the second most powerful human being in the United States on January 21. The argument is that he might be the third, after one of the guys mentioned in this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go It was one or more of them, after all, who nurtured and fed the triumphant and election-winning social media video campaign that you blame me, and people like me, for providing content - including the frame that people like you should blame people like me for its content, as a group, regardless of our actual role. Which you went for, completely, baby sunfish meeting worm. And so people like me are not even supposed to say the name of the political ideology of the President of the United States and his chief counselors, when we are discussing US politics. Why? Because it's "namecalling". And this prohibition is going to be enforced by Trump's political foes. I tip my hat to whoever - Parscale? Dan? Jared? - pulled that off.
iceaura, Oh I loved reading your reply, that was fun, I like how his opinion of BLM trigger you, anyways I don't think you need worry about calling these Nazis "nazis" I would put a good bet these people honestly accept the label, with white pride no less! The problem is calling other people that don't think of themselves as nazis "nazis", call them nazi enough and they will accept it and join the nazis.
The modern left has it foundation in the concept of criminal rights. After World War II, law enforcement became much stricter due to the paranoia associated with the Cold War years. By the 1960's, with various social revolutions, like Civil rights, the notion of criminal rights came into its own, to help balance the excessive bias. It had a positive use in the beginning. However, the pendulum swung too far to the left over the next several decades. You can't kill serial murderers, in many states, but need to invest more into them, then any of their victims. This is liberalism 1.0; criminal first. Criminals rights, was/is supported by the majority of defense lawyers, because it makes their job easier; this is good for business. This group contributes most of their campaign donations to democrats, since they are the most likely to overlook crime, and will change the law to suit their needs. For example in 2014 law firms contributed $120M, with 70% to democrats. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=K01 Liberalism, in the minds of many, is grounded in the concept of criminal rights, where dual standards appear based on how one votes. If the LGBTQ community complains, civil liberties lawyers will appear. But if the shoe is on the other foot, you will not see these lawyers. Defense lawyers pay the Democrats donations, to make laws that benefit their industry. They offer extra legal benefits to the Democrat base, via quid pro quo. This allows for dual standards. In this last election cycle, Hillary had the most contributions from defense lawyers of all the candidates. She was the person most accused of skirting the law, but was also considered the best person for the defense lawyer to invest in. They invested in her because they assumed she will making their job easier; help criminals escape justice. It could also mean, she is the most likely to make more laws and regulations, so there is more room for violation of law, thereby making more jobs for defense lawyers. If you make a law about PC words, you will need more lawyers. The Constitution provides for humans rights, but not individual rights for liberal voter groups. But if the law is watered down in favor of criminal rights, the Constitution can be interpreted based on liberal fads that give political advantage. This is about to change. The looters and rioters are upset because now crime will be called crime, and not freedom of expression; criminal rights.
What utter bollocks and bullshit rubbish. No, really, you have spouted some ridiculous crap on this site and this one is way up there. Firstly, the Constitution provides for individual rights through the Bill of Rights.. Secondly, the rest of your drivel makes absolutely zero sense and has absolutely nothing to do with this subject matter.
"Criminal rights" are the rights provided by the US Constitution to every American resident. Those rights aren't new, nor are they unique to any political party. They aren't liberal; they aren't conservative; they're American. They are embedded in our Constitution. Whether Clinton's campaign received a few more dollars from defense lawyers than others isn't evidence of some vast conspiracy. And just because Republicans have for 3 decades now falsely accused her of everything from simple malfeasance to serial murder, that isn't evidence of any wrong doing on her part nor is it evidence of any vast liberal conspiracy to let criminals run free as you have asserted. Here is another unpleasant fact for you, under the Obama administration, crime rates are lower than they were during the Reagan administration in the 1980's. Under Reagan's adminstration, a Republican, and the Republican administration which followed, crime rates rose. Crime rates only began to fall in the 90's under a democratic administration. Unfortunately for you and your fellow Republicans, facts matter. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurenbrooke-eisen/americas-faulty-perceptio_b_6878520.html
Given that the right just elected a criminal - hard to defend that statement. And Trump had the most contributions from groups linked to organized crime. No, she wasn't. In fact, the FBI tried their best. Not only could they not make any charges stick, they did not even have enough evidence to make an accusation against her. Meanwhile, the list of women Trump assaulted is up to 22. Incorrect. You should read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; odd that you have not. (Are you the product of private religious schooling, perhaps?) It enumerates INDIVIDUAL rights that apply to everyone. Trump seems quite upset that assault is called crime. Heck, he even claimed that he could not rape his wife, because rape laws should not apply to him.
geez does it occur to any of you that wellwisher was just casting some bait? I mean the drivel he typed up should have been a clue.
Yeah, just about all of his posts seem like a joke but I believe that he is serious, as absurd as that may seem.
There is no difference between a kook and a troll, none, since it is impossible to tell the difference, why bother entertaining them either way? I once met a bum on the street, gave her some change and she starts telling me her life story of traveling through multiple dimensions and her war against the reptilians and how they keep trying to force her to take her medication, now did I grab her, start shaking her "no, NO, you are crazy!, your wrong, snap out of it, for the love of god take your anti-schizophrenia drugs!" no, I just was like "cool" and walked away, because she was too far gone, there was no hope for her... there no hope for wellwisher... or iceaura for that matter. Now back on the tropic of the alt-right, some are trolls, some are culturalist, some actual genuine neo-nazis, you can't tell which is which except perhaps IRL when they are hailing trump I guess. The best question is what to do: ignore them until you have actual crimes to charge them on. Until they commit crimes that we can legally get them on they are just trying to get attention, either for the lulz or because they want an actual race war, or both, either way, don't give them what they want.
It's quite easy. A troll posts material that has no relation to the truth or his beliefs (other than incidentally) to bait people into responding. A kook believes what he is posting. Wellwisher, for example, is a kook, because he believes in the stuff he is posting.
You have slightly more opportunity with a kook, since a kook's goal is not disruption. The odds are still low, but I've actually managed to change the minds of a few kooks over the years. With trolls, it's simply impossible, since their goal is to anger you.
This was funny: Twitter User Replaces Word 'White' With 'Black,' Gets Banned. Strength In Diversity! LOL I was wondering, suppose you wanted to create an organization where membership was based on an objective measurement, like IQ scores, would that organization be considered 'racist'? Suppose you required a certain score to come live and work? Surely, given such scores are purely objective, this would be perfectly acceptable?
This habit you have of getting things not only wrong but exactly backwards is a classic troll tactic. It's looking less and less like good faith as time goes by. At some point, assuming you're just incapable of mentally handling my actual posts, too damn dumb to read what I post with comprehension, runs out of explanatory power. In this case, it ran out when you included Clinton namecalling people "deplorables" among the namecallings you attributed to me, and people like me. There's simply no way to explain that via stupidity alone. And your recommendation, that the Democratic Party purge itself of the Left, also me, and people like me, and anyone else who uses terms like "fascist" or "racist" when describing Trump's voting base in the Republican Party, is of course right down wingnut alley - the exact opposite of Sanders's recommendation, which you endorsed. So what gives?
