Racism is alive and well, Thanks Trump and his supporters!

[Athos_131]

In other words, you don't think any groups are marginalized.

Thanks for playing.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

‘Time for the Ku Klux Klan to night ride again’: An Alabama newspaper editor wants to bring back lynching

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Witnesses Say Muslim Man Was Killed in Islamophobic Attack in Indiana

An Indiana man was taken into custody on a preliminary murder charge after a road rage incident last weekend, during which witnesses said he yelled religious and ethnic insults at a Muslim-American man before shooting and killing him. However, there is no opportunity under current law for Passarelli to be charged with a hate crime despite witnesses alleging that he hurled xenophobic slurs at the victim and told him to “get out” of the country, because Indiana is one of the few states left without such laws.

A police report obtained by Fox 59 alleges that 33-year old Dustin Passarelli got into a road rage incident with 32-year-old Mustafa Ayoubi on the night of Saturday, February 16. Passarelli told police that a car he claimed to be Ayoubi’s “aggressively” drove behind him, and that he thought someone “threw something at his car or hit his car.” Passarelli then proceeded to follow Ayoubi to an apartment complex where Ayoubi was meeting his friends, and said he did so because he wanted to get Ayoubi’s insurance information in case there was damage to his car.

That’s when friends who witnessed the shooting say they watched Passarelli “cussing at Mr. Ayoubi and using religious and ethnic insults such as, “Go back to your country.” Witnesses claimed that Passarelli then appeared to shine a light or a laser at Ayoubi, then shot at him multiple times. Ayoubi was unarmed and tried to run away as Passarelli shot him in the back twice; he was later pronounced dead at the scene.

Passarelli told police that Ayoubi lobbed an anti-Semitic remark at him first, and that Ayoubi punched his driver’s side window and cracked it. But three of Ayoubi’s friends who witnessed the shooting say that Passarelli committed a hate crime against Ayoubi.

Usman Ashraf, a friend of Ayoubi’s, told news station 93.1 WIBC that Passarelli was shouting anti-Islamic slurs at them and telling them they should “get out of our country, you are foreigners.” Ayoubi, a U.S. citizen, moved to the country in 2001 and graduated from Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, 13 WTHR reported.

“The guy that was in the car that was the shooter, he was screaming obscene words, saying Muhammad is a pedophile, Muhammad is, you all are, you follow worse kind of people...,” Ashraf told 13 WTHR. “Without giving any warning, he just started shooting...[Passarelli] emptied the whole clip on his back.”

A statement from Ayoubi’s family released to 13 WTHR says that Ayoubi died because “someone believed that he did not belong in the USA and he was a foreigner.”

Despite these accounts, Passarelli currently can’t be charged with a hate crime, as Indiana is one of five remaining states without a hate crime statute. A hate crime bill is currently making its way through the Indiana General Assembly; on Monday, the Indiana Senate’s Public Policy committee voted for hate crime bill SB 12, passing it to the Senate for a full vote. The version passed would apply to bias-motivated crimes regarding race, religion, “color,” disability, gender identity, and sexual orientation, amid other identity classifications. There’s no indication thus far that, if passed and signed into law, it would apply retroactively.

It appears that Indiana is having a hard enough time agreeing on just who this hate crime bill will protect. In January, the bill’s proponents feared that Indiana’s GOP would shut it down over a gender identity protection for transgender people. And while that protection made it through, a previous version of the bill protected political affiliation and law enforcement against would-be hate crimes against, say, Republicans and cops. However, an amendment removed those classes before Monday’s vote.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

A school district found out about an apple farmer's controversial tweets. He sued when they canceled their field trips

A dense fog hung over James Riley’s homestead in this apple-growing community as the platoon of buses, carrying 150 mostly Latino and black fifth-graders, pulled up.

Here in the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains, about 80 miles from downtown L.A., the 59-year-old Riley and his employees grow fruit and vegetables through most of the year. But their main crop is living history: musical theater, educational workshops and historical reenactments of everything from the Gold Rush era to the Civil War — all centered on a mock 1770s-era New England town that Riley designed.

College-age actors in three-cornered hats and bonnets, nattering away in faux-British accents, teach life lessons from the Revolutionary War: how to spool thread, roll a hoop with a stick and not run afoul of the Quartering Act of 1765, the Parliament diktat that forced Americans to house and feed British soldiers.

“Fifth-graders are sort of the magic age,” Riley said. “They’re not too cool yet, they still like to pretend.”

Even so, Riley said, his liberty to pursue this unique form of happiness is under attack.

Earlier in the day, officials with the Riverside Unified School District had been poking around the farm, wanting to see for themselves if the rumors were true: that Riley’s Farm was an unsafe environment for kids because of its owner’s alleged racism, misogyny and homophobia.

Last September, someone had uncovered tweets from Riley in which he stated that “black supremacy” was as problematic as white racism, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Native American heritage was bogus and that his generation may be the last one “born with only two genders.”

"White supremacy?" he tweeted on Feb. 18 last year. “If there's a problem in America today, it's BLACK supremacy. Farrakhan, Obama, LeBron James, etc.”

Soon the backlash landed on Riley and his farm. Parents and activists called for a boycott, in Facebook and Twitter posts shared by thousands. His own brother and nephew, who run nearby apple farms, distanced themselves.

Deana Olson, a mother of five whose sons had visited Riley’s Farm as fifth-graders in the Menifee Union High School District, shared the tweets.

“You shouldn’t have to think about those things when sending your children on field trips,” she said. “He’s like a wannabe Trump, and that’s not OK. And if you think you can get away with it, then you’re not a good businessman.”

The Claremont Unified School District told Riley in a letter that they would no longer send students to his farm and were under “no obligation to expose children to an individual who engages in these crude and tasteless comments.”

In response, Riley has sued Claremont Unified, its superintendent, board trustees and two district principals, alleging they had violated his 1st (free speech) and 14th (equal protection under the law) Amendment rights. He is seeking more than $10 million in damages.

The controversy prompted Riverside Unified to dispatch the team of observers to Riley’s Farm.

“District officials, alongside legal counsel, are doing our due diligence to ensure that we’re doing what’s best for our students, our families and the staff,” a district spokesperson said in a statement.

As children outside practiced how to march in formation, Riley — a father of six — promised to put more “fear in public officials.”

“If there is any other district that pursues defamation of me,” Riley said, “that has been in a long-term relationship with us and has basically made a decision based on my political expression, then we will sue them.”

Tall and pensive, with gray hair pulled into a ponytail so he can better impersonate Patrick Henry, Riley arrived in town in 1994, following his older brother Dennis, who bought a three-acre orchard in 1978 and revolutionized the local industry.

Under Dennis’ “U-Pick” program, customers could wander among the trees and pick the fruit themselves instead of buying from roadside stands.

Soon Riley’s family — a sprawling clan originally from Arcadia — settled in Oak Glen, taking jobs as cooks and tour guides and teaching the public how to make apple cider and other treats; James estimates about 40 relatives remain in the industry. By the late 1980s, Dennis and his other siblings persuaded their parents to buy what’s now Riley’s Farm.

Around that time, a group of Civil War aficionados asked if they could reenact a battle in the farm’s upper meadows. James Riley said he was opposed at first, finding “shades of stolen valor in some of that stuff.”

But the Stanford history major and lifelong conservative quickly realized that “there are people who are good at defending their country, and there are other people who are good at talking about what [soldiers] had done.”

Riley wrote scripts that relied as much as possible on primary sources such as journals and letters to ensure no historical biases seeped into his productions. Actors came from his family as well as local high school and college drama departments. He trained everyone in era-appropriate diction and dress.

Teachers suggested Riley offer field trips. The idea proved wildly popular, with students coming from throughout Southern California.

In the early 2000s, Oak Glen residents complained that the smell of black powder from fired guns and the screams of schoolchildren were ruining their idyll — and their property values.

A petition presented to the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors in 2006 asked that Riley be forced to muffle the shots and limit the field trips.

After some negotiations, Riley’s Farm agreed to have actors fire only six shots per day, between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.

Over the last decade, Oak Glen residents have grudgingly accepted that Riley’s vision has boosted tourism. He diversified Riley’s Farm to include overnight stays, group retreats, weddings and even quinceañeras.

“Jim is one of the consummate marketers up here,” said Nina Foster, a former vice president of the Oak Glen Apple Growers Assn. who worked for Riley for two years as a Revolutionary War reenactor. “He has a heart as big as all outdoors.”

But the school field trips are vital to Riley’s bottom line, making up $2.1 million out of total revenue of $4.2 million in a “typical recent year,” according to court filings.

While not busy tending to his business, Riley has attended tea party rallies dressed as Patrick Henry to stir up crowds, as well as launched a blog and Twitter account to express his political views.

He said he remembers only two significant clashes with customers before the tweet backlash: He dropped a depiction of the Great Awakening, the 18th century evangelical revival that swept the American colonies, because too many teachers complained about its religious overtones. And, he said, a Muslim group walked out during a speech that concludes every field trip because of this line: “There are places in the world right now where a woman can’t even drive a car, much less vote.”

“It’s been kind of a Hank Fonda-Jimmy Stewart type of relationship,” Riley said of serving people who don’t share his beliefs. “We may agree to disagree on contemporary politics, but the binding affection that binds our guests to the farm is a common love for history.”

But after the spread of his tweets, Riley said, he has been turned into a “conservative Christian strawman that has to be burned in public.”

Riley claims business has actually improved amid the controversy, as private schools and parents groups have organized trips in support. Nevertheless, he sued Claremont Unified.

“Government can’t chill the exercise of free speech indirectly or directly,” said his lawyer, Thomas Eastmond.

Claremont Unified declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Barry P. McDonald, a Pepperdine University law professor who teaches a course on the 1st Amendment, thinks Riley’s case is “interesting” but probably a “loser.”

“The court would likely say the government’s job is to teach kids appropriate values,” he said. “In [Riley’s] instance, to force the school district into a business transaction where such offensive things are being tweeted, would be inimical to the school’s intent to teach respect and tolerance for others.”

But Riley argues that his conservative beliefs have not filtered into the farm’s programs.

“These are stories that are safely wrapped up in the events of the past,” he said. “If you want to come to a conclusion about them one way or another, that’s up to anybody.”

One concerned parent, Ridgecrest resident Becky Hilliker, accompanied her daughter to the farm after learning about the controversy. What she saw made her think Riley’s program should continue.

“It’s important for the kids to see this,” Hilliker said, adding that the tweets were “not something he said to the kids” and “it would be a shame to deny [them] the educational opportunities” with a boycott.

If he were to lose his lawsuit, Riley said, he was willing to sell the farm — or at least the part that belongs to him — to fund any appeal.

Around 2 in the afternoon, the field trip’s grand finale — the staging of the fictional Battle of St. George’s Tavern, where students split into teams of redcoats or colonists, armed with sticks bent to resemble muskets — was nearing its end.

One set of fifth-graders shouted “Free-dom! Free-dom!” as their classmates lay prone in a muddy field.

Soon, everyone gathered to hear the speech that has concluded the tour for more than a decade. Riley used to give it more often, but a young African American woman had the duties this day.

“They say that liberty is a chain,” she told her rapt audience, “and you are the next link in that chain. The freedom of this nation is very much in your hands.”

“I’m a crybaby every time,” Riley said, as his employees handed out caramel apples to students.

The script was done for the day. And the Riverside Unified School District officials who had come to make sure nothing went awry left Riley’s Farm. But not before walking away with a bag of goodies from its bakery.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Pro-Russian Coast Guard lieutenant arrested with hit list of liberal senators wanted to establish ‘a white homeland’

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Pro-Russian Coast Guard lieutenant arrested with hit list of liberal senators wanted to establish ‘a white homeland’

#Resist

[joan1984]

  Hmm... seems to readily conflate leftist elected, with leftist media folks, be the elected ones Senate, House, former, or current ones. Also missed a large number if using only left wing behavior and attitude as the measure.

  Imagine Democrat and others who are wannabe Dem Primary types who are not listed... he must have additional lists, am thinking, and missed lots of RINOs as well from the elected or former elected categories...

  Perhaps the story is still developing, and some will lobby to have their names released for publication as well... just sayin'...

[Athos_131]

 Hmm... seems to readily conflate leftist elected, with leftist media folks, be the elected ones Senate, House, former, or current ones. Also missed a large number if using only left wing behavior and attitude as the measure.

  Imagine Democrat and others who are wannabe Dem Primary types who are not listed... he must have additional lists, am thinking, and missed lots of RINOs as well from the elected or former elected categories...

  Perhaps the story is still developing, and some will lobby to have their names released for publication as well... just sayin'...

God you're dense, it's already filed in court.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

What if one party doesn’t believe America is for everyone?

“All men are created equal” is America’s founding creed, the reaffirmation that America is not defined by race or place of birth or any other outward characteristic, but rather by fidelity to the rule of law, democracy and the opportunity to pursue one’s dreams. Unfortunately, a high percentage of one major political party doesn’t buy that.

The recent Public Religion Research Institute poll finds:

Overall, nearly half of Americans generally support a racially and ethnically diverse vision of the United States, although there are moderate divisions by race. When asked to put themselves on a scale, where one end is the statement, “I would prefer the U.S. to be a nation made up of people from all over the world,” and the other end is the statement, “I would prefer the U.S. to be a nation primarily made up of people from Western European heritage,” 47% of Americans mostly agree with the first statement, while less than one in ten (9%) Americans mostly agree with the second statement, and 39% place themselves in the middle of the scale.

There are also stark political divisions on this issue. Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Democrats, compared to only three in ten (29%) Republicans, mostly prefer a country with racial and ethnic diversity. Republicans are nearly twice as likely as Democrats to state a preference for a Western European majority in the country (13% vs. 7%). Additionally, over half (56%) of Republicans place themselves somewhere in the middle on this issue, compared to one-quarter (25%) of Democrats. Independents closely resemble Americans in general on this question.

But America is a racially and ethnically diverse country, you say. Yes, and that may explain the high degree of anger and sense of alienation many Republicans who supported Donald Trump feel. Less than a third of them believe America should be diverse.

One criticism of Trump supporters’ immigration stance has been that they are not merely opposed to illegal immigration but to immigration of black and brown people. The poll gives some support for that conclusion. For them, Trump’s criticism of “s---hole” countries is a sign he understands their beef with immigration.

This negative view of diversity permeates many Republicans’ thinking. For example, “Democrats are likeliest to say that the U.S.’s diversity makes the country stronger. More than three-quarters (77%) of Democrats say that the country’s diverse population makes it stronger, while only 55% of independents and 51% of Republicans agree. Notably, one in five (20%) Republicans say that the U.S.’s diverse population makes it weaker.”

On one hand, all political groups think our creed/beliefs in our Constitution are what most define us. “Overwhelming majorities of Republicans, independents, and Democrats agree that respecting American political institutions and laws (98%, 85%, 91%, respectively), believing in individual freedoms such as freedom of speech (96%, 88%, 93%, respectively), and accepting people of diverse racial and religious backgrounds (86%, 82%, 92%, respectively), are somewhat or very important for being truly American.” But PRRI also finds large majorities of Republicans think it is somewhat or very important to be born in America and believe in God if one wants to be “truly American.”

Republicans by and large don’t put too much stock in religious diversity (i.e., religious freedom). “Over half (54%) of Democrats, compared to only one in ten (12%) Republicans, mostly prefer religious diversity. By contrast, four in ten (40%) Republicans state a preference for a Christian majority, compared to only 14% of Democrats. A plurality (45%) of Republicans and nearly one in three (29%) Democrats place themselves in the middle of this scale. Independents closely resemble Americans in general on this question.”

The rejection of a pluralistic, multiracial democracy by so many Republicans should be deeply disturbing. It also explains the polarization on so many political issues. If one party doesn’t really think that those not from Western European heritage (i.e. ,nonwhite people) should be here, reaching consensus on immigration and even child separation seems nearly impossible. If one party thinks religious diversity is a threat to America’s identity, good luck reaching consensus on issues such as religious accommodation, the Muslim ban and more. (That said, one interesting part of the poll finds that there are supermajorities of Republicans and Democrats who favor a long list of policies, e.g. protection for those with preexisting conditions, treating rather than punishing drug users, getting rid of mandatory-minimum sentences and allowing those who’ve served prison sentences to regain the right to vote.)

We should seriously consider why so many Americans fundamentally reject our founding creed and where our institutions have failed to convey and propagate those fundamental beliefs. Ronald Reagan famously said, “America represents something universal in the human spirit. I received a letter not long ago from a man who said, ‘You can go to Japan to live, but you cannot become Japanese. You can go to France to live and not become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey, and you won’t become a German or a Turk.’ But then he added, ‘Anybody from any corner of the world can come to America to live and become an American.’ ” Today, an alarming number of Republicans would say: Not so fast.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Ole Miss Players Kneel During National Anthem In Protest of Pro-Confederate Rallies Happening Near Campus

Y'all Qaeda won't like this.

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Trump-loving ex-governor says the electoral college is needed to stop ‘the minorities’ from picking presidents

Former Maine Gov. Paul LePage, the Trump-loving Republican who left office last year after serving two terms, has said that he opposes plans to abolish the electoral college on the grounds that doing so would harm white people.

Law and Crime reports that LePage appeared on right-wing talk radio station WVOM this week to denounce a bill currently under consideration in which states would instruct their electors to support the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote, not just the candidate who wins the most votes in their individual state.

LePage started out by arguing that such a move would harm smaller states — but he then quickly pivoted to making an explicitly racist argument.

“What would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do, white people will not have anything to say,” LePage complained. “It’s only going to be the minorities who would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida.”

LePage also said that having awarding the presidency to the winner of the popular vote would amount to setting up a “dictatorship” like “the constitution of Venezuela.”

#Resist

[Athos_131]

Here’s Definitely Not Racist Mark Meadows Being Wildly Racist About Obama

Meadows on 2012 'birther' comments: 'There is not a racial bone in my body'



#Resist

[Athos_131]

What Mark Meadows’s anger at Rashida Tlaib says about our racial politics

In all the drama around Michael Cohen’s testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, you may have missed a truly extraordinary incident, one that reveals a tremendous amount about how we talk about race in politics today, particularly how conservatives think about it.

Let me briefly summarize the series of events, and then we’ll consider what it means. The context is that in his prepared testimony Cohen called President Trump a racist and related a number of private comments Trump had made to support that claim. Republicans felt the need to respond, and here’s what happened:

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), head of the Freedom Caucus and a close ally of the president, brought in Lynne Patton to stand up behind him awkwardly for a few moments, thereby attesting by virtue of her presence that Trump cannot possibly be a racist. Because look, here’s a black person who worked for Trump at his company and was given a high position in the administration.

Multiple Democratic representatives made critical comments about Meadows bringing Patton to the hearing, noting that you can have a black friend or a black employee and still be a racist. That this needs to be said in 2019 is rather remarkable, but in any case, it culminated with Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who called out Meadows this way: "The fact that someone would use a prop, a black woman, in this chamber, in this committee is alone racist in itself."

Meadows then interrupted to ask that Tlaib’s words be “taken down,” a procedure by which a member can be rebuked for a personal insult to another member. “If anyone knows my record as it relates — it should be you, Mr. Chairman,” he said with rising emotion, referring to Rep. Elijah Cummings, who is black.

Tlaib reiterated that as her words had made clear, she was referring not to the contents of Meadows’s heart but to his decision to parade Patton in front of the committee. That’s the most appropriate and persuasive way to deal with something like this, by putting the focus on what he did, not who he is. “I am not calling the gentleman, Mr. Meadows, a racist for doing so,” she said. “I’m saying that in itself it is a racist act.”

With Meadows getting visibly angry and beginning to shout, Cummings asked Tlaib to repeat for a second time that she was not calling Meadows a racist. “You were not intending to call Mr. Meadows a racist, is that right?” he said. She responded, “No, Mr. Chairman, I did not call Mr. Meadows a racist.”

Meadows was not placated. “There’s nothing more personal to me than my relationship — my nieces and nephews are people of color,” he said, his face reddening and his voice rising. “Not many people know that. You know that, Mr. Chairman. And to indicate that I asked someone who is a personal friend of the Trump family, who has worked for him, who knows this particular individual, that she’s coming in to be a prop? It’s racist to suggest that I asked her to come in here for that reason!” He went on: “Mr. Chairman, you and I have a personal relationship that’s not based on color.”

Cummings then felt it necessary to offer his personal testimony attesting to his friendship with Meadows, acknowledge and validate his anger (“I could see and feel your pain”), and give Tlaib the opportunity to repeat for a third time that she had not called Meadows a racist.

Just to be clear, there’s no doubt that Patton was at that hearing to be a prop, no less than the giant poster with a picture of Cohen and the words “Liar liar pants on fire” that Republicans on the committee displayed at one point (yes, that actually happened). Patton wasn’t testifying; she was there to be photographed, her blackness a supposed rebuke to the idea that Trump is a racist.

I suppose we could have different opinions about whether that kind of tokenistic stunt is itself racist, but the mere suggestion sent Meadows into a rage. Despite the fact that he was obviously misinterpreting Tlaib's words, his anger conferred upon Tlaib and Cummings the responsibility to soothe him and assure him that he was a person of good heart and pure intent. It took Tlaib repeating three times that she wasn't calling Meadows a racist before he calmed down and the hearing could proceed.

For many watching, the incident evoked the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, but with both race and gender at play instead of just gender. You’ll recall that when Christine Blasey Ford testified, she was calm, controlled, deferential and polite, because she knew that if she displayed any anger she’d be called a lunatic and her allegations dismissed out of hand. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, was utterly unhinged — crying, shouting, sneering, interrupting senators — and his anger was taken not as evidence that he was unreliable but just the opposite. It was considered proof that he was the true aggrieved party and the victim of a terrible injustice that had to be remedied.

In a similar way, once Meadows got angry, everyone had to swing into action to deal with his emotions, which in the moment were treated as not only legitimate but requiring attention and redress. He could have been told, “You misunderstood. Now pipe down because we’re proceeding.” But that’s not how it worked.

Meadows’s rage at even the suggestion that he was capable of doing something racist happens in a context of a particular narrative about race and politics that has developed on the right in recent years. Conservatives have convinced themselves not only that racism is essentially a thing of the past but that someone being called racist is far worse than actual racism. Stories of white conservatives (whether politicians or ordinary people) being unfairly branded racist are a regular drumbeat on Fox News and in conservative talk radio, to the point where rank-and-file conservatives have become convinced that any argument with a liberal will inevitably end with them being called racist, a charge they will be unable to defend against no matter how many nonwhite nieces and nephews they have.

That’s not to say that there aren’t times when liberals do in fact unfairly brand particular conservatives as racist. It happens. But if the thought is so horrifying to Meadows, maybe he shouldn’t have spent 2012 going around saying that Republicans were going to “send Mr. Obama home to Kenya or wherever it is” (see here and here), spreading the racist smear that the former president was not, in fact, an American.

Oddest of all, this whole thing started over questions about whether Trump is a racist, which is utterly beyond debate at this point. It’s like we’re arguing about whether Harvey Weinstein really abused his power, or whether Kim Kardashian really wants to be famous. What else could Trump possibly do to convince of us of what he really thinks?

And we’re headed into a reelection campaign that will, like Trump’s 2016 campaign and much of his presidency, be built on a foundation of fear and hatred of foreigners and white racial resentment. Even as they cheer that campaign on, conservatives like Meadows will take great umbrage at any suggestion that they’re supporting a racist president fomenting racism for racist ends. This won’t be the last such temper tantrum that we’ll see.

#Resist

[_priapism]

As this country continues to spin more wildly out of control, I predict we will see overt racial appeals to white prejudice being made in 2020.  Not just dog whistles, but overt indisputable appeals to race, religion, and orientation.  “These people are not American.  They don’t deserve a vote.  Round them up and send them home.”  This is part of Cohen’s warning about “no smooth transition” if Trump loses.

[Athos_131]

Enjoy the next wave of Birtherism if Ms. Harris or Mr. Booker defeat the Orange Menace.

#Resist

[psiberzerker]

As this country continues to spin more wildly out of control, I predict we will see overt racial appeals to white prejudice being made in 2020.  Not just dog whistles, but overt indisputable appeals to race, religion, and orientation.  “These people are not American.  They don’t deserve a vote.  Round them up and send them home.”  This is part of Cohen’s warning about “no smooth transition” if Trump loses.

Now you expect to hear that?  As if we haven't been for the past 3-4 years?

[_priapism]

As this country continues to spin more wildly out of control, I predict we will see overt racial appeals to white prejudice being made in 2020.  Not just dog whistles, but overt indisputable appeals to race, religion, and orientation.  “These people are not American.  They don’t deserve a vote.  Round them up and send them home.”  This is part of Cohen’s warning about “no smooth transition” if Trump loses.

Uhm, I noticed you're pretty silent on this big news day for your tangerine in chief.  So, since this it the Trump Supporters thread, care to say something about the documented evidence against him, or just going to ignore it in favor of the oh so predictable appeals to reverse racism?

The only calls to "Round up" white people so far are coming from you.  If this means a free trip to England (Assuming that's still Europe) then sign me up.  It might not riing so hollow coming from the same people who supported rounding up Mexicans because they're not American, and sending them back where they belong.

We just want that to stop.  

Again, you continue to confuse me with someone else.

[psiberzerker]

Again, you continue to confuse me with someone else.

Then what was all that shit about White Prejudice?  I'm sorry, you confused me.  I thought you're making the absurd counter-claim that we'd start rounding up white people.

[_priapism]

Again, you continue to confuse me with someone else.

Then what was all that shit about White Prejudice?  I'm sorry, you confused me.  I thought you're making the absurd counter-claim that we'd start rounding up white people.

No, I’m saying we are hurdling towards our own Kristallnacht moment, when the politicians begin overtly inciting violence against minorities.  I’m worried.

[psiberzerker]

No, I’m saying we are hurdling towards our own Kristallnacht moment, when the politicians begin overtly inciting violence against minorities.

Oh, okay.  Because they've been so subtle about it up until now.  Not like the KKK can march down the street with Nazis.  

Our Kristallnacht happened in 1921.  In fact, they got the idea from US.

You're waiting for things that are already happening.