Like the cheeto in chief, you may not even realize you're standing with the Nazis, but make no mistake, they see it and understand.
Edit: if you want them to stand alone, you, and the exalted leader need to do a MUCH better job of both distancing yourselves and being clear they are alone in their levels of evil and bile, not state plainly that they are standing on a morality scale right next to some pc thugs (ugly as they may be, pc thugs don't advocate mass murders/genocides).
The KKK, neonazis, and alt right are absolutely on your Republican team, you can't wash your hands of them now after they voted with you because Trump's plan and statements mirrored theirs.

Edit: I may have misread you. Are you saying the republican "team" isn't on America's side? Because I'm saying the KKK and Nazis are undeniably Trump Republicans.

I refuse to acknowledge that ridiculous term....but I absolutely don't stand with the far left. I've said my entire adult lifetime that I would vote republican if only they would...but republicans today don't resemble the party I would have joined. They turned pro war, anti thought, pro spend, anti tax, pro debt, anti responsibility, pro corporation, anti citizen, pro oil, anti progress....I could go on but why?

Um...duh Bob, then you still had it badly wrong. Anti first amendment is still antifa, not anfta.

Actually, I do have fond memories of Berkeley, because I lived there in the 80's, not because I'm a leftist fascist.

Yes, he disavowed them, and in the same breath defends them and lumps his political enemies in with them, as if they're equally evil.
The media isn't saying he didn't say they're bad, it's saying he clearly didn't mean it.

If anti Nazi, anti fascist is the wrong side, color me proudly wrong.

I want you in that slinky black backless mini dress and a pushup bra please. I can't wait.

My Newt, let me bow down to the Oh Great Sage of the Sift.. OGSOTH..

I stand for neither.

The KKK and the team are NOT on our side. Not on your side either. They stand alone.

But you squarely stand with the alt left. Next time your out protesting, wear your yellow dress so I can pick you out on the YouTube vids. You make your mother proud. Ill be watching.

Believe the bias of the fake news -- keep it up -- You and your ilk are the party of evil and debauchery. These are not American values.


PS: It's ANTIFA, I new you would correct that -- because you are so smug and arrogant....OGSOTH... Where I come from It's short for ANTI First Amendment.

Conservatives can not say a word with out these radicals showing up in masks , (so they don't shame their parents) and clubs .. Can you say Berkley? I bet you only have fond memories-- Bully

Don't kid yourself The left are the radicals of society and bloody its citizens that stand opposed to liberal ideas. Bullies.

https://i.imgur.com/yWmsAT9.jpg


https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5roy7w/fact_antifa_is_an_abbreviation_of_antifirst/

Trump has disavows the KKK and its ilk time and time again.

Trump Disavows Racists Over and Over Again - While Media Says Exactly the Opposite


Newt, you are on the wrong side.. I still have hope for you. Heck I'll event take you out for dinner, as long as you wear you yellow dress.

If you want me in a dress just name it. Anything for you newt. BFF

NOBODY is saying anybody is heroes. I haven't read or saw any reports saying they were heroes, save for Fox who says that the media was. Just that people were counter protesting those sort of people the whole word fought a war to defeat.

What is happening is that Trump refuses to say just how fucking evil Nazis and the KKK are. He wouldn't do this if it was a Muslim who ran people over, nor would you. He, Fox, and all those on the right would all be saying how it proves how evil Islam is. By that standard, the fact they don't see how evil Nazis are, proves how evil Christianity is, if God won't convict you that Nazis are one of the greatest evils that ever existed... that anyone who isn't a fucking Nazi themselves, wouldn't call out the absolute shit that is a Nazi or KKK is, is reprehensible. I'm sure most Christians would take offense to such a statement, for such blanket blame of a few bad Nazis proving how evil Christianity is, but don't think twice blaming a terrorist act by a Muslim on the religion itself.

We got Republicans trying to push through laws that protect drivers who hurt or kill people who are peacefully protesting. As if the first amendment doesn't matter. Now, to be fair, most of those probably wouldn't protect the asshole who killed that lady down there, as he clearly had intent to hurt and kill.

Let's repeat the main point, there are no mainstream media saying any group is a hero. People may have called out the one lady as heroic, though it wouldn't have been if it wasn't for a White Supremacist asshole who killed her because she was protesting against White Supremacist like him. But NOBODY in the mainstream media is saying any groups are heroes. All we have is Fox saying as such, and trying to give fucking Nazis a pass for not being some of the most evil people ever. There's no fucking blame on both sides. The fact that we have such a blatantly racist President, with a White Supremacist in Bannon, has emboldened such hate groups, they are gloating how he wouldn't put them down, and then how he rolled back what he said Monday. They love that he's so clearly on their side of pure hate.

He wouldn't have waited days to condemn the violence if it was Muslims at the center. He'd have said something right away, talking about the dangers of radical Islam. He wouldn't have waited to get the facts, as he's proven time and time again. Nor would have the far right media machine like Fox.

Fuck anyone who would stand with the Nazis and the KKK. Fuck anyone who'd defend their hate.

The fact that the Republicans who could do anything about this asshole only have harsh words and won't start a hearing on conduct unbecoming a President, the fact that he's made us the laughing stock of the world, just shows how low the party and its supporters have gone.

So good. I think this video is a pretty great argument for giving the crazy alt-right types plenty of leash to exercise 1st amendment rights -- give them a little and they'll find a way to hang themselves with it.

With that said, comments / (mild) rebuttals to your post @newtboy:
(my thoughts in italics inline with the quoted post:)

I thought Trump was the world's best deal maker, didn't he have a book ghost written for him (because he can't read and write well past the 4th grade level) called the "Art of the Deal"? During the campaign he said again and again how "Only I can... [insert whatever]". None of those things are done that only he could do. It's like he lied... "lies, all lies!" to quote Frau.

They blame Democrats for not joining in, but they weren't even invited to participate in Trumpcare on the Senate side at all... hell, most of the Republicans themselves weren't allowed to participate in the creation. Compare that to the ACA, which had over a year of public debate and had plenty of Republican input and amendments. The Republicans have the number of people to pass anything they could want to pass, but the world's best deal maker, can't make a deal with his own party?

I think this shows more and more how the Republican party needs to split. The divides in the party itself are becoming too great. The problem of course is then they loose control as you split the vote, Fox News and the right wing media would follow the more right wing split, while the Reagan era style Republicans would be sidelined, though maintain a big voting block among less brain washed Republicans.

The party can't even get a simple repeal passed, which they've passed before, of course it was just symbolic then, actually passing a repeal seems harder. They campaigned for years on how they had a better plan, of course they didn't show it, which should have been the first warning they didn't have one, and now they spend all this time trying to come up with something better and still can't pull it off, despite having a clear majority. Of course another warning sign should have been the fact that last break, only 2 of them had enough guts to actually hold town halls, the rest avoided their constitutions...

Unrelated side note: I still say all the Senators and Representatives should stay home, in their home districts. Technology is such that they don't need to all be in Washington at all. Of course I'd also cut their pay then, say to what an entry level soldier (sans hazard pay) would make since it is a service position, not a career, term limit them (12 years House, 12 or 16 years Senate, 8 years President, or 20 years combined total max). And then you make the number of Representatives actually be based on population, we've had 435 Reps since 1911, and the population has grown a lot since then... say one Representative for every 500,000 people, which would give us 646 Representatives, which stay in their home districts. But of course that would rob them of their money, their political careers, and make them more liable to the people they represent, so congress would never make those changes.

Hell, Camacho was vastly superior - he at least recognized when he was in the wrong, and made amends.

Big difference

The TEA party wants to follow the Constitution.
All other groups don't.

How do the justice democrats line up with the Constitution?

I checked you link to the JD platform - Some are worthy but still most are Un constitutional BS feel good look nonsense .


Pass a constitutional amendment to put an end to Washington corruption and bring about election reform. --- Never pass FOx watching hen house- only a smaller government helps this and term limits.


Defend free speech and expression.-Left are the oppressors
Ensure universal healthcare as a right. -Un constitutional
Create the new new deal.
Ensure universal education as a right. Un constitutional
Ensure universal healthcare as a right.Un constitutional
Make the minimum wage a living wage and tie it to inflation.Un constitutional
Defend and protect women’s rights. - So we dont cre about men?
Ensure paid vacation time, sick time, family leave, childcare. Un constitutional
Protect Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Un constitutional
Implement comprehensive immigration reform. agreed
Enact police reform. - Agreed arrest criminals
Combat homelessness. - bring back sanatoriums that liberals removed .

Bill C-16 adds "gender identity or expression" to the list of things protected by anti-discrimination law under the Canadian Human Rights Code.

The transsexual and gender non-binary communities are insisting that not using their preferred pronouns qualifies as discrimination, and therefore now punishable under this amendment.

Dr. Peterson argues that forcing people through the law to use pronouns created by this minority resembles how fascist ideologies of the past have functioned. A bad precedent to set, and not how natural societal mechanisms of language adoption function. He also seems to object to the long list of made up pronouns the gender-fluid types are insisting on.

One example of language adoption I ran across, without going into detail, was the creation and use of "Ms."

@Jinx
the whole jordan peterson thing confuses me as well,though i do not know if for the same reasons.

i understand his argument on language,and it's uses,prefixes etc etc.ok,i get that.what i do not really get is his objection to c-160.

on the surface,his argument seems to suggest that it is about criminalization of pronoun usage,which,if true,i could understand his objection,but how i read c-160 that is not the case at all.

the new addendum appears to only add to already existing laws on the books to protect a subset of people that were in need of at least SOME protection.

his argument seems to be ripped out of the pages of a minority report type abuse,but not anything that is actually in practice.

now this is not necessarily un-warranted.there have been many instances where well intentioned laws were perverted to produce something entirely not expected.
see:14th amendment and the creation of the corporation,an amendment set in place to protect newly freed,land owning slaves.

but to extrapolate an addendum,to already existing law,and make the case of future abuse,with little or no evidence.is a pretty thin argument.

in my opinion,dr petersons only real gripe,and valid argument,is against the university of toronto,and how they handled the situation.

i have watched a number of dr petersons videos on language,and the psychology behind language,and the societal and cultural impacts of language,and even the abuses that can arise with the misuse of language and the inevitable conflicts that can arise.

i have also seen peterson speak to a group of protesters and have watched them settle down and actually have a conversation with him.

so i think peterson has a beef with the university,and not the addendum to an already existing law,although that is not his contention.i simply do not see where he can take it to that extremity,when there is little evidence to support it.

i dunno..seems kind of a waste of time in many aspects to me.

I've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.

Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.

...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)

The unemployment numbers of 28, 29, 35, and 42% is a weird sequence. So he starts by jumping 1%, then 6%, then 7%. So if we keep the pattern going if could be: 1 6 7 13 20 33 53. It may have been 28, 29, I heard 35, maybe 42, could even be 55, even as high as 88 or *gasp* 141%.

Or it could be up by 1, then up by 5, up by 1 and then up by 5 as in: 1 6 7 12 13 18 19 24 25

But since he stopped at 42, let's get the range: 42 - 28 = 14

Since it's America and it's somewhat appropriate, in the mystical ways of presidential numerology (the only way to understand Trump), the range of 14 must be referring to the 14th Amendment.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It is rather disturbing how accurate he was. Trump isn't really too far off from a Palin, all idiotic bluster and charisma masking an intellectual and ethical vacuum. He's clearly just signing off on whatever he's told, with his own pet issues getting most of the media flak. Can't imagine Trump from before 2015 or so giving much of a crap about the Johnson amendment or anything Jesus-related, but tell him in 2017 it'll get the evangelicals on his side and of course it's a vital issue.

I think I would have preferred Palin, as her family in the White House (rather than swinging quasi-bachelor Trump) would have been entertaining on some level.

Might have to look into seeing what Olbermann is saying about the next few weeks / months / years...

Yeah, at this point in his speech (after the thanks) last year, Obama was quoting scripture.
"And on this occasion, I always enjoy reflecting on a piece of scripture that’s been meaningful to me or otherwise sustained me throughout the year. And lately, I’ve been thinking and praying on a verse from Second Timothy: “For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.” For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind."

Trump then goes on talking how he'll destroy the Johnson amendment, passed by a Republican congress and President, that limits the ability of non-profits from endorsing candidates, so that preachers can more freely endorse candidates... not that the law has stopped them yet anyhow, and the government never seems to enforce that rule.

Then Trump goes on about the typical Republican love of war... which of course in contrary to the teachings of Jesus, but the crowd loved it. Nothing makes modern right wing Christians happier than murdering and killing non-white, non-Christians, but they're "pro-life"... blah... anyhow, yeah.

Why do I get the feeling that Mr Sessions won't be asking that question to any of Trump's nominees?
Sweet zombie Jesus, we are so fucked. Closer to 1984 every day.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Can we start Wexit....the secession of the entire west coast? In today's climate, we might be able to get consent of congress or a constitutional amendment allowing it. The right sees us as troublesome bastard stepchildren as it is, many would be glad to be rid of us libtards, and many of us would be glad to leave.

Doesn't the 2nd Amendment read:
"A well regulated Marching Band, being necessary to the security of a free Football Team, the right of the popular people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." ?