Biden Out of Race

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Genuinely, should I believe stats or my eyes? Is it possible the numbers are getting massaged? Bc it seems like a classification and categorization issue.

Seeing people get murdered, places burnt down, etc ring more true as violence to the common person. I think the left is going to have to present it better than “see these numbers… Trust us… J6” to move the needle.
These numbers were not procured by the left, nor presented by the left. The Cato Institute is a right-wing, libertarian think tank that is the main competitor of the Heritage Foundation. As to believing your eyes, that would be what we call "recency bias." As to January 6th
img_3_1758809422575.jpg
 
View attachment 409946

Mind you, the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank, this isn't some lefty nonsense, and fits with the (now removed by the Trump administration) federal assessments of extremist violence
Are you saying the facts about leftist violence are wrong or inaccurate in the past 2 weeks?

Can you show me examples of right wing political violence in the last 2 weeks?

Again, I tell you:

In about two weeks:

Sept 10: Leftist Tyler Robinson brutally shot and killed Charlie Kirk, and leftists celebrated the political violence en masse

Sept 14: leftists Adeeb Nasir & Adil Ahmed Nasir, put bomb under FOX van but fails to explode

Sept 19: leftist Anibal Hernandez Santana, shoots into ABC10 station over Kimmel suspension

Sept 19: leftists bomb threat on RFK jr Georgetown home

Sept 20: leftist Hunter Nadeau shoots people at NH country club, shouting Free Palestine

Sept 24: leftist Joshua Jahn, anti-ICE shooter, shoots at ICE van and kills detainee inside

Has there been a single “right wing” political violent incident since Kirk’s killing?

No, in fact, since then we had Kirk’s wife say she FORGAVE the killer.
 
Please don’t bother to “explain”, or ask “serious questions”. It’s obviously rhetorical filler for you to equivocate over the protection by our government of persons implicated in the crimes of a known sex trafficker.

Clearly, you don’t have an answer, an explanation, or any truly serious questions. You are just floundering to defend your “side”, which in this instance, is protecting the identities of people complicit in these crimes.

My intention in responding to you is to inform you that while this doesn’t matter to you, for whom it’s just a conspiracy theory, it does matter to me, and a great many other people.

I don’t have an explanation for why they didn’t release them. I also don’t have an explanation for why they weren’t released before Trump was elected in 2024.

You should vote on the issue if it’s important to you, but it doesn’t seem like either party is particularly responsive to this issue
 
You do realize that most of those posts were playing WW, a deduction game, in the Pre-Vet forums un undergrad, right? Lol, we would crank through 20 pages an hour arguing with each other over who did what the previous evening to sort out the killer 😂

Sounds like you used to be a pretty big deal. I’m glad we have your opinions on here.
 
Are you saying the facts about leftist violence are wrong or inaccurate in the past 2 weeks?

Can you show me examples of right wing political violence in the last 2 weeks?

Again, I tell you:

In about two weeks:

Sept 10: Leftist Tyler Robinson brutally shot and killed Charlie Kirk, and leftists celebrated the political violence en masse

Sept 14: leftists Adeeb Nasir & Adil Ahmed Nasir, put bomb under FOX van but fails to explode

Sept 19: leftist Anibal Hernandez Santana, shoots into ABC10 station over Kimmel suspension

Sept 19: leftists bomb threat on RFK jr Georgetown home

Sept 20: leftist Hunter Nadeau shoots people at NH country club, shouting Free Palestine

Sept 24: leftist Joshua Jahn, anti-ICE shooter, shoots at ICE van and kills detainee inside

Has there been a single “right wing” political violent incident since Kirk’s killing?

No, in fact, since then we had Kirk’s wife say she FORGAVE the killer.
Again, the point is that there is an uptick in leftist violence, but most violence is committed by the right. Most likely this is a reaction to the rather extreme measures the Trump administration has taken, far beyond anything that is politically normal, pushing some leftists over the edge. If we had a democrat that announced completely open borders, banned all talk of religion in public spaces, cut medicare and medicaid funding from all states that did not allow abortion, and consucted mass firings and replacement of right-leaning federal officials I am pretty sure we would see an upswing in right-leaning violence as nuts on the right cracked
 
Yes, yes, you get it. Democrat politicians are weak and feckless cowards, and that's (one reason) why they lost to Trump.

But it's inaccurate to say the Dems haven't hammered Trump on his rapes and other crimes and overall character issues. They have. Voters like you just don't care.


Strictly speaking, Trump isn't really a pedophile. Words and definitions matter. I haven't seen any evidence or indication he's gone after pre-pubescent girls. He is many, many awful things but he isn't a pedophile.

No democratic presidential candidate has ever publicly stated that Trump is a rapist to my knowledge. Doing it in a debate would be far more impactful and might show some of the spine they lack currently. That might even convince me to vote for them in the end depending on who was doing the accusing.

And yeah I don’t vote on people’s character very much. There’s very few character issues I would care about, but pedophilia and murdering people on fifth avenue are two of them
 
No democratic presidential candidate has ever publicly stated that Trump is a rapist to my knowledge. Doing it in a debate would be far more impactful and might show some of the spine they lack currently. That might even convince me to vote for them in the end depending on who was doing the accusing.

And yeah I don’t vote on people’s character very much. There’s very few character issues I would care about, but pedophilia and murdering people on fifth avenue are two of them
You and I know you will NEVER vote democrat--the party of DEI. That what drives your vote.
 
Do you think your eyes can’t be massaged? The point behind referencing the statistics from the cato Institute is that, if anything, they are biased in favor of the conservative viewpoint, based on their philosophical under pending and historic track record, and even they believe the data Show more political violence on the right. I’m sure you know this.
 
Sounds like you used to be a pretty big deal. I’m glad we have your opinions on here.
The point was that my posting history from over a decade ago was largely because of a hobby that happened to be on this forum. It would be like me finding out some boomer on here had wasted a thousand hours golfing 15 years ago, it would be completely irrelevant to anything I thought about them, positive or negative. A few thousand of my posts were providing helpful advice to premeds and medical students though, so I've probably contributed more positively to this forum than you by a margin
 
Of course, we should believe our eyes instead of stats as doctors? Did I really say that?

Of course, the CATO INSTITUTE massaged the numbers.
Poldermans study. Bolt study. Even well intentioned studies such as surviving sepsis can get things wrong. As a doctor you shouldn’t believe everything. And just bc you’re a doctor doesn’t make you right. If your NIBP reads 182/167 on the pt in front of you…you just believe it?

Your assumption is that I trust information from the right bc you think that is my “team”. Maybe there is a lesson or two to be learned there.
 
Do you think your eyes can’t be massaged? The point behind referencing the statistics from the cato Institute is that, if anything, they are biased in favor of the conservative viewpoint, based on their philosophical under pending and historic track record, and even they believe the data Show more political violence on the right. I’m sure you know this.
If they start from the premise that the tail counts as a leg, then they will find that a dog has 5 legs.

I will continue to not be spoon fed what I should believe. If I roll the dice 6 times and it comes up snake eyes, I’m gonna think they are “loaded”.

If the violent events listed above happen 6x in a row from the left, I’m going to be skeptical. If you want to sit in a room that is burning down around you and not run because the fire alarm is not going off, you do you.
 
Sounds like you used to be a pretty big deal. I’m glad we have your opinions on here.
I recognize the handle. Tends to be well informed and writes quality posts. Corrected a misunderstanding I had about new drug applications and the pharmaceutical patent process that I had some years ago.

You could probably learn something from him, if you decided to be teachable.
 
Poldermans study. Bolt study. Even well intentioned studies such as surviving sepsis can get things wrong. As a doctor you shouldn’t believe everything. And just bc you’re a doctor doesn’t make you right. If your NIBP reads 182/167 on the pt in front of you…you just believe it?

Your assumption is that I trust information from the right bc you think that is my “team”. Maybe there is a lesson or two to be learned there.
But I should believe my eyes. Seriously!
 
But I should believe my eyes. Seriously!

We don't believe it.
You don’t believe facts that are presented to you? Let me guess, you’re going to believe your eyes (what you have seen of his actions).

How many posts did it take to contradict yourself? One? Really, just one? Impressive!!!
 
Last edited:
I recognize the handle. Tends to be well informed and writes quality posts. Corrected a misunderstanding I had about new drug applications and the pharmaceutical patent process that I had some years ago.

You could probably learn something from him, if you decided to be teachable.

Man, you liberals never miss a chance to lecture self righteously about how correct you are and how anyone who sees otherwise is, in your words, “cult member, psychotic, pedophile supporting, stupid, Russian plant, etc”

I look forward to watching this attitude continue to lose elections.
 
You don’t believe facts that are presented to you? Let me guess, you’re going to believe your eyes (what you have seen of his actions).

How many posts did it take to contradict yourself? One? Really, just one? Impressive!!!
Telling me you voted for dems when all your posts here say otherwise is not fact. The poster is lying.
 
https://www.cato.org/blog/politically-motivated-violence-rare-united-states
Mind you, the Cato Institute is a right-wing think tank, this isn't some lefty nonsense, and fits with the (now removed by the Trump administration) federal assessments of extremist violence

Of course, we should believe our eyes instead of stats as doctors? Did I really say that?

Of course, the CATO INSTITUTE massaged the numbers.

hese numbers were not procured by the left, nor presented by the left. The Cato Institute is a right-wing, libertarian think tank that is the main competitor of the Heritage Foundation. As to believing your eyes, that would be what we call "recency bias." As to January 6th

Again, the point is that there is an uptick in leftist violence, but most violence is committed by the right.

Do you think your eyes can’t be massaged? The point behind referencing the statistics from the cato Institute is that, if anything, they are biased in favor of the conservative viewpoint, based on their philosophical under pending and historic track record, and even they believe the data Show more political violence on the right. I’m sure you know this


Sigh. You guys are pushing more misinformation than the tylenol campaign. For a bunch of doctors, some of us are absolute sht at interpreting studies.

There is no study that definitively shows what side is responsible for more political violence. None.

The only clear conclusion derived from the CATO study is that political violence (defined as resulting in death) is exceedingly rare. That’s it. Which is the primary intent id the author of the study, an immigration specialist (pro open border).

Anyone that pushes any of these studies to advance the position one side is more “violent” than the other without acknowledging how weak and flawed these studies are, is being disingenuous.
 
Yeah……but you did contradict yourself in one post. I think I would rage quit and not come back for a month if I was you. That’s embarrassing. I kind of feel bad for you.
I guess you want me to leave.

I believe my eyes. Tylenol cause autism.
 
Sigh. You guys are pushing more misinformation than the tylenol campaign. For a bunch of doctors, some of us are absolute sht at interpreting studies.

There is no study that definitively shows what side is responsible for more political violence. None.

The only clear conclusion derived from the CATO study is that political violence (defined as resulting in death) is exceedingly rare. That’s it. Which is the primary intent id the author of the study, an immigration specialist (pro open border).

Anyone that pushes any of these studies to advance the position one side is more “violent” than the other without acknowledging how weak and flawed these studies are, is being disingenuous.
Political violence is always committed by outliers and is very rare. Those outliers tend to, more often, be right wing. All of these right wing think tanks are actually pro-immigration, including the Heritage Foundation, as they are thinly veiled corporatist think tanks that want cheap labor that increases shareholder value. I will say that the Cato data perfectly matches every other study on the subject, including more left-leaning and independent analyses, and when all studies point one way it is kind of obvious what the conclusion is.
 
I wonder how OBGYN will treat fever in pregnant women. Pump them with fluid at 200cc/hr. Cold compress, turn the AC down to 60 degrees... Consult IM. They better not consult me.
 
I guess you want me to leave.

I believe my eyes. Tylenol cause autism.
No. I don’t want you to leave. I’m just joshing you bc it’s nothing I haven’t done myself. You were a little condescending so I was just giving a little back.

I think we should take an extra beat to try and listen and understand. Not be too quick to act like the other side is stupid and not well intentioned. That is advice for myself as well. No hard feelings
 
No. I don’t want you to leave. I’m just joshing you bc it’s nothing I haven’t done myself. You were a little condescending so I was just giving a little back.

I think we should take an extra beat to try and listen and understand. Not be too quick to act like the other side is stupid and not well intentioned. That is advice for myself as well. No hard feelings
You don't get it. I am on your side, but I am honest about the issues.

I have guns (a lot of them), but I am not gonna go around and say "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
 
Political violence is always committed by outliers and is very rare. Those outliers tend to, more often, be right wing. All of these right wing think tanks are actually pro-immigration, including the Heritage Foundation, as they are thinly veiled corporatist think tanks that want cheap labor that increases shareholder value. I will say that the Cato data perfectly matches every other study on the subject, including more left-leaning and independent analyses, and when all studies point one way it is kind of obvious what the conclusion is.


The only time the outliers show a trend is with controversial and poorly defined end points. Deaths relative to political violence.

When people start to point out political violence seems to be a problem with the left as well, and the answer is I’m not worried about it because of the right, one missed the forest for the trees. It’s the border all over again. Left can deflect and hide their heads in the sand until voters say no this actually is a problem, and then they will abruptly do an about face and stumble over themselves trying to coordinate a response.
 
I wonder how OBGYN will treat fever in pregnant women. Pump them with fluid at 200cc/hr. Cold compress, turn the AC down to 60 degrees... Consult IM. They better not consult me.


Thats ironic because I’m saying you are doing the exact same thing the right is doing pushing poor quality studies to make overreaching conclusions.
 
So. What is your opinion on Democrats trying to censor free speech?

Google admitted President Joe Biden’sadministration “pressed” the tech giant and YouTube to censor content the administration felt was COVID-19 “misinformation.” Now, YouTube and Google are calling for conservative voices to “rejoin” if they were booted for violating now-scrapped rules on what users could say about COVID-19 and election integrity.

Company attorney Daniel Donovan shared the jarring admission on Tuesday while speaking to the House Judiciary Committee, and later, in a letter to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH).

President Biden and his administration, Donovan wrote, “created a political atmosphere that sought to influence the actions of platforms based on their concerns regarding misinformation.”

He also said:

“Senior Biden Administration officials, including White House officials, conducted repeated and sustained outreach to Alphabet and pressed the Company regarding certain user-generated content related to the COVID-19 pandemic that did not violate its policies. While the Company continued to develop and enforce its policies independently, Biden Administration officials continued to press the Company to remove non-violative user-generated content.”

Some notable Republican who were booted from YouTube for violating its rules include Steve Bannon and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, the New York Post noted.

Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, added it was “unacceptable and wrong” for the Biden Administration to attempt to “dictate” how it policed content, Donovan’s letter said.

Google is not the first Silicon Valley stalwart to admit Biden Administration officials pressured it to censor more content. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, Facebook and Instagram’s parent company, said the Biden Administration “basically pushed” his company to censor more COVID-19 posts.

“I’m generally like, pretty pro-rolling out vaccines. I think on balance, the vaccines are more positive than negative,” Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan earlier this year.

“But I think that while they’re trying to push that program, they also tried to censor anyone who is basically arguing against it. And they pushed us super hard to take down things that honestly were true, right?” he continued. “I mean, they basically pushed us and said anything that says that vaccines might have side effects, you basically need to take down. And I was just like, ‘Well, we’re not going to do that. We’re clearly not going to do that.’”

Did Dems threaten Facebook in any explicit or implied way? No

Did the FCC or Maga threaten abc in any explicit or implied way? Yes and yes

Did the FCC or dems publicly threaten Facebook in order to generate public (and thus financial) pressure? No

Did maga and fcc threaten abc publicly? Yes
While some may say its not appropriate for the government to even ASK privately...thats a massive difference between what Trump and Biden did.

Does the government have the power to limit speech in the setting of public health? To a small degree, yes. Could they legally have threatened Facebook? No. So it seems they applied minimal pressure, especially compared to the mountains of pressure attempted by Trump/FCC. Not sure Facebook even complained at the time.

Personally, would i care if the government suppressed demonstrably false and harmful public health info? Not really. For example, if there was a hurricane coming and Dems spread false messages that no hurricane was coming. I would be fine with Trump suppressing that in order to protect public health
 
The only time the outliers show a trend is with controversial and poorly defined end points. Deaths relative to political violence.

When people start to point out political violence seems to be a problem with the left as well, and the answer is I’m not worried about it because of the right, one missed the forest for the trees. It’s the border all over again. Left can deflect and hide their heads in the sand until voters say no this actually is a problem, and then they will abruptly do an about face and stumble over themselves trying to coordinate a response.
I would hardly consider deaths to be a controversial or poorly defined endpoint
 
I would hardly consider deaths to be a controversial or poorly defined endpoint


Figured you’d say that. See, you would know why it’s controversial if you actually read the studies.

Including non-ideological murder or murder with an unknown motive because the assailants were associated with an extremist group at one point in their lives, is controversial, and definitely has an impact on the effect size.
 
No democratic presidential candidate has ever publicly stated that Trump is a rapist to my knowledge. Doing it in a debate would be far more impactful and might show some of the spine they lack currently. That might even convince me to vote for them in the end depending on who was doing the accusing.

And yeah I don’t vote on people’s character very much. There’s very few character issues I would care about, but pedophilia and murdering people on fifth avenue are two of them

The Democratic Party is an absolute disaster show. The trend of associating everyone who dislikes this current administration with the Democrats is a false equivalency. The problem with the democrats is they keep trying to play by the rules.

The problem with the Republicans is they are addicted to Donald Trump. It’ll be very curious to see what happens next presidential election. I’m not sure there is a Republican who can capture the MAGA base the way Trump can. Maybe I’m wrong, but not usually.
 
Figured you’d say that. See, you would know why it’s controversial if you actually read the studies.

Including non-ideological murder or murder with an unknown motive because the assailants were associated with an extremist group at one point in their lives, is controversial, and definitely has an impact on the effect size.
Sounds like you are massaging the numbers
 
So close. Someone is. That’s the critique and limitation self described in some of the studies.
Yea thats nice and everything. But it doesnt really add much to the discussion

"Hey Left wing violence is more of a problem than right wing violence"

How do you know?


"Oh, i see more stories on the news lately"

Ok, but its been widely reported and analyzed over the last 30 years, and right violence has consistently been the much bigger problem... regardless of administration. Homeland security, police and FBI have consistently reported that right wing violence is a bigger concern. So maybe the last few months are just a social outlier related to the current political environment.. probably due to the inflammatory nature of maga.

"Yea, that data was massaged"

Ok, but nobody seemed to be questioning the conclusions over the past 30 years....so suddenly the conclusion is now that the data was massaged?

"Yup"

Ok. Doesnt seem to make much sense. Maybe its because right wing violence is deep rooted in society and this has remained pretty consistent. But maybe the current rise in left wing violence is because maga has taken a sudden and particularly vocal approach to demonizing minorities, the left, gays/trans, etc. That tends to incite retaliation

"Impossible"

Ok..

So then why the sudden increase?

"Leftists have just been waiting, secretly biding their time, waiting until the most controversial and inflammatory populist in decades rose to power"

Ok...but there wasnt this much violence during his first term. So, maybe its that his rhetoric and policies are even more divisive, controversial and targets certain groups of people during his 2nd term

"Impossible, just a coincidence"

Ok..
 
Last edited:
Man, you liberals never miss a chance to lecture self righteously about how correct you are and how anyone who sees otherwise is, in your words, “cult member, psychotic, pedophile supporting, stupid, Russian plant, etc”

I look forward to watching this attitude continue to lose elections.
Did I call you any of those things? No. I don’t think you are a stupid Russian pedophile or anything of the like.

You snidely derided this other dude as a “big deal”. He actually does write some interesting things that are contributory. I’m just sticking up for him.

I’m actually agree with you on many of the things you say. I disagree with you on the Epstein issue. I think it’s very clear that it was blocked recently for political reasons.

Now, you got me on the cult member thing. I didn’t write it, but I did *think* it. What I would have meant by that is that on this issue, you are being mentally inflexible and sticking to partisanship and groupthink instead of being open to the obvious evidence of one party protecting some guilty individuals for the sake of holding on to political power. There is a cultish aspect to that kind of behavior.

I don’t think you are a reprehensible person or anything like that. You were being condescending.
 
Yea thats nice and everything. But it doesnt really add much to the discussion

"Hey Left wing violence is more of a problem than right wing violence"

How do you know?


"Oh, i see more stories on the news lately"

Ok, but its been widely reported and analyzed over the last 30 years, and right violence has consistently been the much bigger problem... regardless of administration. Homeland security, police and FBI have consistently reported that right wing violence is a bigger concern. So maybe the last few months are just a social outlier related to the current political environment.. probably due to the inflammatory nature of maga.

"Yea, that data was massaged"

Ok, but nobody seemed to be questioning the conclusions over the past 30 years....so suddenly the conclusion is now that the data was massaged?

"Yup"

Ok. Doesnt seem to make much sense. Maybe its because right wing violence is deep rooted in society and this has remained pretty consistent. But maybe the current rise in left wing violence is because maga has taken a sudden and particularly vocal approach to demonizing minorities, the left, gays/trans, etc. That tends to incite retaliation

"Impossible"

Ok..

So then why the sudden increase?

"Leftists have just been waiting, secretly biding their time, waiting until the most controversial and inflammatory populist in decades rose to power"

Ok...but there wasnt this much violence during his first term. So, maybe its that his rhetoric and policies are even more divisive, controversial and targets certain groups of people during his 2nd term

"Impossible, just a coincidence"

Ok..


So much to unpack.

It’s not like the government has ever come to bad conclusions with 💩 data, amirite?
💊.

Let’s walk it bad 60 years. You still going to come to the same conclusions about left and right violence?

Again, as if it doesn’t have something to do with how you define extremism, political violence, and the end points?

Show me “demonizing” the marginalized groups by the right you are talking about? Your language and how you interpret the problem IS THE PROBLEM.

It’s all MAGA inflammatory rhetoric? Nothing to do with the inflammatory rhetoric from the left?

“Heh man, look a the changing attitudes on the acceptance of political violence, riots, and bodies getting stacked lately… looks like the left might have a violence problem.”

- “ya I’m not worried about it. Right violence is worse and it’s Trumps fault.”

You wonder why you guys lose all the damn time.
 
Show me “demonizing” the marginalized groups by the right you are talking about? Your language and how you interpret the problem IS THE PROBLEM.
Your kidding right?

The list is extensive

One very specific example, was when he declared that Haitians were eating people's pets. Of course ot was not true. But directly led to over 30 bomb threats being called into Springfield, many of which contained anti Haitian/ immigrant messages.

Doesnt get much more of a direct link between his rhetoric and violence. But hey, in his defense, he does say alot

Quotes from Donald Trump have been accused of demonizing minority groups throughout his career. Examples include disparaging comments about immigrants, African Americans, Muslims, Native Americans, and members of Congress who are people of color. Critics frequently point to these remarks as using xenophobic, bigoted, and racist tropes for political purposes.

Comments on immigrants

On Mexican immigrants (June 2015): In his presidential announcement speech, Trump stated, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're sending people that have lots of problems... They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists".
Calling immigrants "animals" (2018, 2024): Trump has repeatedly referred to undocumented immigrants as "animals," a statement which has drawn strong condemnation from civil rights groups and other critics.
"Poisoning the blood" (2023): Trump has echoed white supremacist rhetoric by stating that undocumented immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country." The Anti-Defamation League called this language "deeply disturbing".
"****hole countries" (January 2018): During a White House meeting, Trump reportedly referred to Haiti and African nations as "****hole countries," suggesting the U.S. should instead accept more immigrants from countries like Norway.

Comments on African Americans

The Central Park Five (1989): After five Black and Latino teenagers were wrongly accused of rape, Trump took out full-page newspaper ads demanding the death penalty. He continued to assert their guilt long after they were exonerated by DNA evidence.
On a Black employee (1991): A former employee reported that Trump said he hated having a Black accountant, stating that "laziness is a trait in blacks". Trump confirmed the quote's veracity in a 1997 interview.
"What do you have to lose?" (2016): While campaigning, Trump asked Black voters, "You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs. ... What the hell do you have to lose?" Critics highlighted that he was making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations.
Comparing inner cities to war zones (2016): At a debate, Trump claimed that African Americans and Hispanics in inner cities are "living in hell because it's so dangerous".
Attack on Rep. Elijah Cummings' district (2019): After the Maryland congressman criticized border detention centers, Trump called his majority-Black district in Baltimore a "disgusting, rat, and rodent infested mess".
Claiming to relate to Black people (2024): In February, Trump claimed that Black people like him because they can relate to him facing criminal charges and legal persecution.

Comments on Muslims

Calls for a Muslim ban (December 2015): Following a terrorist attack, Trump called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." His administration later implemented a travel ban that primarily affected Muslim-majority countries.
"I think Islam hates us" (March 2016): In a CNN interview, Trump stated, "I think Islam hates us. There's something there that—there's a tremendous hatred there".
Fabricated story about General Pershing (2016): Trump repeated a false story that General John J. Pershing executed Muslim prisoners with bullets dipped in pig's blood, suggesting that the tactic was effective against "Radical Islamic Terror".
Comments on other groups

On Native Americans (1990s, 2017):
In the 1990s, Trump ran ads alleging "criminal activity" by Mohawks to fight casino competition.
As president, he repeatedly mocked Senator Elizabeth Warren's claims of Native American ancestry by referring to her as "Pocahontas".
"Go back" to their country (July 2019): In a series of tweets, Trump told four minority Democratic congresswomen—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib—to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". Three of the four were born in the U.S.
Charlottesville (August 2017): After a white supremacist rally where a counter-protester was killed, Trump stated that there were "very fine people on both sides," drawing widespread criticism for equating white nationalists with those who opposed them.


All targeting specific groups, cultures.
 
Last edited:
For now…

Argentina’s economy is a complete mess. This won’t end at $40 billion. All because of some ideological point to prove for the psychopathic billionaire class?
Argentina's economy has been a mess for more 25 yrs.

We will have a mass migration of them to south FL because our government will add them to the Visa Waiver program
 

Better headline from ABC:

"Former FBI Director James Comey indicted days after Trump demanded his DOJ move 'now' to prosecute enemies"


Good precedent to set. Indictment of a government official. No oral or written evidence presented. VERY thin pretext.


Dems should use this to go after Elon et al if they ever get back in office.
 
Last edited:
True enough - but there was an enormous change a couple years ago with a new president and pretty draconian austerity measures.

I also read that they were doing better. I don't get why do they need a bailout now after sever austerity measures.
 
Top