Let's play along and say he didn't experience racism. Does that mean there isn't systemic racism?

If I claimed cancer rates are on the rise, and you ask if I have cancer, and I said no, does that mean there's no such thing as cancer?

But you knew that already. Stop with the disingenuous arguments.

So I was right...it's pure deflection.
You have completely ignored the excellent points he made, made a barely related denigrating point about his father, then extrapolate to attempt to make a completely unrelated, naive or disingenuous (and terrible) point about an unrelated topic....hoping we'll follow along and forget the excellent points he made about Nazis.
Bad form again, Bob....just horrible.

BTW....because you seem confused, no one ever was forced under penalty of death to keep slaves, and very few Nazi's families benefited after the fact from having been Nazis....it's not the same thing by far.

I don't think zerohedge is a reputable source.
Why wasn't this found before the event., not that there's anything odd about looking for photographers at a KKK/Nazi rally. Of course you would want them to be comfortable participating in protests, you have to be to get decent photos of them.

Zerohedge : In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site. Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since Lokey joined the site in 2015. Former Zero Hedge writer Colin Lokey said that he was pressured to frame issues in a way he felt was "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft." Zero Hedge founder Daniel Ivandjiiski, in response, said that Lokey could write "anything and everything he wanted directly without anyone writing over it." On leaving, Lokey said: "I can't be a 24-hour cheerleader for Hezbollah, Moscow, Tehran, Beijing, and Trump anymore. It's wrong. Period. I know it gets you views now, but it will kill your brand over the long run. This isn't a revolution. It's a joke."

Yeah I don't like how these nature "documentaries" stitch together different pieces of footage which are usually unrelated and try to turn it into some drama. I bet 90% of the shit they shoot is boring as fuck and nothing ever happens. It feels a little disingenuous, but I guess making nature entertaining to kids and families is a good thing if it gets them to notice the fact that it exists.

While suing someone for asking questions is clearly bullshit, his test at the end is pretty disingenuous.

You don't sleep on the actual plastic. There would normally be at least 3 layers (firesock, cover, sheet). Repeat the t-shirt test as you would sleep on it.

Since election rigging is featured so often in the media these days, the lack of coverage of the class-action suit filed against the DNC becomes even more apparent. Luckily though, some some blogs are still on the case.

Appetizer:

Counsel for the DNC tap-danced around the judge’s initial line of questioning before finally answering that primary elections are “generally state funded.” But he left out how the Clinton campaign’s “takeover of national party structure” completely changes the context for “state funded.” Sure, there’s accounts with the state’s name on them, but the money was supplied by the Clinton campaign. At the very least, counsel for the DNC is being disingenuous when he says the DNC doesn’t fund state elections. In 2016 alone, FEC filings show that Florida received almost $22 million from DNC Services corp. How does that not constitute DNC funding?

Calling someone crazy might be dismissive, but that doesn't mean it's not the correct attitude to take.

You don't have to give every opinion equal validity, you can easily dismiss certain ideas.

Creationists? Crazy. Dismissed.
Homeopaths? Crazy. Dismissed.
Climate Deniers? Sneaky disingenuous fuckers who are either crazy or lying through their teeth. Either way, dismissed.
Alex Jones? Batshit fucking insane. Dismissed.

You? Either crazy, ignorant or trolling, but you've certainly used up all the good will that was extended to you to prove your case. So yeah.... dismissed.

The media have been dishonest or best disingenuous to this guy. It not that they age anti Trump They are ANTI Republican.

Them media bias Trump negatively while placing positive bias spin on Democrat ideas..

I would say you as the one blinded on this issue.

Americans do stand for Trump. Enough to elect him.
Look like I have always said I am a Cruz fanboy.
Trump is not a Republican. If he ran with a D on his jersey he still would have won. HE is pro business and pro military I am OK with that. He is not anti gay. He just came out as being anti abortion ( remains to be seen).

If he he ran with a D on his shirt the media would love him and demonize Cruz. It just the way it is. Media are Liberals. Why fight these truths?

Now does Trump have the right to call then out on falsehoods?
Yep he does.

HE should point out how biased they are and not just fake news..

SJWs are not progressive or the left, no matter how loudly they claim to be.

Odd that he tells us what is not progressive, then forgets that definition to say that progressives now work towards the opposite of his definition and that "progressive" now means oppressive.

Allowing and supporting a small vocal and zealous group co-opting a political party and changing it's platform 180 degrees by giving credence to their false narratives and claims to be 'progressive' is disgusting and disingenuous, and he knows it.
Just stop calling the SJW idiots progressives or the left, since they are neither, and the problem for progressives and the left are solved. SJWs WANT to represent the left, and the right WANTS them to represent the left (because they're easy to argue against), but they simply don't. Pieces like this only serve to support the SJW snowflakes and the false right wing narrative that the left is fascist.

He does also bring up many straw men, like Catholics being forced to pay for abortion causing birth control, they aren't and they never were, they only had to allow their employees the freedom to buy it with federal money if they so chose, but they don't want people to have the choice and apparently think that if they pay you, they have the right to control how you spend that money, what you may believe, and how you choose to live your life.

Sad that he's gone the route of supplying straw men, conflation, misdirection, misidentification, and misinformation in order to rail against something he's helping cause with those actions. It's like calling the tea baggers conservative right wingers, they weren't/aren't either, but they successfully co-opted the right by claiming they were both and the right going along because they needed the idiot vote....lets not let that happen on the left, please.

SJWs aren't on the left, and aren't progressive, they are fascists and cry babies trying to grab control of the left and progressive movements for their own means, not to further the left's agenda. Fight them, don't capitulate and slink off, handing them a political party like the right did with tea baggers.
STAND UP TO THEM.

You're extremely disingenuous, you drift into logical fallacies regularly (and apparently by accident). If you're not going to address the meat of the issue honestly, there's just no point.

Nobody ever said they were "forced" this is called the "straw man" fallacy.

American business took advantage of their labor, YOU took advantage of their labor, now that you're done, you just want to throw them away.

I do agree on one point though, there is no further point in debating with you.

If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you.

The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military.

And yes, he was supporting those mass killings. We know now that he was running a charity funnelling money to terrorists even before 9/11. We know that not 1, but 3 of the 9/11 hijackers attended his sermons, even spanning two different mosques. One of those being the same mosque he met with the Fort Hood shooter. It's not exactly rocket science to put together that his 'work' with the CIA, FBI and any other organisation opposing terror wasn't honest or open from the very start. It's pretty clear his jihadists teachings came first, not after.

As you say, anywhere within the reach of the law; courts, arrest warrants and due process all protect the public well enough.

Back the original CNN clip, I dare say I must at least insist that it's not disingenuous to point to Anwar as an example of terrorism on American soil by Yemeni dual citizen.

And after all that, Trumps order is still stupid. Just because you can find such examples doesn't count as me supporting his order. I just don't see what the need is to deny facts just because Trumps order doesn't look bad enough without trying to deny reality to make it even more worthless.

We've all seen the video. Was he mocking a persons symptoms from illness, or miming for comic effect the act of backpedaling?

To me the disingenuous spin from team Trump is so blatant and laughable, it makes my brain hurt.

Trump got caught doing something he shouldn't have. An adult admits doing wrong and apologizes. A child immediately claims they didn't do it.

I'm also sick of seeing clips of speeches taken out of context.

No, this is wrong. Hillary had very strong support from the Black/Latino voters. Saying that Hillary had weak support in that bloc is disingenuous at best when she had something like > 80% of the Black and Hispanic vote. Less than Barack, yes. Absolutely in no way is it 'very weak support'. She had very strong support from that Bloc.

And with reference to Bernie, I'm not so sure his support was there. Hillary did win the popular vote in the in the primaries by 2 million votes. Yes, it's possible the calling of the race for Hillary influenced the people but that ignores the choice/will of the people.

See, the important Clinton here is Hillary. Despite your hope and your ignorant conflations, Bill is not running for the presidency. Hillary Clinton is just as moral as Reagan and Romney. (Period, but also specifically with respect to sexual indiscretions. She has been faithful. Don't take that away from her just because she's a woman.)

And with respect to the rape allegations, it's disingenuous to presume they're true. Bill Clinton was accused of rape, yes. But no charges were brought against him. Indeed, one of the women who accused him signed an affidavit saying that she was lying about the accusation and then later (now) wants to rescind her affidavit. Until there are charges it's just more bullshit to slander the Clintons.

(Trump, on the other hand, is actually facing charges soon regarding the rape of an underage girl.)

And if you think that a woman standing by her man when he's accused of rape isn't a beautiful thing, well, I would question your humanity. If Hillary hadn't stood by Bill it would have reflected poorly on him. That she did tips the scales in the other direction. Also, it reflects well upon her. (I am sure Melania will stand by Trump during his trial and that will speak well to both of them.)

Again, it comes down to allegations vs. facts. Your whole characterization of the Clintons is based on allegations. The right's characterization of the Clintons is based on allegations. All of the characterizations come down to histrionic allegations. The things that are facts that they've done wrong they've apologized for. Hillary apologized for using a personal e-mail server, despite the fact that it was common practice for people to use personal e-mail servers in the 2000's. Hillary has apologized for the mistake at Benghazi, despite the fact that many similar attacks happened under Bush/Cheney's watch. The allegations of 'voter fraud' in the Democratic primary are bad, but even Hillary's opposition sided with her in the end.

And there's really nothing else propping up the perception that Hillary is bad in any way other than these allegations. It's just a matter of the right's echo chamber (including you) repeating it over and over again, which anybody can see is totally devoid of substantive reason. People 'feel' like Hillary is bad, but there's nothing there to show it.

It is because there is indeed, nothing there.

But with respect to Trump he has shown time and time again that he is unfit for any office, that he will take personal advantage of any power given to him. He continues to act in a way antithetical to the position he seeks. They say that you should dress for the position you seek. If the position of the Presidency requires one to wear a button down shirt and nice slacks Trump is a drunk, dirty, smelly bum wearing a trenchcoat, running down the street with no self control, yelling about how great Putin and Kim Jong Il are, grabbing whatever pussy he can find.

This admission of sexual assault is just the final nail in the coffin for him. (Or perhaps just the latest final nail.) To speak of sexual assault as anything other than the dictionary definition of being unfit to be president is just wrong.

I'm glad you admit that freely. Many vegans insist the opposite.
Read the linked site, it gives at least one clear example of his cherrypicking.
The fact that he felt the need to put out a video to explain how he 'picks' studies is a good indicator that there's a problem.
He profits off the site by suggesting donations to his charity, and I think advertising videos, books, and paid appearances. It's totally disingenuous to suggest he doesn't profit in any way, he makes his living 'selling' this lifestyle, this particular site is, in essence, the advertising wing of his operation.