The MAGA hate and violence thread

[TactiKill J.]

No, we haven't. In fact, the guy in the Phoenix incident Nick Dugas is Hispanic.

His ethnicity doesn't mean anything. Are you implying that only whites can be racist or bigots?

[TactiKill J.]

“No one has a right to destroy property because they don’t agree with someone else,” Dugas said. “Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine being the victim of pure hate because of my belief.”

From your article. The hat was there because he's a Trump supporter.

[TactiKill J.]

Me.

I don't have time to look through your posts and prove you wrong. But I do know that you recently said there's truth to blacks being lazier and less intelligent than whites. So even if you like Muslims, you instead would just fall into the racist category. So there you go, you're disqualified. Next example?

[Salinator]

I don't have time to look through your posts and prove you wrong. But I do know that you recently said there's truth to blacks being lazier and less intelligent than whites. So even if you like Muslims, you instead would just fall into the racist category. So there you go, you're disqualified. Next example?

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ated-with-race

[T. A. Gardner]

“No one has a right to destroy property because they don’t agree with someone else,” Dugas said. “Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine being the victim of pure hate because of my belief.”

From your article. The hat was there because he's a Trump supporter.

So? According to you that makes him a bigot and a racist and action against him for that is justified.

[T. A. Gardner]

I don't have time to look through your posts and prove you wrong. But I do know that you recently said there's truth to blacks being lazier and less intelligent than whites. So even if you like Muslims, you instead would just fall into the racist category. So there you go, you're disqualified. Next example?

[T. A. Gardner]

His ethnicity doesn't mean anything. Are you implying that only whites can be racist or bigots?

I just pointed it out because you have implied that only Whites can be racists or bigots.

[TactiKill J.]

I just pointed it out because you have implied that only Whites can be racists or bigots.

Where? I've always said the exact opposite actually.

[Hida Akechi]

"I don't have time to look through your posts and prove you wrong."

That's one of the most asinine things I can read in a post.

What that poster should have typed is:

"I'm too much of a coward to pursue this, because I know I'm wrong but too stubborn to admit it. So I'll just keep lying about it until you give in or stop bringing it up. I'll consider that a win."

[TactiKill J.]

From the start I've said that Trump supporters are racist OR bigots. Fair enough that I only asked for examples of ones who aren't bigots. Which I'll accept only because I don't feel like proving you wrong. FWIW you only provided one example out of how many Trump supporters here? But my original statement is still correct. Aside from a few anomalies here and there you will find either some form of racism or bigotry in all Trump supporters.

[TactiKill J.]

https://www.economist.com/united-sta...ated-with-race

Can't read the article without paying. But, this further proves my point if you're offering it as some sort of proof towards your belief in racial supremacy.

[TactiKill J.]

So? According to you that makes him a bigot and a racist and action against him for that is justified.

I didn't say it was justified. Let's take the discussion on reparations as an example. You and I both know that if reparations were given out today that harassment and violence towards blacks would increase. Why? Because of how displeased people would be over it. While most would express their displeasure in a more civil manner, there will most certainly be those on the fringe who will not. Does that make their actions justified? No. Would you claim that I'm justifying assault against blacks? You wouldn't.

Acknowledging the reason or motive behind a crime doesn't mean that you're justifying their actions. That much should be obvious.

[T. A. Gardner]

I didn't say it was justified. Let's take the discussion on reparations as an example. You and I both know that if reparations were given out today that harassment and violence towards blacks would increase. Why? Because of how displeased people would be over it. While most would express their displeasure in a more civil manner, there will most certainly be those on the fringe who will not. Does that make their actions justified? No. Would you claim that I'm justifying assault against blacks? You wouldn't.

Acknowledging the reason or motive behind a crime doesn't mean that you're justifying their actions. That much should be obvious.

I know no such thing. I do believe that it would cause widespread protesting against the government for doing it however. That would be because many people, including myself, feel that paying reparations to those who personally were not harmed by past actions by those who didn't cause that past harm is onerous and wrong. It's one thing to pay reparations to say Japanese Americans who were put into internment camps, as they were directly harmed.

[Salinator]

Can't read the article without paying. But, this further proves my point if you're offering it as some sort of proof towards your belief in racial supremacy.

I provided some reading material so that you can see that legitimate research and discussion is not bigotry nor racism. If you would get off your high horse and stop accusing everyone based on nothing but your own pompous. BS.

BTW, weren't you supposed to move away from this terrible horrible country where a gay black man has to hire a couple of Nigerians to stage a false flag attack?

[Mountain Man]

I'm going to get a T-shirt and a hat made up:

HATE ALL HATERS!!