Trump’s pick for Interior secretary has links to neo-Confederate group that inspired Dylann Roof...
Options
Comments
-
its okay guys jim brown loves him so its cool.
-
@Peace_79I do concur with your argument in spirit.
OK, cool.Although, I haven't read the article in its intirety, from what I see here - the level of substantiation it provides for its claims leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah, that's most of what I'm saying.But can we agree that we have more than one data point illustrating the trend of racist and bigoted leadership surrounding the Trump Adminstration?
Hmm. See, it depends on what you mean by that.
If you are saying that the Trump administration is associated with racists and bigots, then, yes, of course.
If you're saying that the Trump administration itself is made up of racists and bigots, then generally, yes, I agree. But that begs for the question: to what extent is the Trump administration itself made up of racists and bigots?
It seems to me that many people, some of them driven by irrationality and sensationalism, are inexplicably so certain that the Trump administration is made up of nazis and white supremacists and that they will turn America into the Third ? where whites will flourish and nonwhites will suffer.
As of now, that seems to be far from the truth for many reasons. It's just ridiculous, and more so ridiculous that so many people are completely buying into it. Nobody is looking at facts or doing their research. They just willfully get swept up in their own bias (especially confirmation bias) and hysteria. Then everybody loses their damn minds, and we get stupid ? like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3RWz-tK8gVeracity of this particular article as published, aside, can we agree that Trump has relinquished the proverbial benefit of the doubt when it comes to the totality of his "body of work" on this topic?
It depends on what we're doubting, but if I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like you're advocating for "guilty until proven innocent." Yes, Trump is an idiot and has no credibility (like most politicians), but being a discreditable idiot doesn't automatically make you guilty of whatever "crime" is being levied on you.
All I want to follow are the facts. Forget about the extra ? . If Trump is claimed to be a modern-day ? , then I want solid evidence for this. If Trump is claimed to be a white supremacist, then I want solid evidence for this. I haven't seen any solid evidence for these claims, just sensationalist ? (having racist supporters makes you racist? really? we can do better than that.), and although the lack of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, at this point, I can only go with what I have: Trump is an idiot and probably a racist (as many Americans are, including many on this site), but he's not a modern-day ? that is going to unleash white racism on America.
Even if he planned on doing this, he'd have to go through the Constitution and the other two branches of government, obstacles that are damn near impossible to get through. The president is not the ruler of America. Constitutionally speaking, his powers are very limited. So calm the ? down, people. These next few years are just going to be more of the same ? , but it's going to get worse if we continue to lose our ? .
Slept on post -
@Undefeatable
Based on the two wacks you've given me, I can assume that you disagree (or perhaps strongly disagree, since a nosign would imply a simply disagreement?) with what I'm saying, but I'm still not sure what exactly your disagreement is.
So would you like to elaborate? I'm down for a fair discussion. You've made one comment, and I responded and asked you a question, but you haven't replied since:Undefeatable wrote: »@Peace_79I do concur with your argument in spirit.
OK, cool.Although, I haven't read the article in its intirety, from what I see here - the level of substantiation it provides for its claims leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah, that's most of what I'm saying.But can we agree that we have more than one data point illustrating the trend of racist and bigoted leadership surrounding the Trump Adminstration?
Hmm. See, it depends on what you mean by that.
If you are saying that the Trump administration is associated with racists and bigots, then, yes, of course.
If you're saying that the Trump administration itself is made up of racists and bigots, then generally, yes, I agree. But that begs for the question: to what extent is the Trump administration itself made up of racists and bigots?
It seems to me that many people, some of them driven by irrationality and sensationalism, are inexplicably so certain that the Trump administration is made up of nazis and white supremacists and that they will turn America into the Third ? where whites will flourish and nonwhites will suffer.
As of now, that seems to be far from the truth for many reasons. It's just ridiculous, and more so ridiculous that so many people are completely buying into it. Nobody is looking at facts or doing their research. They just willfully get swept up in their own bias (especially confirmation bias) and hysteria. Then everybody loses their damn minds, and we get stupid ? like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3RWz-tK8gVeracity of this particular article as published, aside, can we agree that Trump has relinquished the proverbial benefit of the doubt when it comes to the totality of his "body of work" on this topic?
It depends on what we're doubting, but if I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like you're advocating for "guilty until proven innocent." Yes, Trump is an idiot and has no credibility (like most politicians), but being a discreditable idiot doesn't automatically make you guilty of whatever "crime" is being levied on you.
All I want to follow are the facts. Forget about the extra ? . If Trump is claimed to be a modern-day ? , then I want solid evidence for this. If Trump is claimed to be a white supremacist, then I want solid evidence for this. I haven't seen any solid evidence for these claims, just sensationalist ? (having racist supporters makes you racist? really? we can do better than that.), and although the lack of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, at this point, I can only go with what I have: Trump is an idiot and probably a racist (as many Americans are, including many on this site), but he's not a modern-day ? that is going to unleash white racism on America.
Even if he planned on doing this, he'd have to go through the Constitution and the other two branches of government, obstacles that are damn near impossible to get through. The president is not the ruler of America. Constitutionally speaking, his powers are very limited. So calm the ? down, people. These next few years are just going to be more of the same ? , but it's going to get worse if we continue to lose our ? .
Trump himself doesn't have to be a modern day ? for people to be rightly alarmed.
I agree. Are you saying that I said that people shouldn't be rightly alarmed? -
Agreed. And that justifiably puts the burden on us, the American citizens. But yellow journalism and cracking petty insults towards Trump on a message board so that we can pat each other's backs and feel better about ourselves while doing essentially nothing is not the way to go is all I'm saying.Whether or not his extreme rhetoric comes to fruition ... they are the words and promises of the President Elect.
You mean the words and promises of a politician? I can't remember the last time I've truly trusted a politician's words and promises. I honestly don't care too much about the words and promises of a politician. I mostly care about his actions. ? , our current president has taught us that lesson very well.It should be taken seriously.
Yes, mostly everything should be taken seriously but reasonably as well.
@Plutarch is dropping some gems that people who are too blindly biased will fail to absorb.
The "tolerable" party (liberals) are turning into everything they rightfully criticize the republican fox news 'occultists' for being and they dont realize it.
Ironically as terrible a president we fear Trump might turn out to be hes indirectly exposing the media for what it is. And showing just how blind the masses are. -
@Undefeatable
Based on the two wacks you've given me, I can assume that you disagree (or perhaps strongly disagree, since a nosign would imply a simply disagreement?) with what I'm saying, but I'm still not sure what exactly your disagreement is.
So would you like to elaborate? I'm down for a fair discussion. You've made one comment, and I responded and asked you a question, but you haven't replied since:Undefeatable wrote: »@Peace_79I do concur with your argument in spirit.
OK, cool.Although, I haven't read the article in its intirety, from what I see here - the level of substantiation it provides for its claims leaves a lot to be desired.
Yeah, that's most of what I'm saying.But can we agree that we have more than one data point illustrating the trend of racist and bigoted leadership surrounding the Trump Adminstration?
Hmm. See, it depends on what you mean by that.
If you are saying that the Trump administration is associated with racists and bigots, then, yes, of course.
If you're saying that the Trump administration itself is made up of racists and bigots, then generally, yes, I agree. But that begs for the question: to what extent is the Trump administration itself made up of racists and bigots?
It seems to me that many people, some of them driven by irrationality and sensationalism, are inexplicably so certain that the Trump administration is made up of nazis and white supremacists and that they will turn America into the Third ? where whites will flourish and nonwhites will suffer.
As of now, that seems to be far from the truth for many reasons. It's just ridiculous, and more so ridiculous that so many people are completely buying into it. Nobody is looking at facts or doing their research. They just willfully get swept up in their own bias (especially confirmation bias) and hysteria. Then everybody loses their damn minds, and we get stupid ? like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3RWz-tK8gVeracity of this particular article as published, aside, can we agree that Trump has relinquished the proverbial benefit of the doubt when it comes to the totality of his "body of work" on this topic?
It depends on what we're doubting, but if I'm understanding you correctly, it seems like you're advocating for "guilty until proven innocent." Yes, Trump is an idiot and has no credibility (like most politicians), but being a discreditable idiot doesn't automatically make you guilty of whatever "crime" is being levied on you.
All I want to follow are the facts. Forget about the extra ? . If Trump is claimed to be a modern-day ? , then I want solid evidence for this. If Trump is claimed to be a white supremacist, then I want solid evidence for this. I haven't seen any solid evidence for these claims, just sensationalist ? (having racist supporters makes you racist? really? we can do better than that.), and although the lack of evidence isn't the evidence of absence, at this point, I can only go with what I have: Trump is an idiot and probably a racist (as many Americans are, including many on this site), but he's not a modern-day ? that is going to unleash white racism on America.
Even if he planned on doing this, he'd have to go through the Constitution and the other two branches of government, obstacles that are damn near impossible to get through. The president is not the ruler of America. Constitutionally speaking, his powers are very limited. So calm the ? down, people. These next few years are just going to be more of the same ? , but it's going to get worse if we continue to lose our ? .
Trump himself doesn't have to be a modern day ? for people to be rightly alarmed.
I agree. Are you saying that I said that people shouldn't be rightly alarmed?
You think you are being reasonable, but you're just being obtuse.
The Trump administration doesn't have to be the Third ? for people to be concerned -- alarmed even -- given the people Trump is selecting for Cabinet positions. This is because given their associations and/or the things that they have said in the past, we have to assume that they are not going have blacks' best interests at heart. You agree with that. So what else is there to be said? What, exactly, is the main point you are trying to convey? -
Honestly I don't really like Zinke's take on energy and ? like that, he's a bit more pro fossil fuel than I would prefer BUT he has been and said he will continue to be against divestiture of federally owned public lands which is HUGE for wildlife. This is really the only thing Trump has done so far that I'm somewhat optimistic about. The transfer of public land to state control is crony capitalism at its worst and I'm really happy to see someone with a track record of opposing it got secretary of interior.
As for this article... jesus christ ? he $170 from a white nationalist, he's a white supremecaist -
@Plutarch
You seem to be an intelligent poster who seeks objective truth.
For the reasons above, I can't help but feel that your are being purposefully obtuse.
For what reason, I'm not sure.
One can question the veracity of the media without willfully ignoring the facts coming out around them.
I could be wrong, tho.
Perhaps you have simply just not come across anything resembling a history of bigotry, lack of qualifications, or serious contradictions that would seem problematic to you regarding Donald Trump or the individuals that he has chosen to surround himself with.
And If I hadn't made it explicitly clear, one does not have to be a clear cut White Nationalist to be a problematic selection to council the President.
But it's December 19th fam ...
In lieu of writing a peer reviewed essay to present readily available information to you;
I am, instead, preparing to host X-mas with my family.
You claim to be an advocate of objective research.
See what FACTS (not opinions) you can find about the following people; and how one might find their selections problematic given the capacity in which they have been requested to serve.
Surely they're not perfect, right?
Since you don't trust it coming from me, let's see what you can find yourself ...
Steve Bannon - Chief Strategist
Scott Pruitt - EPA Administrator
Andrew F Puzder - Labor Secretary
Betsy DeVos - Education Secretary
Jeff Sessions -Attorney General
Rex Tillerson - Secretary of State
Michael Flynn - National Security Advisor
Donald Trump - President of the United States
-
Agreed. And that justifiably puts the burden on us, the American citizens. But yellow journalism and cracking petty insults towards Trump on a message board so that we can pat each other's backs and feel better about ourselves while doing essentially nothing is not the way to go is all I'm saying.Whether or not his extreme rhetoric comes to fruition ... they are the words and promises of the President Elect.
You mean the words and promises of a politician? I can't remember the last time I've truly trusted a politician's words and promises. I honestly don't care too much about the words and promises of a politician. I mostly care about his actions. ? , our current president has taught us that lesson very well.It should be taken seriously.
Yes, mostly everything should be taken seriously but reasonably as well.
@Plutarch is dropping some gems that people who are too blindly biased will fail to absorb.
The "tolerable" party (liberals) are turning into everything they rightfully criticize the republican fox news 'occultists' for being and they dont realize it.
Ironically as terrible a president we fear Trump might turn out to be hes indirectly exposing the media for what it is. And showing just how blind the masses are.
There's actually a lot of truth in this post.
The problem is that you and others are drawing some pretty disengenuous false equivalencies in your crusade to discredit "liberals".
"I can't remember the last time I've truly trusted a politician's words and promises. I honestly don't care too much about the words and promises of a politician. I mostly care about his actions. ? , our current president has taught us that lesson very well."
This last paragraph reads -
"Presidents NEVER do what they say they are going to do, including Obama. "
There are reports out that show Obama accomplishing or compromising on 75% of what he promised.
And that is with historic opposition in congress tying to stop him from accomplishing anything.
Something Donald Trump will not face
Just because there is not a 1 to 1 connection between what a President promises and what gets done, certainly does not mean that they we shouldn't take their words seriously.
Their words are pretenses to their actions, obviously.
So when the President Elect says things like:
"They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists"
"I'm building a wall [to keep them out]"
- About Mexicans.
“A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
- About Muslims
"A policy like stop-and-frisk could save thousands of lives in a city like Chicago ...
"I say this to African-American communities. What do you have to lose? "
-About Black people
It's incredibly inconsiderate to say:
"Oh well - don't worry about it, I'm sure he doesn't mean it."
Nah ...
Just as you say it's up to the public to be "earnest seekers of truth"...
It's also up to the public to ensure that Donald Trump and his team do not trample over the rights of millions of people like he SAID HE WOULD DO.
-
The problem is that you and others are drawing some pretty disengenuous false equivalencies in your crusade to discredit "liberals".
take a look at the majority of mainstream media...the crusade is actually being done by liberals. Im just a random guy on the internet that posts nameless and faceless. I have no effect on swaying public opinion.This last paragraph reads -
"Presidents NEVER do what they say they are going to do, including Obama. "
There are reports out that show Obama accomplishing or compromising on 75% of what he promised.
And that is with historic opposition in congress tying to stop him from accomplishing anything.
Something Donald Trump will not face
Just because there is not a 1 to 1 connection between what a President promises and what gets done, certainly does not mean that they we shouldn't take their words seriously.
Their words are pretenses to their actions, obviously.
I like Obama for the most part. I get your point, but thats not what my post is about.So when the President Elect says things like:
"They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists"
Yea he was an ass for saying that no disagreement there. I can only speculate maybe he was generalizing the illegals. (obviously doesnt justify it)"I'm building a wall [to keep them out]"
- About Mexicans.
^^^ehh, i mean hes talking about illegal immigrants not mexicans going through the legal motions. This is another example of purposely leaving out context for sensationalism. People bite the bait easily, i get it tho, its Trump.“A total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
- About Muslims
He's an ass for this one too. For what its worth though this statement doesnt target American muslim citizens but foreigners instead. Personally I'm against it."A policy like stop-and-frisk could save thousands of lives in a city like Chicago ...
Idiot statement for multiple reasons, but not racist." "
I say this to African-American communities. What do you have to lose?
-About Black people
“Tonight, I’m asking for the vote of every single African American citizen in this country who wants to see a better future. What do you have to lose by trying something new, like Trump. You’re living in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed, what the hell do you have to lose?” But Trump once again accused Clinton of “bigotry,” claiming she sees African Americans “only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future”.
Was this insensitive and worded ignorantly? Yes. If he was less of an ass and was more 'presidential' like obama he could've done better with that statement.It's incredibly inconsiderate to say:
"Oh well - don't worry about it, I'm sure he doesn't mean it."
Never said thisJust as you say it's up to the public to be "earnest seekers of truth"...
It's also up to the public to ensure that Donald Trump and his team do not trample over the rights of millions of people like he SAID HE WOULD DO.
^^^at bolded: this is a bit of that sensationalism that I was talking about right here.
The funny thing is once people choose sides they inevitably find it harder over time to disagree with anything their side says. They have to come to the defense of everything their side says for fear of looking weak or wrong. It stops being so much about having something of substance to say but more so just having a response, period. And the more biased people get, the less they bother to research or read the details. Why should they? They wanna believe it.
Idk if somehow in your head u began to assume I support all things Trump simply bc I think the media is showing its bias more and more everyday now, but I think he's a ? head. And just bc I think he's a ? head, doesn't mean Im gonna swallow every agenda filled article fed to me, whether its from a Trump supporter or a Trump hater. -
It's incredibly inconsiderate to say:
"Oh well - don't worry about it, I'm sure he doesn't mean it."
Never said this
Lol
My guy - this is EXACTLY what you are saying.
Y'all just dressing it up with fake outrage at the media and eloquent titangraphs.
Like I said before,
"One can question the veracity of the media without willfully ignoring facts..."
Y'all are trying to argue that Trump is just a "regular President", and all the legitimate concerns surrounding his rhetoric, Cabinet appointments, and impending presidency is all manufactured paranoia.
That's ? .
-
It's incredibly inconsiderate to say:
"Oh well - don't worry about it, I'm sure he doesn't mean it."
Never said this
Lol
My guy - this is EXACTLY what you are saying.
Y'all just dressing it up with fake outrage at the media and eloquent titangraphs.
Like I said before,
"One can question the veracity of the media without willfully ignoring facts..."
Y'all are trying to argue that Trump is just a "regular President", and all the legitimate concerns surrounding his rhetoric, Cabinet appointments, and impending presidency is all manufactured paranoia.
That's ? .
U are still misquoting me but I really couldnt care less. U notice how me being anti-media made u think I was pro Trump? Even when I clearly criticized Fox news in my very first post? The irony -
Undefeatable wrote: »You think you are being reasonable, but you're just being obtuse.
As of now, I know I'm being reasonable. Until you present evidence to the contrary, then I will concede. Up until recently, you haven't presented much of anything.Undefeatable wrote: »The Trump administration doesn't have to be the Third ? for people to be concerned -- alarmed even -- given the people Trump is selecting for Cabinet positions.
No disrespect, but didn't I just answer this question. I agree with you! Let me clarify once again: I agree with you! I've answered this question three times already, I think. Perhaps you are misunderstanding my main point?Undefeatable wrote: »This is because given their associations and/or the things that they have said in the past, we have to assume that they are not going have blacks' best interests at heart. You agree with that. So what else is there to be said? What, exactly, is the main point you are trying to convey?
OK. But what do you mean what else is there to be said? You're the one that said I was being obtuse. Could you be specific? Can you cite me being obtuse? Have I said or implied that people shouldn't be concerned or alarmed? Perhaps we can start from there, because I'm honestly confused/curious: what exactly have I said that is unreasonable?
I thought that I made my main point very clear and thorough. All you have to do is read what I posted. How can you strongly disagree with what I've said, offer no specifics about your disagreement, and then ask me what I've said? Let me try to give you the cliff-notes: (1) yellow journalism that demagogues Trump is dangerous and counterproductive because it promotes bias, lies, sensationalism, misinformation, etc., and the article in the OP is one of many examples of this kind of propaganda; (2) in turn, if we want to effectively oppose Trump, then we should focus on facts and the truth. Is that obtuse and unreasonable? -
@Peace_79You seem to be an intelligent poster who seeks objective truth.
Respect. You seem to be an intelligent poster as well. I have no personal beef with you or anyone else. I'm just participating in a civil discussion.For the reasons above, I can't help but feel that your are being purposefully obtuse.
For what reason, I'm not sure.
I'm not exactly sure what "reasons above" you're referencing, but I welcome all criticism. I'm more than willing to concede any point that I make. You just need to offer the appropriate evidence so that I can do so. You can suspect that I'm being obtuse, but know that I have my own suspicions about you too. I just don't dwell on them, because I'm just concerned about the evidence, amigo. Btw, if I'm being obtuse, it's not on purpose. I still don't know why you're so bent on questioning my sincerity, as if I haven't been honest and open about everything I've said.One can question the veracity of the media without willfully ignoring the facts coming out around them.
If I understand you correctly, then yes, I agree. But again, I'm confused. You seem to be assuming that I disagree. Could you cite me disagreeing with your statement? -
I could be wrong, tho.
I don't think you are?Perhaps you have simply just not come across anything resembling a history of bigotry, lack of qualifications, or serious contradictions that would seem problematic to you regarding Donald Trump or the individuals that he has chosen to surround himself with.
Again, I'm confused. I'm still not sure whether you understand me or whether I understand you. I have neither said or implied that I haven't "come across anything resembling a history of bigotry...regarding Trump...." I have. Again, my original point was simply a warning against yellow journalism and the exemplary article in the OP. Of course, there are legitimate articles, however few in comparison, that provide facts that discredit Trump and some of his people. I'm not denying this. I"m denying the "Trump's Third ? " sensationalism that yellow journalism apparently successfully promotes unfortunately.And If I hadn't made it explicitly clear, one does not have to be a clear cut White Nationalist to be a problematic selection to council the President.
I agree!! Honestly, have I said otherwise? I feel like you're responding to a different person, here. I'm pretty sure I haven't made all of these claims that people are saying I've made. I'll have to go back and read my posts after this to be sure. Could you please start citing me, because I honestly don't know what you're talking about.But it's December 19th fam ...
In lieu of writing a peer reviewed essay to present readily available information to you;
I am, instead, preparing to host X-mas with my family.
Haha, you right. I won't be spending Xmas with my family this year, but I'm pretty busy as well. Merry Christmas to you and yours. -
You claim to be an advocate of objective research.
Yes...See what FACTS (not opinions) you can find about the following people; and how one might find their selections problematic given the capacity in which they have been requested to serve.
I already know about some of them and facts about their checkered past that at the very least make them questionable and at the very most make them not ideal or unqualified. Again, my point was never to argue against that though. You act as if I think that Trump and his crew are without blemish or without serious problems. That was never my point. I neither said nor implied that. I don't even like Trump!Surely they're not perfect, right?
Surely, indeed.Since you don't trust it coming from me, let's see what you can find yourself ...
I never said I didn't trust what you said, right? Why does it feel like you're talking to an alternate version of me, one who is apparently obtuse and insincere?Steve Bannon - Chief Strategist
Scott Pruitt - EPA Administrator
Andrew F Puzder - Labor Secretary
Betsy DeVos - Education Secretary
Jeff Sessions -Attorney General
Rex Tillerson - Secretary of State
Michael Flynn - National Security Advisor
Donald Trump - President of the United States
Thanks. I know and don't like about half of them, but I'll research the rest. Btw, I'm not defending them per se. I'm just defending them and anyone else from what I perceive to be unfair and sometimes ridiculous criticism. I'm all for harsh but fair criticism though. -
@Plutarch
I apologize if I have mischarcterized you or your message.
Judging by your posts, It appears you may have mischarcterized me for being someone who is a fan of yellow journalism - something I denounced in my first post.
As you seem to be curious, my assessment of your intentions began in your second series of posts when you called out "irrationality" and "sensationalism", "ridiculous" notions, disregard of "facts", being swept up in one's own confirmation bias", and "hysteria", while "losing their damn minds" ...
When apparently referencing the sober assessments of myself and other IC posters.
(You responded directly to my post and the questions that I posed)
This - all in response to claiming there are "multiple data points" that tell the story that Trump and many of his cabinet appointees are white nationalists and racists who are in large number ill equipped to adequately perform the task they have been assigned...
A conclusion that you have also claimed to arrive at, yourself...
Although, as you put it - you may have more research yet to do.
Again, I NEVER claimed to be a proponent of yellow journalism - so we have been in aggreeance on that point from the beginning.
Therefore, I could not help but assume part of your messaging was directed at me and my statements (statements which you have implied that you agree with)
Hence - the adversarial tone in my subsequent posts; and the questioning of your sincerity.
In this series of posts, you also went on to predict, in my crude attempt at paraphrasing, that
"this will just be a regular Presidency; we've seen this all before; and everyone should just calm down"
Seemingly making light of any concern that exists...
To that sentiment, I respectfully disagree.
There are also a myriad of facts that illustrate my position on that as well.
Unlike many others on the site, I don't think ANYTHING is written in stone.
Just because something does not happen, does not mean that it could not have happened.
I think we absorb both the potential for risk and reward with each of the decisions that we make in life and the environment in which we make them.
As a country we have absorbed some unnecessary RISK into a, somewhat, volatile environment - not just domestically but abroad.
It is our collective job to mitigate that risk.Why have I come to the conclusion that we have absorbed risk?
If you have this question of me, I would redirect that question to yourself ... to see if you can identify why someone would come to that conclusion.
We mitigate it in a multitude of ways
-By avoiding yellow journalism, and advocating for substantiated narratives
-By holding our President accountable
-By scrutinizing his wreckless behavior
-By doing what we can to ensure that he receives as much responsible guidance as possible; given that he has no experience
(i.e. Not the collection of people that he has currently appointed)
-By strengthening minority protection groups
- By advocating for peace and tolerance to combat the hatred and division that has been injected into the blood stream of our society
Etc. etc.
One does not have to explicitly say something to get a message across.
Implications will certainly suffice.
If I have read between the lines and found something that wasn't there, I owe you an apology.
However, also know that I am not going ignore ? when I see it.
There are many that will run with that and use it as a foundation to discredit valid criticism of Trump and his Adminstration.
If scrutiny and valid criticism of the media is important.
Scrutiny and valid criticism of the President is essential.
Quoted Paragraphs
Seems to me that many people, some of them driven by irrationality and sensationalism, are inexplicably so certain that the Trump administration is made up of nazis and white supremacists and that they will turn America into the Third ? where whites will flourish and nonwhites will suffer.
As of now, that seems to be far from the truth for many reasons. It's just ridiculous, and more so ridiculous that so many people are completely buying into it. NOBODY is looking at facts or doing their research. They just willfully get swept up in their own bias (especially confirmation bias) and hysteria. Then everybody loses their damn minds, ....
These next few years are just going to be more of the same ? , ... -
They did the electoral college vote and he overwhelmingly won. I don't like that he won but this is what the people wanted. Be safe out there y'all....
Its not what the people wanted its what the powers that be who actually SELECT not ELECT the president wanted. -
