The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

Trump's words prove that he thought there were. He was certainly explicitly clear that he was not referring to the neo-nazis, but to the people that were not neo-nazis that he (and I ) believe were also there.


I understand if you think we are wrong about that. But lying and claiming we are saying something that we are not saying, is you being a lying asshole.

 

[Grumblenuts]

YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

You're a shit flinger. I'm anti-"white interests".. No such thing beyond supremacist haters of minorities. Get it straight.

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.

You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing is not a "white interest."

Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.

Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.

"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.

I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.


You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.


YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.

I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.

You're truly fucking crazy.

Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.

 

[katsteve2012]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

 

[Correll]

YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

You're a shit flinger. I'm anti-"white interests".. No such thing beyond supremacist haters of minorities. Get it straight.

Your denial of the existence of white interests is silly and not fooling anyone, not even yourself.


Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.


My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.


Your example of a white interest was a white cop raping and murdering a black woman.



And you accuse me of "flinging shit"?


LOL!!!!



You are full of hate, racist hate directed at white people.

 

[Faun]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

Trump's words prove that he thought there were. He was certainly explicitly clear that he was not referring to the neo-nazis, but to the people that were not neo-nazis that he (and I ) believe were also there.


I understand if you think we are wrong about that. But lying and claiming we are saying something that we are not saying, is you being a lying asshole.

Dumfuck racist, Impeached Trump's words emboldened the racists. That's how fucked up Impeached Trump's initial response was. They took to twitter to acknowledge Impeached Trump's support for them.

That's why Impeached Trump had to come out and fix what he said. Be he fucked that up too and had to come out a third time to fix his second comments.

And again, it was a racist rally and Impeached Trump said some of them were very fine people.

And of course, a piece of shit fucking racist like you defends his support of racists at every opportunity.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.

You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing is not a "white interest."

Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.

Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.

"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.

I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.


You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.


YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.

I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.

You're truly fucking crazy.

Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.

I did post an example of an actual white interest, ie the interest in having and exercising the rights of assembly and speech.


You imagined a violent crime and arresting them and imprisoning them. When the example was just speech.


You are obviously a rabidly anti-white racist.

 

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.


My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.

Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.

 

[Faun]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.

^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.

^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Bingo.

 

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

Trump's words prove that he thought there were. He was certainly explicitly clear that he was not referring to the neo-nazis, but to the people that were not neo-nazis that he (and I ) believe were also there.


I understand if you think we are wrong about that. But lying and claiming we are saying something that we are not saying, is you being a lying asshole.

Dumfuck racist, Impeached Trump's words emboldened the racists. That's how fucked up Impeached Trump's initial response was. They took to twitter to acknowledge Impeached Trump's support for them.

That's why Impeached Trump had to come out and fix what he said. Be he fucked that up too and had to come out a third time to fix his second comments.

And again, it was a racist rally and Impeached Trump said some of them were very fine people.

And of course, a piece of shit fucking racist like you defends his support of racists at every opportunity.

If that was true, you would not have to lie about what he said.


And yet, you libs ALL lie about it. NONE of you can admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about neo-nazis when he said that.

THus, your claim that this is Trump's fault is obviously bullshit.


THe act of you lying, is you admitting that your claims are bullshit. AND THAT YOU KNOW IT.


So, knock that shit off. you are not fooling me.


You raving anti-white racist.

 

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.

^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.

^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.

NOne of which have any real name recognition. So, that is not a red flag to hardly anyone.


As you well know.

 

[Correll]

Bingo.

Bingo? For lying about what was said?


Are you insane, or just lying?

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.

You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing is not a "white interest."

Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.

Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.

"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.

I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.


You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.


YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.

I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.

You're truly fucking crazy.

Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.

I did post an example of an actual white interest, ie the interest in having and exercising the rights of assembly and speech.


You imagined a violent crime and arresting them and imprisoning them. When the example was just speech.


You are obviously a rabidly anti-white racist.

Dumbfuck racist, "exercising the rights of assembly and speech," is not a "white interest."

It's an "American interest." Skin color has nothing g at all to do with it.

Referring to that as a "white interest" is revealing it as a "racist interest," which is how you expose yourself (again) as a piece of shit fucking racist.

 

[Correll]

Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.


My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.

Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.

There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.


That you dismissed it, because it does not fit your fantasy of all white interesting being "white supremacy" is just you being retarded, it is still an fine example.

 

[Faun]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.

^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.

^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.

NOne of which have any real name recognition. So, that is not a red flag to hardly anyone.


As you well know.

Lying doesn't help you.

 

[Faun]

Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.


My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.

Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.

There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.

Lying doesn't help you.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?

1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.

1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?

1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example.

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.

4. Do you understand the example I gave?

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.

Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.

Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Do you support that interest or oppose it?

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.

You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing is not a "white interest."

Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.

Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.

"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.

I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.


You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.


YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.

Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.

I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.

You're truly fucking crazy.

Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.

I did post an example of an actual white interest, ie the interest in having and exercising the rights of assembly and speech.


You imagined a violent crime and arresting them and imprisoning them. When the example was just speech.


You are obviously a rabidly anti-white racist.

Dumbfuck racist, "exercising the rights of assembly and speech," is not a "white interest."

When it is denied them, for being white, it is a white interest.

As you demonstrated with your fantasy of seeing them in jail for their actions.

It's an "American interest." Skin color has nothing g at all to do with it.

The different in your reaction to when it done by minorities or whites, shows that skin color does have a lot to do with it.

Referring to that as a "white interest" is revealing it as a "racist interest," which is how you expose yourself (again) as a piece of shit fucking racist.

Nope.

Me saying "white" is not racism. You treating white people differently, and far harsher, than minorities doing the same thing, is racism.


That you can seriously deny this fact, is just a testimony to your powers of self delusion.

 

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.

^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.

^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.

NOne of which have any real name recognition. So, that is not a red flag to hardly anyone.


As you well know.

Lying doesn't help you.

Really? You telling me you heard of Mike Enoch before or since that sign?