'All I Want for Christmas is White Genocide'

[pErvinalia]

Because they benefit the most.

[Forty Two]

He's angry at women. And then men who like women. And people who care about other people.

That may be, but is a person who advocates for genocide of white people somehow a person who likes women and cares about other people?

The person didn't advocate for genocide of white people. It is a sarcastic comment on the term "White genocide" as it is used by racists. (i.e. equal rights and not allowing racist policies)

Oh, he did? LOL. On Sunday, he said that the massacre of whites during the Haitian Revolution was a “good thing.” During the Haitian massacre in 1804 as many as 4,000 whites were killed. In 2015 he advocated abolishing the white race, and that Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof “simply put into practice what many white Americans already think.” He also wrote that some white people should be sent to a gulag - "#Gulag these Racist Crackers.”

This professor is an self-avowed Communist, who has said similar things for years. So, it's hard to believe he's being sarcastic.

Don't get me wrong, whether he's sarcastic or not doesn't effect his right to say these things. I like when people speak freely.

Maybe he is sarcastic, and he really means the opposite of what he's saying in order to use humor to make a point. Query - if he is using sarcasm here, what point is he making? What's his true meaning, if he doesn't literally mean what he says?

[Forty Two]

Because they benefit the most.

Well, sure, but then why wouldn't the same people who descry that bigger benefit also acknowledge that they are hit the hardest when a tax rate is increased? Instead, it's still couched as an unfairly low burden on the rich. That's why it's just a political attack. If Trump said he was going to raise taxes 2% across the board, he'd still be criticized for raising taxes in a way that doesn't have the rich paying their fair share, but if he then said he'd repeal that 2% tax increase, they'd claim he was benefiting the rich.

I.e., all tax policy from Republicans is characterized as unfair, and all tax policy from the Democrats is characterized as fair (by Democrats and their supporters, and anyone on the left) because of politics.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not sure what this has to do with tax cuts to the rich being economically to the right. Seems like you are trying to pull a red herring fallacy.

[NineBerry]

Oh, he did? LOL. On Sunday, he said that the massacre of whites during the Haitian Revolution was a “good thing.” During the Haitian massacre in 1804 as many as 4,000 whites were killed. In 2015 he advocated abolishing the white race

Citation Required

Maybe he is sarcastic, and he really means the opposite of what he's saying in order to use humor to make a point. Query - if he is using sarcasm here, what point is he making? What's his true meaning, if he doesn't literally mean what he says?

I have already explained that the term "white genocide" is a special term used by white racists to refer to political ideas that they are opposed to and that have nothing to do with genocide.

[Forty Two]

Oh, he did? LOL. On Sunday, he said that the massacre of whites during the Haitian Revolution was a “good thing.” During the Haitian massacre in 1804 as many as 4,000 whites were killed. In 2015 he advocated abolishing the white race

Citation Required

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/profess ... -genocide/

Maybe he is sarcastic, and he really means the opposite of what he's saying in order to use humor to make a point. Query - if he is using sarcasm here, what point is he making? What's his true meaning, if he doesn't literally mean what he says?

I have already explained that the term "white genocide" is a special term used by white racists to refer to political ideas that they are opposed to and that have nothing to do with genocide.

Citation Required.

[Brian Peacock]

But why?

Broadly speaking right-leaning governments are in power across the what we used to call the free world, yet the right not only remain angry, but with every political success they become progressively more irate. Brexiteers and Trumpeteers got what they wanted, and yet they're still vociferously disatisfied - evermore so. It's almost as if their political victories are stoking the flames of their disaffection rather than quelling them. This seems paradoxical - so I wonder if politics is really what's driving the fury here.

Trump is actually a move left for the US. His policies are not right wing, even economically. Trump is against foreign intervention, except for dealing with ISIS and Al Qaeta. Trump is in favor of tariffs and fair trade, which is what the left was arguing for for many decades. He is against NAFTA and the TPP, etc., which is not right wing at all. Trump is far to the left of Cruz, and even left of Clinton.

And now would you care to address the point I made now?

While we're waiting for that (though I won't hold my breath), are you suggesting that Trump is essentially a left-leaning politician, that his campaign rhetoric or his policy proposals were broadly left-leaning, and that lefties voted for him?

[Forty Two]

But why?

Broadly speaking right-leaning governments are in power across the what we used to call the free world, yet the right not only remain angry, but with every political success they become progressively more irate. Brexiteers and Trumpeteers got what they wanted, and yet they're still vociferously disatisfied - evermore so. It's almost as if their political victories are stoking the flames of their disaffection rather than quelling them. This seems paradoxical - so I wonder if politics is really what's driving the fury here.

Trump is actually a move left for the US. His policies are not right wing, even economically. Trump is against foreign intervention, except for dealing with ISIS and Al Qaeta. Trump is in favor of tariffs and fair trade, which is what the left was arguing for for many decades. He is against NAFTA and the TPP, etc., which is not right wing at all. Trump is far to the left of Cruz, and even left of Clinton.

And now would you care to address the point I made now?

While we're waiting for that (though I won't hold my breath), are you suggesting that Trump is essentially a left-leaning politician, that his campaign rhetoric or his policy proposals were broadly left-leaning, and that lefties voted for him?

Sure, and I did address the part of your point where you're saying "Trumpeteers got what they wanted" as an example of the "right" remaining angry despite being in power across the free world. The "right" hated and still hate Trump, because his policies were not the policies of the right.

The policy proposals are broadly to the left of the "the right" (in the US, the Republican Party is generally to the right. I wouldn't call them "lefty" though, as he's not a socialist. But, being a socialist "lefty" is not a point in anyone's favor, IMO.

[Collector1337]

Japan for the Japanese.

China for the Chinese.

India for the Indians.

Mexico for the Mexicans.

Israel for the Jews.

Africa for the Africans.

Arabia for the Arabs.

White countries for EVERYBODY!

Yeah... there's totally not anything going on, nothing to see here. Move along, Whitey.

[Brian Peacock]

Where do those with mixed parentage go?

[Hermit]

...much of the criticism of his tax policy is just political gamesmanship, since we really don't know the details.

Trump lists enough concrete proposals here to say that criticism of his tax policy is not just political gamesmanship. For instance, he is flattening the income tax brackets, which is a very right wing thing to do. Pointing that out is not just political gamesmanship. Overall, he relies on tax cuts to be offset by increased employment, a closing of loopholes and a general improvement in the economy. Reagan and Bush tried that in the past, and it did not work. The consequences were that the rich got richer more quickly than before, the poor stayed where they were or, taking inflation into account, went backwards, and the budget deficit skyrocketed. I see no difference with Trump's scheme to see the likelihood of a different outcome. Again, pointing that out is not just political gamesmanship.

[Brian Peacock]

... Again, pointing that out is not just political gamesmanship.

It's not even political gamesmanship - unless all political discourse is mere gamesmanship.

[Hermit]

... Again, pointing that out is not just political gamesmanship.

It's not even political gamesmanship - unless all political discourse is mere gamesmanship.

I was careful to keep including "just" in order to avoid starting a discussion of what "political gamesmanship" means.

[Brian Peacock]

Oops.

If political criticism can be glibly dismissed as mere gamesmanship then advocacy of any political argument can be dismissed on the same grounds. In other words, for a party to dismiss or deride an opposing political view on the grounds of gamesmanship is self-defeating and devalues the entirety of the political debate.

[rainbow]

He's angry at women. And then men who like women. And people who care about other people.

That may be, but is a person who advocates for genocide of white people somehow a person who likes women and cares about other people?

No they are Twats looking for attention.

...so ignore them.

Do not feed the troll