Charlottesville protest

African Americans aren't just black homie slow your roll

 

Antifa scum pride themselves on being anarchists. If you don't like Trump or some other political party that's fine. More power to you. I support that all day and all night. However, to say antifia isn't anarchists is totally inaccurate.

Antifa is a far-left militant[2] political movement of autonomous, self-described anti-fascist groups in the United States.[3][4][5] The term is loosely used to refer to anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobia, as well as anarchist and anti-capitalist groups.[6] Unlike the traditional left, the ambit of self-described antifa groups is to oppose fascism in direct action. These groups are usually anti-government and anti-capitalist, and their methodologies and tactics are more aggressively violent and anarchistic than those of associated groups in the far left.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

 

There are anarchistic elements in Antifa, and I don't agree with the individuals in the movement who use black block tactics. However, the fact is that their raison d'etre is to oppose fascists and nazis. If there aren't any neo-nazis, then there's no Antifa.

Trying to draw equivalence between them and right wing extremist groups is fucking laughable, and it's the horseshit RW talking point du jour to counter the fact that Trump refuses to denounce his white nationalist base.

Any purported black man who's more angry about Antifa than the shit show going on in the White House is confused to say the least.

 

What wingnut Tumblr account did you pull this shit off of?

Look, I don't like Clinton at all, and I think that the Democrats shot themselves in the foot by trying to anoint her as the nominee. She was the only candidate who was capable of losing to Trump and made several strategic errors that led to her downfall, but a lot of this is just horseshit.


First off, the media wasn't in the tank for her. There was actually a disproportionate amount of negative coverage of her emails while there was no real scrutiny of Trump's entire history as a crooked businessman.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brette...ction-news-coverage-study-finds/#3a9259213202

Trump got literally BILLIONS of dollars in free advertising during the campaign, so the claim that he was outspent by Clinton actually isn't relevant. He didn't need to spend money on media because the networks covered him non-stop for ratings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/...-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html?mcubz=1


The cable networks broke from regular coverage to show his campaign stops on a daily basis, and he was allowed to call into cable shows whenever he wanted to. Even Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who pretend that they held his feet to the fire because of some mild critcism before the general election, got caught on a hot mic agreeing to give him softball questions.





It's also laughable to claim that the FBI was in the tank for her when Comey's unnecessary announcement about reopening the investigation right before the election actually swing it for Trump.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

They also didn't announce the investigation into Russian collusion by the Trump campaign, which started at the beginning of last summer, because Obama told them not to.

http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-director-james-comey-russian-tampering-election-576417

Trump made it through the entire GOP primary with any real scrutiny. Any negative coverage that he got was to due to the stupid shit that was coming out of his mouth non-stop.



RE the rest of that list, it's either shit that is obvious or pure fiction.

She was the Democratic candidate and Obama was a Democratic president, who the fuck do you think that he was going to support?


What does the endorsement of feminists mean? People who lean to the left on women's issues are going to vote Democrat, and people who lean to the right are going to vote Republican. That shit is baked into the cake at this point in US politics, and support for feminist groups isn't going to make any difference.

And no, BLM did not support the Clintons. They actually protested her and Bubba on numerous occasions because of their shit record on mass incarceration.









And LOL @ the Clinton murder conspiracies from the 90s. I'm not going to bother with that stupidity.

Anyway. I feel dirty from having to defend a Clinton, so I'm going to take a shower.

 

False equivalencies are common among the right.

 

I'll respond to only a couple things:

1. I agree the MSM didn't go hard enough on Trump especially in the primary. But the MSM didn't really go hard on the Clinton emails. They just went just hard enough & cherrypicked select stuff for it to be headline news & a ongoing controversy/scandal. If the MSM really wanted to they could've ruined Clinton & the DNC forever.

2. LOL at thinking BLM was not supporting Hillary. That was for show. BLM might as well count as a promotion arm of the DNC establishment to the black community. Just look up some of the companies that donate/fund BLM.

 

1. What is your definition of "going hard"? The emails were front page news for the entire campaign cycle even though the investigation amounted to nothing. How much harder could they have gone?

Trump had a class action lawsuit pending against him because he defrauded students with his bogus university, and several of his close associates were under criminal investigation. None of that got a fraction of the attention that Clinton's emails did.

2. BLM is not a monolithic entity. There's no BLM headquarters on K Street in Washington DC where they formulate strategy for people to carry out at the grassroots level.

It's an open-ended movement that anybody can claim to join that's comprised of several different groups that are geographically dispersed through the US and other countries.

This is one of the group's strengths, but it's also a major weakness because the entirety of BLM gets blamed for everything that an individual or group associated with BLM does.

The fact that some wealthy establishment types donated money to individual BLM groups does not mean that everybody who claims membership received a piece of the funding and were influenced by the money.

Most regional BLM leaders publicly denounced the Clintons during the primary and general election because of their empty pandering on black issues, and there was no BLM endorsement of any candidate. That's just an incontrovertible fact.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...orsement-2016-presidential-candidate-election


I don't even understand what the logic is behind claiming that they secretly supported the Clintons while protesting them. The whole point of paying people for political support is to get a public endorsement so that said group can influence voters on a candidate's behalf.

 

Are there any facts we can all agree on anymore?

 

In politics facts are relative. Lol

 

Thank you for proving you can be a non-fan of Hillary Clinton but still be able to give a fair-minded and accurate assessment. If only more Americans could be more intellectually honest instead of propagandized and brain-dead. Kudos to you sir

 

This is a post-fact society

 

It's true that in October 2016, two prominent Black Lives Matter Activists did in fact officially and publicly endorse Hillary.

DeRay Mckesson and his comrade Brittany Packnett, co-founders of Campaign Zero, both publicly gave her their backing, and took to the WP to declare why.
Keep in mind, while Packnett's "#IM WITH HER" choice was personal, it was delivered under the BLM moniker. Quote, "This is not about me. This is about the work."
It also bears noting that, "she (Brittany) is easily one of the most identifiable young voices to have emerged in the leader-full movement for Black Lives in the past five years."

Furthermore, Alicia Garza, one of the founders of #BlackLivesMatter, told an ELLE reporter that she would never support Hillary Clinton, yet when asked about Packnett's endorsement...Garza herself asserted, "I voted early. I voted for Clinton, but I don't support Clinton."

Come again?

So Garza publicly in 2015 stated BLM refused to endorse a candidate, then the following year, as an influential BLM founder, she along with two extremely influental BLM activists publicly (and essentially) did just that.
Any way you slice it, that's doublespeak.

http://www.elle.com/culture/career-...rittany-packnett-hillary-clinton-endorsement/

 

Like I said. I don't like her at all, and I think that it's pretty clear that the DNC and the Democratic party establishment tried to tip the scales of the primary in her favor.

However, that doesn't change the reality of what went on in the greater context of the entire election cycle.

 

It's not doublespeak.

She did what a lot of people did, which was to hold her nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

It was possible to dislike Clinton but understand that we'd be worse off (as we are) with Trump in the White House.

 

Here's another one:

Nicholas J. Fuentes.

http://time.com/4905939/nicholas-fu...time&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

 

...and since some people here seem to have bought into the conflation of Antifa and black bloc tactics. Here's a short video breaking down the difference.

 

And that's cool. You don't have to like her. You are entitled to your opinion. But most devolve into parroting half-baked bullshit they heard third-hand rather than relying on facts. Some couldn't even articulate why they don't like her. Doesn't have to be HRC, it could be anybody. Again, respect

 

Nah. She was supposed to behave like a stubborn two year old toddler and not vote for either one.

 

Yet...you STILL have negroes that can't say Black without saying hispanic.....as if we are joined at the hip in the same struggle.

Fuck those oily ass mofos.

If ass kissing were an olympic sport, latino's....asians...and indians(like Bobby Jindal) would be the big 3