Lurker > Suprak the Stud

Is there any way they could get out of Brexit entirely at this point? I don't quite understand the intricacies of British law.

Like saw they held another snap election, and May's party got thoroughly trounced and the people who won were predominantly from a liberal party. Could they just refuse to enforce Brexit? Or do some lame, completely half-assed measure and say "there that counts"?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Obama the diet saboteur strikes again.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

My memory is terrible anymore on some things. I can't even remember how Scalia died. Wasn't it just old age in his sleep?

One theory is that an overweight, out of shape, 79 year old with many known health conditions died of natural causes in his sleep.

The other is that President Obama sent hit men into his home, unbeknownst to his family, and had him murdered by smothering him with a pillow.

So the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

Corrik posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Scalia died just 23 days into Obamas lame duck year anyway.

Its not like that was ever a legitimate excuse

I agree it was pretty flimsy. That is why I said I go back and forth between it was a genius political move and a travesty.

Theres no reason it cant be both

^^

Something being morally/ethically wrong can still be genius.

Corrik posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

Oh what the hell.

Over the past day this went from fairly chill politics topic to crazy pants on head conspiracy theories and circular, pointless arguments.

Look who emerged and where the topic went. Obvious enough what happened here. = /

Mm. Good point and probably true.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Oh what the hell.

Over the past day this went from fairly chill politics topic to crazy pants on head conspiracy theories and circular, pointless arguments.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Does it still count as casual after someone runs in in their underwear and accuses a former president of having a supreme court justice murdered?
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like I think Bernie is a good person and a good politician. And I think his supporters are good people too so don't take that as a slight.

But I am not going to support a candidate that is anti-fair trade, most other things being equal.

(I mean I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Trump if it comes down to that in 2020).
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

You guys have had a conservative majority on the court since Reagan, at the very least.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

*raises hand, tentatively*

I wasn't a huge fan of either Bernie or Hillary, but Bernie was anti-Nafta and anti-free trade much in the same way Trump was. I think that is going to be disastrous to the American economy in the long run.

I also think Hillary is kind of a liar and would've been "safe" and fairly moderate all things considered. She wouldn't have done anything to rock the boat, and I was perfectly happy with how things were. I'd take almost any democrat over Hillary honestly, but they weren't running, so...
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

And make no mistake, we definitely have nothing like that right now. Kennedy may have sometimes been a swing vote, but he still voted with *googles* Alito 86% of the time, Roberts 88% of the time, and Thomas 84% of the time.

This is the main reason why this isn't as concerning to me as it is to some other people. Kennedy was essentially just Roberts but slightly more pro gay rights and abortion rights. That's it. If Kavanaugh really won't overturn Roe v. Wade (and Roberts won't relitigate gay marriage), not all that much has changed. Look at Kennedy's votes from the past year. He's identical to Roberts in every way.

And @Corrik, you asked me how crazy r/the_donald was and why it was worse than the echo chamber we had here before.

The idea that Scalia was assassinated by Obama in order to take our gun rights away and form a dictatorship is mainstream thought there. This is not an exaggeration, or me being silly. They believe Obama had Scalia assassinated.

So. Yeah. It is worse than what we have here.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

He is not the moderate candidate. Liberals were "hoping" for Hardiman. Do not let people tell you he was the moderate, Corrik, because they are intentionally misleading you. He's likely going to be the right of everyone on the court right now with the exception of Thomas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/07/07/exactly-how-conservative-are-the-judges-on-

(LONG LINK PLEASE COMBINE)

trumps-short-list-for-the-supreme-court-take-a-look-at-this-one-chart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.62082ee505c6

Hardiman wasn't necessarily liberal, but he was "likely" to be more moderate than Kavanaugh. They're all fairly far to the right though, and there was no "olive branch" candidate. I'll get back with a longer post to you tomorrow Corrik since you asked. I was hoping for Hardiman though. The one thing Kavanaugh has going for him is he said he wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade already.

He's also said some weird things about the ability to put Presidents on trial in regards to Clinton (he worked with Starr on that back in the day) that is somewhat concerning considering what Trump is going through.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

There is an important Democratic Perez though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Perez

She's let herself go in recent years though.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

pyresword posted...

For the record I wouldn't say I'm totally on-board with affirmative action myself.

For most of my life I've actually been opposed to it, and have only in the past 2 years or so decided that I think it is actually addressing a problem and is better than doing nothing. It still doesn't totally sit well with me though and it seems like there is likely a better solution out there. What that is I don't know. From a theoretical standpoint it makes sense to basically do affirmative action but explicitly on the basis of socioeconomic background rather than race (so poor white applicants receive the same preferential treatment as poor minority applicants), but there could easily be practical hurdles to actually implementing such an idea.

I definitely agree that socioeconomic background is a crucial factor, and it might be for the best to base at least some aspect of affirmative action on that as well.

But it is also worth remembering there is one group that the government created as an underclass due to unfair lending, borrowing, and monetary based policies. The 1960s were not that long ago. Black people do not have generational wealth like white people do (at least in near the same percentage), and it is purely due to policies put in place by the federal government.

Black people could be owned as slaves in the 1860s. The civil rights movement continued well into the 1960s. How much wealth was lost to the black community because of that? If you tie socioeconomic status as an indicator for future success, and understand the importance of colleges administering people from low income communities due to the harder road they had, I think it also necessarily follows that race based affirmative action is, overall, a societal good.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Also the whole "we need to base this only on merit and merit alone because that's all that matters" in a weird argument for a couple of reasons. First, that is what we are arguing too. Second, it is never the valedictorians making this argument. It is never the best of the best that is coming out strongly against this. Why? Because they get in already. They aren't kicking the top students out. It is the borderline cases, where they are tied or almost indistinguishable from a student with a far worse socioeconomic advantage. So it isn't really a tie.

It is so entitled to be like "but they took my spot!" It wasn't your spot. Stop being a whiny entitled brat. We have no reason to celebrate your mediocrity. Do better so you can't be turned down. They aren't kicking out highly qualified candidates, so you just weren't qualified enough.

(Again, not directed at Corrik, but rather to all those whiny high school students looking for a scapegoat because they weren't good enough to get into their top choice of school)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Corrik posted...

I disagree specifically that it is "racism" when you blindly do not apply to race.

I also think it IS racism to choose a black person of poor financial background over a white person of poor financial background simply because of race.

One is making a decision based on race. One is not.

Jakyl's point is that making a decision based on socioeconomic status is linked to basing a decision on race. That's not malevolent racism, it's statistics.

If you choose to ignore statistics when making such decisions, then you are choosing to ignore that your practices overwhelmingly benefit white people over black.

I think we can all agree in general that things would be better off if we could find better ways to reduce poverty. It would certainly help people of all races.

Like Han says, it is simple statistics that bear this out. I posted some earlier in this topic showing how college completion and socioeconomic status both favors white people.

Just taking college completion by itself, even ignoring socioeconomic factors, black people complete college at significantly lower rates than white people. It isn't close. Now, there are two conclusions you can draw from this. Either black people are dumb or worse than white people in some way when it comes to education, or there is something that we as a society are doing wrong. Some flaw that disadvantages black people as a whole. Possibly not even intentionally, mind you. Not even malicious overt racism where a college administrator somewhere is ripping up applications from black individuals.

There is no reason to believe the former, so it must be the latter.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yeah its doubtful the EPA will make any improvements toward functioning like it was intended. He doesnt have anything interest in the EPA working.

Hes just hopefully less garbage of an individual.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

http://www.ksla.com/story/9479629/update-longview-man-arrested-accused-of-beating-obama-supporter

I tried to find the Fox News link for comparison, but for some reason they didn't cover this when it was happening to Obama voters. I'm sure there's a sensible explanation, however.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

metroid composite posted...

Reg posted...

Leaving abortion to the states = "poor people get fucked"

I mean, that's what happened in the 60s, but I don't believe the price gap will be too extreme in 2018. We have the internet now, people can just order the abortion pills delivered, or look up the chemical composition and do some home chemistry. There's a bunch of Dutch websites providing instructions to Americans on how to do home abortions--can't stop that information from getting in without blocking the internet.

See also: the number of abortions per year in Texas went up after they closed most of their abortion clinics.

(I will agree that it's bad policy, though. Same way prohibition was bad policy. Same way Marijuana regulation now is bad policy. Better to have it legal, regulated, and taxed. Safer, and busts up the smuggling rings).

Yeah, for some reason some people arent happy the alternative solution is find instructions to do your medical procedure yourself with instructions from a Dutch website. Crazy, I know.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

And sort of going off of what xp said, I think Roe would be the decision in significantly more danger for a couple of reasons.

1) Like xp said several states have already made severe limitations and the Supreme Court has done nothing about it. It is essentially like Roe already doesn't exist in those states, for all intents and purposes.
2) Unlike gay marriage, mainstream republicans still campaign on overturning abortion. You don't hear any one going "we need to stop gay people from getting married" much any more, but "we need to put an end to abortion" is a big campaign point. They'd be excited if they did this, and it wouldn't cost them as much political capital with independents (although like Rock pointed out independents are more likely to support Roe than oppose it).
3) The Roe decision was long enough ago that you aren't overturning a recent court decision. The Supreme Court can and does occasionally invalidate the decisions of past courts, but when they do so it is often older law. This prevents the same decisions from being relitigated over and over again as soon as we get new justices (like in the gay marriage decision). I could see Roberts not wanting to overturn that decision because of how recent it was, but being fine overturning or limiting Roe even further because that is a case from over 40 years ago now.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Yep, no worries!

The nuances can be difficult to follow if you aren't familiar with the way the executive/legislative/judicial branches of the US government interact with each other. If you're not from the US you likely don't have a good reason to really know that stuff so it's understandable.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

He literally couldn't. That isn't how the US government works.

The president doesn't make laws, and even if he got Congress to pass a law banning abortions the precedent would be that that law was unconstitutional. The judicial branch is the only one that can overturn Roe.

fair enough.

not sure why LGBT people were so afraid that trump would ban gay marriage if that's literally impossible, though...!

Sky is falling hyperbole. Happens nonstop. Get used to trumped up claims for why you must ACT NOW!

The fear is this:

Trump becomes president.
Vacancies occur on the Supreme Court.
Trump has power to fill these vacancies.
Trump nominates a Supreme Court justice who wants to overturn previous decision on gay marriage.
New case is brought before the Supreme Court and they reverse their decision.

So yes, Trump can't ban gay marriage, but people were afraid he would have vacancies to fill (he does) and will nominate a conservative justice (he will) and that justice will vote with the other four who are still on the court that voted against the gay marriage decision just a couple of years ago and overturn that decision (I think this is doubtful, but I could be wrong).

So it is a very real fear, particularly because Roberts (who is now the swing vote on the court) already voted against the decision that ultimately allowed it. The question is whether or not they'd want to bring this back up already. It seems unlikely, not just because it would set a horrible precent (liberals get control of the court and then just literally change all of the decisions his court made regardless of how recently it occurred), but because it is terrible policy for the Republicans. Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage, so if they reverse the decision that would absolutely be something Democrats would campaign on and do very well with.

And I think it is very clear Lasa is not American if he doesn't understand this already >_>
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/justice-kennedy-wasnt-a-moderate/

More data showing the hero Kennedy was essentially almost identical to Roberts based on his actual voting record.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I'd be all for something that helps low income people over just a racial one to be honest, seeing those charts.

Then again I didn't go to college so maybe I am not the best person to be arguing this!

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/race-gap-narrows-in-college-enrollment-but-not-in-graduation/

538 does actually support your argument that income gap is much larger than the racial gap in the US!

But honestly I'm just happy they're doing anything to help at this point >_>
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

And just for comparison, here is the percentage of people completing college broken down by race. Again, 2016 data.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/04/26/college-completion-rates-vary-race-and-ethnicity-report-finds
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=

(Hey this is a long link)

0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Slightly older data, but still showing the same thing:
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

It isn't strong candidates that aren't getting positions in college. It is borderline ones. Like, they're taking all the best candidates. If there is a tie between two individuals though, and one person is black and the other is white, I'm perfectly fine the tie breaker going to the black person. If I don't get it because I got the same test score and the same grades as someone who is from a poorer environment, then that's my fault. I should've done more to distinguish myself.

I realize I'm making a socioeconomic argument here and not a race one, but race is inherently tied to socioeconomic status in this country. So perhaps wealthier black individuals are benefiting more than poorer ones (I haven't looked into the statistics about admissions like this so I don't even know if that's true) but overall I am perfectly fine with affirmative action as a way to help combat some inequality in this country. I'm white and I've gotten into every school, every graduate program, every postdoctoral position I ever applied for.

Don't be satisfied with a tie against someone who hasn't had the same advantages as you. Work harder. Be better. Make it so they can't turn you down. This "I didn't get the position because I'm white and that unqualified minority over there got it only because of the color of their skin :(" is the clarion call of the mediocre white male looking to excuse their own mediocrity. Sorry one non-white person took your spot, but hey, thousands of other white people got in over you too. The issue isn't with who they're letting in. The issue is with you.

(Not you as in "Sir Chris" but you as in "whiny white teenagers confused as to why they didn't get into the school they wanted with their B- average").
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

There is definitely a large chunk of Ron Paul supporters on the_donald. They talk about it all the time. They still use unfunny Ron Paul memes from time to time.

Well, I guess I should clarify: a large and vocal contingent of Trump's rabid online followers cites Ron Paul as their impetus for joining the "conservative" movement. Trump is pretty far away from Paul in actual policy mind you, so it is unclear how well these people are actually telling the truth. But I see it all the time, to the point where it seems reasonable to believe that it is at least partially true. Obviously not all Paul supporters became Trump supporters, or even a majority of them. But he was sort of the hot online Republican candidate before Trump, and a lot of his more fervent online supporters eventually made their way over to Trump bastions. It isn't so much that "all Trump supporters are former Ron Paul supporters" but rather the online presence that grew around him eventually morphed into what became the_donald and /pol/.

And the tea party supporters that came from him weren't the "SHOW US YOUR BIRTH CERTIFICATE" group, but rather the "government needs to be so small it can't effectively do anything" group. There were some people that joined the tea party for the casual racism, sure, but there were also those that were from the Ron Paul school of politics and just wanted little to no government, at all.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Fair enough.

Ron Pauls online following did feed into this movement though, and a lot of them eventually made their way over to the_donald.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Just in case it wasn't clear in my original post, the "guy who got the ball rolling on the tea party/Donald Trump" was supposed to be Ron Paul, not Ben Garrison. I didn't even realize that someone put his name on the cartoon, and he isn't influential in the slightest to people who aren't already 100% on board with that ideology anyway.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Like Jakyl said it is unlikely that was Ron Paul himself because I don't think he runs any of his own social media stuff, but there is at least one person on his crew that somehow didn't see anything wrong with that image and just ran with it.

(And you can tell it isn't Ben Garrison because every single thing isn't labeled)
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/395176-ron-paul-tweets-racist-cartoon-faces-backlash

Fun cartoon from the guy who essentially got the ball rolling for the Tea Party and eventually Donald Trump.

Also does a great job illustrating exactly what they're talking about when using codewords like "cultural marxism".
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

blue colored America

This is a great typo

There is the one episode of the old Super Mario cartoon where Bowser paints half the toads red and half of the blue and tries to start a race war.

CLEARLY this is what I was referencing, duh guys.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Xeybozn posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

My problem with the right's portrayal of the "regressive left" or "alt left" or "PEOPLE THAT AREN'T LIKE YOU OoOoOoOoOo SPOOKY" is that they paint them as, at the same time:

1) Effete, weak, pansy little soy boys that can do nothing but REEEEEEE and cry into their gluten-free free-rang non-GMO kale salads while bemoaning the fact that we still have free speech and legal penises

and

2) Violent, destructive, Herculean anarchists that have taken over most of our major cities and are roaming the streets with bike locks, swat gear, and spiked bats in order to kill you, blue colored America, and anyone that has ever heard a country song.

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.

First group is white, second group is black/brown, and they only work towards similar goals because they've been brainwashed by the mainstream media and their globalist masters (unlike REAL Americans). Obviously it's a crazy worldview (and wrong), but it's not completely nonsensical.

They aren't though! Both of those groups are white people they don't like, by and large.

They have their own coded language for non-white people, don't get me wrong, but the two I described up there are largely young, college aged white kids. You see both of those ideas get posted all the time on places like r/the_donald, and it is largely the same group they are describing.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

My problem with the right's portrayal of the "regressive left" or "alt left" or "PEOPLE THAT AREN'T LIKE YOU OoOoOoOoOo SPOOKY" is that they paint them as, at the same time:

1) Effete, weak, pansy little soy boys that can do nothing but REEEEEEE and cry into their gluten-free free-rang non-GMO kale salads while bemoaning the fact that we still have free speech and legal penises

and

2) Violent, destructive, Herculean anarchists that have taken over most of our major cities and are roaming the streets with bike locks, swat gear, and spiked bats in order to kill you, blue colored America, and anyone that has ever heard a country song.

They simultaneously portray the left as comically weak and terrifyingly strong, pulling out some random out of context articles of one or two insignificant morons so they can both laugh at us and attempt to scare anyone right of center.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

For anyone with those post SGDQ blues, ESA runs their own marathon in less than a month:

https://esamarathon.com/schedule

Last years wasn't as good as SGDQ, but it was a lot of fun still. They had an insane 120 star relay race with 120 people for SM64 that was incredible. I don't see anything that fun this year, but it should at least hopefully hold people over until AGDQ 2019 for a little while!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

He also forgot to set his equipment for a fight because of all the chaos and they ended up game overing right when they hit 2 million.

Glitchless 99% lets go.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

WOOO

I like how the room was so hyped that the runner forgot to like do two different things.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Paratroopa1 posted...

I guess he's doing a solo run to just... have time to explain it? this really should have been a race, but gdq is really slow to try new ideas for some reason, cough

The weird thing is they had a race of this exact same thing as part of the HYPE week leading up.

And it was much better because duh these are supposed to be races.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Oh gotcha.

Sorry for being curt, I thought you might be intentionally misrepresenting my point.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

There is a difference between what were saying there, and I hope youre smart enough to realize it.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Did he not finish yellow or blue?

I actually sort of enjoyed what I saw even though he was struggling pretty bad. It was an interesting concept, at the very least.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

LinkMarioSamus posted...

My mom brought up how America is taking away rights when other countries are progressing with them.

Then again it seems like Americans are increasingly mocking other countries for being too liberal or something?

Not Americans. Republicans and the Alt Right/Alt Right adjacent in particular. They just happen to be really loud about it >_>
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

StealThisSheen posted...

TAS block is the worst

^

I never understood the hype. I get that a lot of work went into it, but like its been said, you're basically just watching a video of something and, like, I can't tell the difference between this and someone doing silly things on Photoshop.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

The absolute worst thing about r/the_donald is they think they're funny.

TRiggered cuck? Kek, MAGA

Am I doing it right?

Needs more Pepe memes and references to tendies, but you're almost there!
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Jakyl25 posted...

Suprak the Stud posted...

The absolute worst thing about r/the_donald is they arent banned from Reddit.

I honestly have no idea how they aren't. They don't police the worst people there and some of the stuff they post is horrific.

Still not as bad as how "hilarious" they think they are though.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

The absolute worst thing about r/the_donald is they think they're funny.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

There is a significant difference between BLM and Nazis though. BLM doesn't advocate the killing of cops, that guy was out of line with their ideology. Nazis very much advocate bad things happening to immigrants, jewish people, black people, etc. Killing in their name is in line with their ideology, not a perversion of it.

That is the difference.

Saying "the guy who killed those cops in Dallas is no better than the guy who ran over the girl in Charlottesville" is fine.

Saying "BLM is no better than Nazis" is not.

You guys seem to debating two different things though.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Eddv posted...

If the Democrats cant beat Mike Pence they deserve to be out of power.

*looks at Donald Trump*

...uh.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."

Corrik posted...

Yeah and none of them are in the government, so what exactly is the point here?

Steve King, I would argue, is absolutely a white supremacist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King#Comments_about_superiority_of_"Western_civilization"

A panelist from Esquire magazine suggested that the 2016 convention could be the last in which "old white people would command the Republican Party's attention," to which King responded, "This whole 'old white people' business does get a little tired, Charlie. I'd ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?"

On December 8, 2017, King tweeted a link to an article that quoted Viktor Orbn, the Prime Minister of Hungary, as saying, "Mixing cultures will not lead to a higher quality of life but a lower one." King wrote, "Diversity is not our strength" and repeated the quote.

On March 12, 2017, King expressed his support for Geert Wilders, a far-right Dutch politician known for his anti-Islam views, leading up to the election in the Netherlands, stating, "Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny" and "We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies," referring to his views on ending birthright citizenship and promoting "an America that's just so homogenous that we look a lot [sic] the same."

These are just three of the grosser of his quotes. He has a lot more.
---

Moops?
"I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."