Such aggression. I was addressing the alt-right in general. I don't keep track of what every one of your heroes says, nor do I care to. The alt-right is now largely motivated by delusions of racial superiority. You already know this, since you lift most of your gibberish from alt-right sites, and the comments sections are littered with racism.
And since when do you even have a problem with racism? Just the other day you were rambling about how progressives are no different than the racists, since they're prejudiced against racial supremacists.
how sensitive of you. If anyone says the wrong thing, it's gotta be some kind of micro-aggression. yah yah yah. All I did was diss your stupid insult, that nobody would agree with me. Hence, of course, my idea could not be valid.
nothing to do with the facts or evidence at hand. That's just a useless way to respond to anything.
I believe Hillary is a racist. So what? What's the basis or information I'm looking at. Well, she's human, and it's a universal human trait to form group concepts, and attribute some kind of goodness or value to the group you want to identify with.l Liberals are all "racists" in that sense, and they think people who don't agree are stupid, evil, and repugnant. They even want to make laws to make sure everyone agrees or complies.
Of course, everyone is prone to this sort of thinking and action.
I don't care how many laws you make, how many college courses on racism kids have to sit through. Things as obvious and convenient as skin color are always going to be in the mix as people form these ideas and values. It's human nature, and no amount of evolution or progress will ever overcome it.
What we can do is assert a principle of equality under the law. But every "protected" classkification is an assault on the "unprotected", and the more of these efforts, the more the backlash will be.
That's why I think Hillary and Obama are pushing us toawards a race war. It's stupid policies that promote "change" on terms that offend or mistreat one group while helping another.
I see and hear the Libs creating divisions and groupings and acting to favor or help one while lecturing the other all the time.
So far, the worst I can make of what I've heard Trump say is that we should be concerned enough about obvious dangers to stop bringing unknown people in. At least, let's check to see if they pose danger. I think he meant check for criminal past and ideological enmity against America which is related to a plan to do some terrorist or other harm to our security.
So I read Mother Jones' article on Bannon and the "alt right", and I have heard discussions on Breitbart where Bannon discussed how the intent to follow Sharia law is incompatible with American ideas of government that does not endorse religion per se. Yes we have lots of laws derived from Christian beliefs, but I believe you would object just as Bannon does if the folks coming in believed in burning witches and such. Burning witches equates roughly in my book with some aspects of punishments under Sharia law. This sort of talk, Mother Jones holds out as evidence of Bannon being "alt right".
The hard extreme racists, the sort who are moving to the Northwest and prepping for a race war, are something else, imo.
I think Islam has some history of religious tolerance in some eras of history, sometimes being more tolerant than contemporary Christianity.... I mean contemporary of those times. But the present hard radicals seem to have none, or is it just the news that plays it that way? So Americans who want religious liberty should be concerned with the changes being imposed on them by governance that imports masses of these people who have no thought of respecting us.
