US racist and bigoted hate crimes explode after Trump election victory

[jcsmith]

3 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

Lets not try to cast the whole population that voted for trump as extreme right wing white nutjobs.

 

You definitely can't do that. But at the same time, those who did vote for Trump were well aware of his thoughts and beliefs. So casting your vote for the guy says that you are okay with all that because you agree with him on some other issues. It says that you're okay with the U.S. banning muslims from entering the country (I don't think this will actually happen BTW, but he has floated the idea), that you are okay with him surrounding himself with racist individuals whose fan base is comprised of like-minded people, that you could care less about impending environmental nightmares, that you're fine with people 50,000 people dying every year from a lack of health care so you can trim a few bucks off your premium, that you are fine with made up statistics and repeated lies from the commander in chief, and that your okay with the head of government insulting and attacking random people and being a complete jerk. What makes this election different from previous elections is that to many people on the opposing side they take a look at all of the above and think if someone is okay with all of that, then I'm not okay with them. That's why the divide is so large right now. Because large portions of both sides want absolutely nothing to do with one another.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

4 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Y'all still haven't stopped with the Kool Aid we see,

Of course the Lamestream Media isn't out there advertizing the facts that Trumps protesters are pulling these stunts now are they?

They've circled the wagons for the next 4 years and beyond.

 

I hardly think that quoting Sarah Palin helps move your fake claims any further to credibility. If what you claimed was happening to electors is true, then there would be report in the main stream media for the main stream viewer who understands that main stream journalists have a responsibility to confirm and check.

 

Mainstream media curates news. Your Alt Right sources do not.

 

But since you aren't really interested in a reasoned discussion on the issue, I don't see the point in taking that idea further.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Says who?  Here's the actual definition.

 

"Reverse racism is a phenomenon in which discrimination, sometimes officially sanctioned, against a dominant or formerly dominant racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons, often initially as an attempt at redressing past wrongs."

 

Someone has gone to a lot of trouble in defining something you alleged does not exist.

 

You posted a definition, not the definition. And the core of your argument is that because someone went to the trouble of writing that paragraph then this is sufficient to demonstrate that something exists.

 

Wikipedia is useful but it is also a tool for intellectual shallowness.

 

There are many reasons to demonstrate why Reverse Racism is not a thing. Here's one. It's a big one - individual racial prejudice is not racism. It is not racism because a prejudicial comment against a white person by a non white person is rarely associated with the power to influence that person's life. Racism involves power.

 

I believe you posted a link to an article that claimed that a number of African Americans were racist, including Barack Obama and Martin Luther King - demonstrating that some people just don't have a clue.

 

For those evolved enough to listen to a minority voice explain the issue:

 

 

Promotion of the fallacy of reverse racism aids and abets the perpetuation of oppression and inequality. It plays into the hands of the Supremacists and needs to be exposed and challenged.

[Si Thea01]

50 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Thanks, noticed you left out 'details' that don't suit your point of view.

Sent from my ROBBY using Thaivisa Connect mobile app
 

 

Instead of posting baseless and non-substance one liners, please show the details that were left out to suit my point of view.  I now understand why we have warning labels on everything. 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Opl]

15 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 

You definitely can't do that. But at the same time, those who did vote for Trump were well aware of his thoughts and beliefs. So casting your vote for the guy says that you are okay with all that because you agree with him on some other issues. It says that you're okay with the U.S. banning muslims from entering the country (I don't think this will actually happen BTW, but he has floated the idea), that you are okay with him surrounding himself with racist individuals whose fan base is comprised of like-minded people, that you could care less about impending environmental nightmares, that you're fine with people 50,000 people dying every year from a lack of health care so you can trim a few bucks off your premium, that you are fine with made up statistics and repeated lies from the commander in chief, and that your okay with the head of government insulting and attacking random people and being a complete jerk. What makes this election different from previous elections is that to many people on the opposing side they take a look at all of the above and think if someone is okay with all of that, then I'm not okay with them. That's why the divide is so large right now. Because large portions of both sides want absolutely nothing to do with one another.

 

Thank you for this thought that summerizes it all perfectly.

Voting for D. Trump is not "middle finger to the establishment", it's switching pole positions to another part of the establishment - who besides consider they are the dominants, and voters the dominated.

 

 

 

[Si Thea01]

14 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

You posted a definition, not the definition. And the core of your argument is that because someone went to the trouble of writing that paragraph then this is sufficient to demonstrate that something exists.

 

Wikipedia is useful but it is also a tool for intellectual shallowness.

 

There are many reasons to demonstrate why Reverse Racism is not a thing. Here's one. It's a big one - individual racial prejudice is not racism. It is not racism because a prejudicial comment against a white person by a non white person is rarely associated with the power to influence that person's life. Racism involves power.

 

I believe you posted a link to an article that claimed that a number of African Americans were racist, including Barack Obama and Martin Luther King - demonstrating that some people just don't have a clue.

 

For those evolved enough to listen to a minority voice explain the issue:

 

 

Promotion of the fallacy of reverse racism aids and abets the perpetuation of oppression and inequality. It plays into the hands of the Supremacists and needs to be exposed and challenged.

 

Well I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

[ClutchClark]

The problem with this misleading headline is that it is based on unsubstantiated reports.

 

How many of these claims have been investigated by police and wrongdoers identified and apprehended.

 

Its possible the wrongdoers are, in part, liberals and anarchists who see an opportunity to smear Republicans by these disgusting actions. 

 

 

[jcsmith]

39 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I hardly think that quoting Sarah Palin helps move your fake claims any further to credibility. If what you claimed was happening to electors is true, then there would be report in the main stream media for the main stream viewer who understands that main stream journalists have a responsibility to confirm and check.

There is no doubt it's happening, it's caught on tape in many cases. It's also happening both ways, CNN has done a good job to make sure to point out the attacks on Trump supporters, as well. The problem here is that Trump's campaign stoked these fires. You have a racist element that has always been there but who were afraid to come out and speak publicly as they would be frowned upon, but Trump has brought them out of the shadows. Not all Trump supporters fall into that category of course, but on the opposite side there are some people who feel they do and who may have been racist against white people to begin with and this gives them justification (in their mind) to get out of line. For the sake of argument let's assume that's it's 50/50 in that regard. The problem is that the issue was still created by Trump. It was the danger of running a campaign the way he did. It's create a divide that is going to be difficult to heal.

 

The alt-right news networks though are really nothing more than propaganda. The only people who view are like-minded individuals, it isn't meant to be real news. Mainstream news networks want viewers from both sides, they are going to paint a more accurate picture (though they will also look to find things that bring in more viewers or readers).

[Ulysses G.]

59 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

 

The alt-right news networks though are really nothing more than propaganda. The only people who view are like-minded individuals, it isn't meant to be real news.

 

I agree with that, but the left is just as bad. The Huffington Post, Slate and dozens of others are full of distortions, lies and spin too.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Well I would agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

 

I do not think we are dealing with an adult mind here.

 

I will take your puerile response as a concession that you cannot dispute the argument presented.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

The problem with this misleading headline is that it is based on unsubstantiated reports.

 

How many of these claims have been investigated by police and wrongdoers identified and apprehended.

 

Its possible the wrongdoers are, in part, liberals and anarchists who see an opportunity to smear Republicans by these disgusting actions. 

 

 

 

When you have nothing, just make stuff up.

 

Where are these liberals and anarchists pretending to be white supremacists to smear the demure Republican Party innocents?

 

Yep. Deny and Deflect. The Republicans are really scared about the lack of legitimacy of the Trump election.

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I do not think we are dealing with an adult mind here.

 

I will take your puerile response as a concession that you cannot dispute the argument presented.

I've been called worse things by better people.  Are you done.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, jcsmith said:

There is no doubt it's happening, it's caught on tape in many cases. It's also happening both ways, CNN has done a good job to make sure to point out the attacks on Trump supporters, as well. The problem here is that Trump's campaign stoked these fires. You have a racist element that has always been there but who were afraid to come out and speak publicly as they would be frowned upon, but Trump has brought them out of the shadows. Not all Trump supporters fall into that category of course, but on the opposite side there are some people who feel they do and who may have been racist against white people to begin with and this gives them justification (in their mind) to get out of line. For the sake of argument let's assume that's it's 50/50 in that regard. The problem is that the issue was still created by Trump. It was the danger of running a campaign the way he did. It's create a divide that is going to be difficult to heal.

 

The alt-right news networks though are really nothing more than propaganda. The only people who view are like-minded individuals, it isn't meant to be real news. Mainstream news networks want viewers from both sides, they are going to paint a more accurate picture (though they will also look to find things that bring in more viewers or readers).

 

You  and the headline are correct in that there seems to be an explosion of hate crimes as a result of Trump's politics of division. However, I was responding to an allegation trawled from the fringe blogosphere that the electoral system is under direct attack i.e. Electoral College voters are being harassed. If that report had been from the mainstream media, I would have given it more attention since I know that the mainstream media generally requires its reporters and editors to check and confirm facts.

 

As for the issue of division, I have no problem with your assumption that it is 50/50. The recent Presidential election vote demonstrates such. I am not so concerned with the issue of who started the race to the bottom, but I think that many people would agree that Trump bears the blame from the moment he entered the race and the tactics he used in the Primaries. What is interesting to me is when the 'come together' moment will happen. If this moment does not happen, then the tradition of Presidential politics has certainly been broken. I support the protests and opposition to Trump, his choices and his politics. I suspect he will be unable to unite the country and his divisive politics will be damaging.

 

His denunciation of racially inspired attacks on his 60 minutes interview was laughable and entirely lacked leadership.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

8 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

I've been called worse things by better people.  Are you done.

 

Are you ever going to discuss the topic and not me?

 

You have some fetish? Sorry, I don't play that way.

 

I am certainly not done replying to superficial, anti-intellectual claims on the subject of racism that promote the nonsense of white supremacy and exclusivity.

[Ahab]

34 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

I do not think we are dealing with an adult mind here.

 

I will take your puerile response as a concession that you cannot dispute the argument presented.

So using the argument from the video, if the President of the United States happens to be black, and the Attorney General of the United States is Black (the highest law enforcement authority) whites cannot be racist because they no longer are in power? Or in a city such as Baltimore where the mayor, majority of the city council, chief of police, a large percentage of the police department and the city prosecutor are all black is it not possible for white people to be racist because though they "do not have power"? Racism is racism having power over the group that is the subject of the racism has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is occurring.

 

If (as the video suggests) racism requires being in charge or having power, in many major US cities it would not be possible for whites to be racist. Surely you can see how incredibly stupid this argument would be if it was applied equally. If it is only applicable to blacks then I misunderstood the argument being used in the video.

Edited November 19, 2016 by Ahab
corrected grammar

[Publicus]

 

We're talking about people who have historically been discriminated against and over a long term. This means primarily but certainly not exclusively Jewish, Black, Gay.

 

The trend line had begun to be reversed -- there's that word again -- during recent decades or recent years in the United States.

 

Now the government of the U.S. is reverting to its old habits. It is going into reverse.

 

Make America white again -- and predominantly Christian Protestant, and absolutely straight again. The Southern Baptists are upon us led by a Trump. They're entitled to their religion, but not entitled to their prejudiced racism and discrimination.

[ClutchClark]

1 hour ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

When you have nothing, just make stuff up.

 

Where are these liberals and anarchists pretending to be white supremacists to smear the demure Republican Party innocents?

 

Yep. Deny and Deflect. The Republicans are really scared about the lack of legitimacy of the Trump election.

 

I prefer respondents who offer a genuine defense.

 

Obviously we cannot assume to know the motivation of a criminal act until the perpetrator(s) are apprehended.

 

One only need to look back to the Boston Tea Party to be aware of events not always being how they appear. If you had been around back then you would have been lynching indians for the destruction of tea.

 

You might google that to get up to speed rather than simply show such obvious disrespectful tone to what had simply been a question.

 

 

Edited November 19, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ClutchClark]

36 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

We're talking about people who have historically been discriminated against and over a long term. This means primarily but certainly not exclusively Jewish, Black, Gay.

 

The trend line had begun to be reversed -- there's that word again -- during recent decades or recent years in the United States.

 

Now the government of the U.S. is reverting to its old habits. It is going into reverse.

 

Make America white again -- and predominantly Christian Protestant, and absolutely straight again. The Southern Baptists are upon us led by a Trump. They're entitled to their religion, but not entitled to their prejudiced racism and discrimination.

 

Sorry but simply replacing the previously marginalized groups with white males is no better than the earlier behaviors you have become such a spokesman for. Let me know when Liberals actually support equality for ALL.

 

My apology, I mean spokesperson for. Or do you prefer to be called "spokesX"?

 

 

[Ahab]

30 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

We're talking about people who have historically been discriminated against and over a long term. This means primarily but certainly not exclusively Jewish, Black, Gay.

 

The trend line had begun to be reversed -- there's that word again -- during recent decades or recent years in the United States.

 

Now the government of the U.S. is reverting to its old habits. It is going into reverse.

 

Make America white again -- and predominantly Christian Protestant, and absolutely straight again. The Southern Baptists are upon us led by a Trump. They're entitled to their religion, but not entitled to their prejudiced racism and discrimination.

Trumps election was not about religion, until this election campaign no one knew anything about Trumps religion and I believe it was just a "dog whistle" to get some of the religious votes. Heck until a few year ago the Orange Menace was a self proclaimed Democrat. I do not think that the gay population of the USA will have any issues with a President Trump and will likely be pleasantly surprised. I totally agree with your final sentence, but not much else. How about waiting until he starts enacting legislation and appoints a cabinet till you condemn him as a religious zealot (with zero evidence) and a racist (again with zero evidence).

 

[lannarebirth]

 

3 hours ago, jcsmith said:

 

You definitely can't do that. But at the same time, those who did vote for Trump were well aware of his thoughts and beliefs. So casting your vote for the guy says that you are okay with all that because you agree with him on some other issues. It says that you're okay with the U.S. banning muslims from entering the country (I don't think this will actually happen BTW, but he has floated the idea), that you are okay with him surrounding himself with racist individuals whose fan base is comprised of like-minded people, that you could care less about impending environmental nightmares, that you're fine with people 50,000 people dying every year from a lack of health care so you can trim a few bucks off your premium, that you are fine with made up statistics and repeated lies from the commander in chief, and that your okay with the head of government insulting and attacking random people and being a complete jerk. What makes this election different from previous elections is that to many people on the opposing side they take a look at all of the above and think if someone is okay with all of that, then I'm not okay with them. That's why the divide is so large right now. Because large portions of both sides want absolutely nothing to do with one another.

 

I disagree with your thesis. I don't think large portions of both sides want absolutely nothing to do with one another. I think that could be said for small portions of both sides and perhaps they are the most vocal portions.

 

I'd never heard of the so called "alt-right" demographic before last week but I think it does exist having looked into it, only in much smaller numbers than those who would label them suggest. Likewise, there is an "alt-left" (if you will) demographic comprised of those who trade in indentity politics and likewise I think they are fewer in number than is generally believed. Unfortunately these are the people who make all the noise and get all the attention. I don't think the vast majority of Americans identify with either of these groups.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

59 minutes ago, Ahab said:

So using the argument from the video, if the President of the United States happens to be black, and the Attorney General of the United States is Black (the highest law enforcement authority) whites cannot be racist because they no longer are in power? Or in a city such as Baltimore where the mayor, majority of the city council, chief of police, a large percentage of the police department and the city prosecutor are all black is it not possible for white people to be racist because though they "do not have power"? Racism is racism having power over the group that is the subject of the racism has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is occurring.

 

If (as the video suggests) racism requires being in charge or having power, in many major US cities it would not be possible for whites to be racist. Surely you can see how incredibly stupid this argument would be if it was applied equally. If it is only applicable to blacks then I misunderstood the argument being used in the video.

 

How does power work? President Obama was the most 'powerful' man in America. Could he walk out his own front door and take a walk along Pennsylvania Ave? The institution that he occupied would prevent it. This is just a minor example of how 'systems' work.

 

People assumed that electing President Obama heralded a post racial world. What was supposed to happen? Did they think that Obama would adopt white culture and white attitudes? Play the part of the token Black? "Here is my African American" as one revolting Presidential Candidate let slip.

 

Examples of systemic bias are endless. The War on Drugs as applied to African Americans and crack cocaine but not applied to suburban whites and their Oxy or other opioids. Endless examples of systemic imbalances.

 

Solutions cannot be explored until people are willing to admit a problem. Claims of reverse racism deny the problem. Such claims interfere with any progress to deal with racism.

 

For some very graphic evidence of systemic bias, take a look at these two selfies. Count the minorities. If you can.

 

[Jingthing]

29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

...
I do not think that the gay population of the USA will have any issues with a President Trump and will likely be pleasantly surprised.
...

 

So the gay population is going to pleasantly surprised? Maybe the very stupid ones.

Here's is what trump is clearly going to do and not do:

 

-- Not support federal anti-discrimination laws for LGBTQ that Clinton was supporting (for such BASIC things as housing and employment). Did you know people can still be fired in most U.S. states just for being gay? No legal protection.

-- Pick supreme court judges that are opposed to LGBTQ civil rights. It might be very hard to overturn marriage equality, but the more right wing picks he gets, the more possible that gets.

-- Support bogus laws protecting religious people by protecting their "right" to discriminate against LGBTQ people in all kinds of services including medical care because their religion tells them LGBTQ are morally wrong

-- Be a heartbeat from V.P. Pence the most virulently anti-gay president or vice president in history (support for abusive conversion therapy for youth)

-- Serve on the current republican platform, the most anti-gay in U.S. history

-- Already trump's domestic policy advisor believes that : Gays —like arsonists —can be reformed

-- A number of trump's top picks already on record for homophobic speech and support for anti-gay policies.

Dude, we're not that stupid. He's a disaster for the LGBTQ civil rights movement.

The ACLU has already declared WAR on him ... why wait? 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[Ahab]

Give him a chance, he will make America great again. Believe me.

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Give him a chance, he will make America great again. Believe me.

He has his chance whether opponents like me "give" him one or not. He was legally elected much to the eternal shame of the American nation. 

 

I don't support trump.

He's "my president" the same way if I had a hemorrhoid that would be my hemorrhoid. 

I support the ACLU that has woken up and smells the coffee and is already fighting the good fight against him. 

 

https://www.aclu.org/feature/donald-trump-one-man-constitutional-crisis

DONALD TRUMP: A ONE-MAN CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

The Republican President-elect's statements and policy proposals would blatantly violate the inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[Ahab]

I was joking.

[Publicus]

58 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Sorry but simply replacing the previously marginalized groups with white males is no better than the earlier behaviors you have become such a spokesman for. Let me know when Liberals actually support equality for ALL.

 

My apology, I mean spokesperson for. Or do you prefer to be called "spokesX"?

 

 

 

I'd thought from your post just above that you preferred respondents who make a genuine defense. However, I was cheerfully disabused of the notion by reply of the poster you'd posted to who prefers a rational defense. 

 

I see your last couple of posts are neither anyway so let's skip it.

 

Trying to present me as a "spokesperson" of anything is a solid laffer over here, so thanks Clutch for the chuckle even if it is at your expense. You folk over there continue to flatter me to no end so I'm just going to have to ignore it.

 

You all are still missing the historical theme and -- here it comes -- context. The laws and the court rulings of the past half century in particular derive from the long term historically documented reality the targets of ruling elites everywhere have been Jewish, Gay, Black, Female. And the poor.

 

In Western civilisation white folk to include male Christians have had the superiority of numbers. In the USA it's always been the WASP population. They're losing it in an inevitable stream. There is always a reaction against such a fundamental change, so this too shall pass. 

 

Let's just hope that in the meantime Trump doesn't press any red buttons. If he does start pressing away at any point for any reason there certainly won't be a meantime. 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I prefer respondents who offer a genuine defense.

 

Obviously we cannot assume to know the motivation of a criminal act until the perpetrator(s) are apprehended.

 

One only need to look back to the Boston Tea Party to be aware of events not always being how they appear. If you had been around back then you would have been lynching indians for the destruction of tea.

 

You might google that to get up to speed rather than simply show such obvious disrespectful tone to what had simply been a question.

 

 

 

More silly baiting.

 

Where are these liberals perpetrating these outrages to smear Republicans? There are none.

 

Just makin' stuff up.

[ClutchClark]

4 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

I'd thought from your post just above that you preferred respondents who make a genuine defense. However, I was cheerfully disabused of the notion by reply of the poster you'd posted to who prefers a rational defense. 

 

I see your last couple of posts are neither anyway so let's skip it.

 

Trying to present me as a "spokesperson" of anything is a solid laffer over here, so thanks Clutch for the chuckle even if it is at your expense. You folk over there continue to flatter me to no end so I'm just going to have to ignore it.

 

You all are still missing the historical theme and -- here it comes -- context. The laws and the court rulings of the past half century in particular derive from the long term historically documented reality the targets of ruling elites everywhere have been Jewish, Gay, Black, Female. And the poor.

 

In Western civilisation white folk to include male Christians have had the superiority of numbers. In the USA it's always been the WASP population. They're losing it in an inevitable stream. There is always a reaction against such a fundamental change, so this too shall pass. 

 

Let's just hope that in the meantime Trump doesn't press any red buttons. If he does start pressing away at any point for any reason there certainly won't be a meantime. 

 

And I say again, simply substituting white males as the new dienfranchised class in America is no better than the injustices committed before the age of this recent enlightenment of genuine equality.

 

Do let me know when you are ready to join us in a truly egalitarian future.

 

Makin' America Great Again !

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Trumps election was not about religion, until this election campaign no one knew anything about Trumps religion and I believe it was just a "dog whistle" to get some of the religious votes. Heck until a few year ago the Orange Menace was a self proclaimed Democrat. I do not think that the gay population of the USA will have any issues with a President Trump and will likely be pleasantly surprised. I totally agree with your final sentence, but not much else. How about waiting until he starts enacting legislation and appoints a cabinet till you condemn him as a religious zealot (with zero evidence) and a racist (again with zero evidence).

 

 

If you look back at my post again you'd find I never said Trump himself is particularly religious, much less a zealot about it.

 

Zealots are among the people who voted for him and worse those who will populate his administration, such as Jefferson Davis, er, Sessions to name but one. 

 

The long term historically oppressed and repressed that I have identified, to include those who have been victims of state power at its most extreme have much to fear from the Republican Party in the absolute control of the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicary. 

 

Trump for instance is horrendous enough with his wall and the mass deportation state police, the Muslim registry and ban, and all the rest of his loony bin schemes. But anyone who might think Jewish people, women, gay civil unions, black civil rights and much else are safe and secure with the Republican Party of 2016 in absolute power in Washington would be flat out nuts.

 

In USA external relations, Trump and his General Flynn are going to make war on terrorism in the context of Islam itself, per se. As if eradicating or smashing terrorism is predicated in an open and direct hostility towards Islam itself, and almost all Muslims everywhere, to include in the USA.

 

Some Trump guy was on Faux the other day talking about the WW2 Japanese internment camps as a precedent. Youse guyz are invited to elaborate on the reference, in respect of Muslims and concerning immigrants...then there are the rest of us, because inquiring minds want to know how the Trump dominoes fall once he taps the first ones.   

[The manic]

On Friday, November 18, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Johnniey said:

You mean you don't like Mel Gibson in the movie "The Patriot" or "Braveheart"?

 

When I watch Braveheart I get extremely patriotic and think there is nothing at all the matter with that. How can you compare that to racism? I'd like to see English people need passports to get into Scotland but I have no hatred towards most of them.

You should learn some real scottish history - not believe that scotch myth. Patriotism a refuge for scoundrels and their weak minded followers.