So this is not a hate crime?

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

yep. you have.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

Haha, that's funny. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep hating people you know nothing about. Sounds like a wonderful strategy for winning future elections

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

Haha, that's funny. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep hating people you know nothing about. Sounds like a wonderful strategy for winning future elections

Nothing I said has anything to do with hate. In the next election, all the Dem needs to do is speak to the fear and ignorance that leads to prejudice and the support of a racist. They actually won't have to even say the word race. I'm empathic with trump voters I know who live in this fear.

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

Haha, that's funny. Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep hating people you know nothing about. Sounds like a wonderful strategy for winning future elections

Nothing I said has anything to do with hate. In the next election, all the Dem needs to do is speak to the fear and ignorance that leads to prejudice and the support of a racist. They actually won't have to even say the word race. I'm empathic with trump voters I know who live in this fear.

You are "empathic" with racist trump voters? Are you sure you aren't racist?

Go Beavers

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?

Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.

HughFreakingDillon

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?

Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.

not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.

PJPOWER

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?

Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.

not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.

Right you are. Much of her pandering could be viewed as a blatant form of racism.

HughFreakingDillon

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?

Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.

not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.

Right you are. Much of her pandering could be viewed as a blatant form of racism.

I wasn't referring to her being racist. I was talking about her corruption and the like.

dignin

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

InHiding80 said:

I've seen so many Trumptards calling it a hate crime on Facebook and being hypocrites by saying the N word. All you have to do is google it and you'll see these privileged hypocrites. Of course, being the badass vigilante I am *sinister laughter*, I reported them. No one is above the law.

Unless the trump fans draw first blood, there's no excuse for what happened.

So carrying the same judgement...are these four individuals considered "Hillatards"? Just trying to get the lingo down.

That depends on whether or not Clinton ran a campaign weaved with prejudice and racism and incited violence at her rallies.

I'm not so sure about that, the standard seems to be that if anyone supports a candidate that asshole racists support then they must be asshole racists too. So if these asshole racists support Clinton...then all Clinton supporters must be like these Neanderthals, right? I know I'm being facetious, but I have seen that logic applied a few times around here.

The logic doesn't play out because Clinton's policies weren't rooted in racism and prejudice. A racist may have voted for Clinton, but it wouldn't be motivated by her policies. Racists voted for trump because of his policies. People who say they aren't racist also voted for trump, which at a minimum, is condoning trump's bigotry and racism. In order to explain their vote for trump, they go through a series of minimizations of trump, which really is just enabling him. Can you see how one person would call a colluder and enabler a racist?

So someone that votes down a party line and favors republican ideology having nothing to do with racism is an enabling, colluding, racist?

It doesn't matter what the person's voting history was. They were given enough factual information about trump and made the choice to vote for him over someone else, or to abstain. So yes, it's collusion and enabling.

it goes both ways, though. are the people that voted for clinton pro-war and pro-corruption?

Did Clinton have war and corruption as part of her proposed plan? I'm talking about what he said he wanted at an objective, surface level. Also, almost every negative that Clinton held, trump also had to an even larger degree.

not in a neat little package, no, but it was historically how she conducted herself, and people obviously knew that going in.

Right you are. Much of her pandering could be viewed as a blatant form of racism.

I wasn't referring to her being racist. I was talking about her corruption and the like.

What corruption?

chadwick

has trump commented on this yet?

PJfanwillneverleave1

chadwick said:

has trump commented on this yet?

Why should he?

chadwick

uh... to maybe show some compassion toward the poor young man who was tortured.

tbergs

Did Obama comment? I don't know that any president should be commenting on every crime that occurs. That's what mayors and governors are for. Unless it's a mass tragedy, I wouldn't expect a president to make a public comment.

jeffbr

tbergs said:

Did Obama comment? I don't know that any president should be commenting on every crime that occurs. That's what mayors and governors are for. Unless it's a mass tragedy, I wouldn't expect a president to make a public comment.

Obama did comment and called it despicable. http://time.com/4625201/obama-chicago-disabled-teen-beating/

jeffbr

chadwick said:

has trump commented on this yet?

No, he's too busy losing a twitter fight with Arnold.