|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States24780 Posts
On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Or anywhere else I suppose. But any examples you give of the situation in Germany are not necessary what the situation is in the USA (what the thread is about) or anywhere else. I sympathize with the problem you have described in Germany (isn't there a headline right now that some American tourist did a Nazi salute and then got beat up by some random German person?)
Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" Where did I say this? Can you point to it?
and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. Obviously if the right wing extremists and the left wing extremists are equally bad (in Germany), then it's incorrect and potentially damaging to say the left wing extremists are not as bad as the right wing extremists. If the right wing extremists are worse than the left wing extremists, then it's correct to say the right wing extremists are worse than the left wing extremists. Using the fact that right wing extremists are worse than left wing extremists to try to justify a position that the left wing extremists aren't a problem is certainly a poor way to go about this discussion, but arguing that people shouldn't say the right wing extremists (in a given country) are worse even when they are is a bit unreasonable.
It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Perhaps it could evolve. But potentially banning people from discussing facts will tend to make things worse... not better. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. Even if there is only one extremist in the whole country? Speaking in absolutes about groups of people tends to make you wrong.
|
On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong.
If everyone on this forum would call you names no matter what you post, every time. How would that make you feel?
|
On August 14 2017 06:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 05:55 TheNewEra wrote:On August 14 2017 05:28 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:25 Falling wrote:On August 14 2017 05:07 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country. Well, Rigaer Strasse springs to mind immediately. And no, they're not entirely like "sovereign citizens" (we got those retards too btw, called "Reichsbürger", reich citizens), they're autonomous groups like antifa and similar. The word "squat" falls often, not entirely sure what that means (never heard of it). Rigaer Strasse is in an old part of town, and many buildings are "squatted"? Occupied by squatters? Police rarely goes there because the times they do go there, partially they get ambushed, or just flat out attacked by stones, slingshots and similar. edit: oh, and in general, if you're interested, try googling "Berlin erster Mai", set it to images and look what's happening every single year here. + Show Spoiler +Totally fine. It's just policemen, right? edit: as a disclaimer, in no way am i condoning racist behaviour, i am just condemning left wing extremists as much. Funny enough, that seems to be debatable for some. Yeah, I'm of this view as well. Extremism is bad and will likely get worse, particularly if there are more and more apologists to cover for their actions. There's no need to get idealogical and say our extremists are better than yours because it comes from better motivation. You set police on fire or you run over protestors in car, I oppose you regardless of your motivation. Yeah, that's kinda what i'm trying to say, i just like to type more words. edit: underscored happened in germany for way too long. It's going so far now that after G20, politicians went full apologist on what happened, trying to blame the Police for "escalating the situation". What? That's exactly the opposite of what's happening... everyone is condemning the Black Block (as they should obviously) but no one at all is questioning some of the stuff the police did at G20. If they are going full apologist it's in favor of the police Another one who must've missed most statements of die Linke, Gruene etc? Wanna see what "questionable things" the police did? Show nested quote +Für van Aken sind die Polizeibeamten selbst an der Gewalt schuld. “Die Eskalation vom Donnerstagabend ging von der Polizei aus”, sagt er im Gespräch im ZDF. Die Polizei habe den Protestzug angehalten und die Personen im Schwarzen Block aufgefordert, ihre Vermummung abzunehmen.
Die meisten Vermummten seien dieser Anweisung gefolgt. “Ich stand direkt daneben, ich hab das durchgezählt”, sagt van Aken. Nur noch zehn Prozent hätten ihre Vermummung getragen.
Trotzdem habe die Polizei weiter versucht, den Schwarzen Block von den anderen Teilnehmern der Demonstration zu trennen. Für van Aken völlig unnötig - und ein Auslöser der Eskalation. “Warum wollen sie den Schwarzen Block von restlichen Demonstranten trennen, wenn die sich genauso an die Regeln halten, die die Vermummung ablegen?”, fragt er. For others: basically german police saw parts of the radical "black block" in groups of protesters and asked them to take off their masks. Roughly 10% didn't, but the police tried to separate the black block from normal protesters anyway. He's arguing that police escalated the situation to violence because of that, because once they took of the masks, they were "normal protesters". I mean.. Really? Show nested quote +Incidents related to left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were comparatively rare, with 19 incidents causing seven fatalities – making the shooting attack on Republican members of Congress earlier this month somewhat of an anomaly.
Thank god that those seven people weren't killed by racists. I mean, that would make it so much worse. I guess. The only thing this shows to me is that you have more right wing extremists than left wing extremists (pretty sure that's accurate). They're in no way less violent.
Using "Die Linke" feels like cheating, but fair enough, there are some idiotic german politicians.
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/g-gipfel-drei-bengalos-reichten-fuer-die-polizei-attacke-1.3616947
Sorry for german, but how can you not call it at least questionable what the police did.
Plus, there is of course the whole individual fault of some police men.
http://www.taz.de/Nachbereitung-der-Polizeiarbeit-bei-G20/!5437398/
TLDR about police in the article:
From the G20, there are 49 internal investigation versus police officers, of which 41 are assault / bodily harm.
Then you have politicians like Olaf Schulz who say there was no misconduct from the police at all. While I don't agree which statements like the one from van Aken that says the police was the main aggressor / solely at fault, it is still reasonable to question the police actions.
That's my last post to this topic tho as I am not sure how it fits into US politics.
|
On August 14 2017 06:38 Artisreal wrote:
If everyone on this forum would call you names no matter what you post, every time. How would that make you feel?
Honestly, I wouldn't care. My response to another person's opinion is my sole responsibility, I'm a grown ass man.
In the particular case you described, I'd just leave the forum.
Let me counter with this question: would you rather
- spend 100 days in a room, being yelled at and verbally abused by 100 people
- spend 10 minutes in a room with a sociopath raping and beating you up
that's the neon line right there
|
On August 14 2017 06:38 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong. If everyone on this forum would call you names no matter what you post, every time. How would that make you feel?
This idea that words don't have any effect is really curious. I wonder why Mercer and Murdoch put so much money into newspapers and why so many governments, businesses and institutions are so keen on controlling the flow of information. Silly people
|
On August 14 2017 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:38 Artisreal wrote:On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong. If everyone on this forum would call you names no matter what you post, every time. How would that make you feel? This idea that words don't have any effect is really curious. I wonder why Mercer and Murdoch put so much money into newspapers and why so many governments are so keen on controlling the flow of information. Silly people
No-one said that words don't have an effect.
Words are not violence.
We don't get to go redefining them like that either. Violence has a specific definition, and co-opting that to cry about someone saying something mean is deliberately dishonest.
|
On August 14 2017 06:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:On August 14 2017 06:38 Artisreal wrote:On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong. If everyone on this forum would call you names no matter what you post, every time. How would that make you feel? This idea that words don't have any effect is really curious. I wonder why Mercer and Murdoch put so much money into newspapers and why so many governments are so keen on controlling the flow of information. Silly people No-one said that words don't have an effect. Words are not violence. We don't get to go redefining them like that either. Violence has a specific definition, and co-opting that to cry about someone saying something mean is deliberately dishonest.
Of course words can be violent. Physical violence is just one dimension on which violence can be exercised. We're not talking about "something mean" we are talking about assertions that intend to rile up the masses and precipitate physical violence.
|
The definition of violence from Google:
behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
How does this apply to words? As I said earlier, if you give an order to someone in your chain of command then you are specifically involved in violence, saying things that rile people up is not violent.
I don't understand why we have to keep constantly changing the definitions of words to make our arguments seem more effective.
The speech of these Nazis is abhorrent. Is that not a bad enough way to describe it? Does it need to be wrongly defined as violent too just to get the point across, or is there some other agenda here that allows people to more easily censor speech?
|
I fully get it that some ideas - like Nazism and, incidentally, Communism - are intrinsically genocidal and dangerous.
I just don't believe one fights those ideas with violence. I think it's very easy to reasonably and logically make the case that that's just extremely stupid and wrong. Violence leads exclusively and only to an escalation of conflict. You cannot posibly change a person's mind by punching them, in fact, what you do is exactly the opposite. So then, I guess, what you have to do is kill them.
And so, down the line, it simply creates conditions where the power structure-that-be is able to willfully specify who is an "enemy of the people" and should get purged, which is a precursor to fascism and leads to nothing but dread.
It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in Stalin's Russia, it happened in Mao's China and it's happening all over the middle east, and the mechanisms are always the same. Dogma and the justification of violence for political purposes.
|
On August 14 2017 06:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:43 Nyxisto wrote:On August 14 2017 06:38 Artisreal wrote:On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong. If everyone on this forum would call you names no matter what you post, every time. How would that make you feel? This idea that words don't have any effect is really curious. I wonder why Mercer and Murdoch put so much money into newspapers and why so many governments are so keen on controlling the flow of information. Silly people No-one said that words don't have an effect. Words are not violence. We don't get to go redefining them like that either. Violence has a specific definition, and co-opting that to cry about someone saying something mean is deliberately dishonest.
Words can lead to violence. We know this because words convinced a group of colonists to violently rebel against their govermetn and king. The constant effort to divide words from their impact is a constant refrain on the internet, but always rings hollow. If words couldn't drive people to action, the founders never would not have protected speech. So Kickboxer is correct, words are not violence. They are the thing that happens before violence and often causes it.
|
On August 14 2017 06:53 Jockmcplop wrote:The definition of violence from Google: Show nested quote +behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How does this apply to words? As I said earlier, if you give an order to someone in your chain of command then you are specifically involved in violence, saying things that rile people up is not violent. I don't understand why we have to keep constantly changing the definitions of words to make our arguments seem more effective. The speech of these Nazis is abhorrent. Is that not a bad enough way to describe it? Does it need to be wrongly defined as violent too just to get the point across, or is there some other agenda here that allows people to more easily censor speech?
It's an insufficient way to describe it because speech has very real, direct effects. There is no magical barrier between speech and physical violence, as if the two are unrelated or only distantly hang together. Speech is at the heart of what empowers these movements, especially in our social media day and age, the dichotomy makes no sense, just like "guns don't kill people" has never made sense.
It's a completely arbitrary distinction to turn speech into some kind of lawless thing that everybody can exercise everywhere, for no apparent reason.
|
So no, don't talk to me about "justified" violence. If you believe in justified violence - outside of self-defense, the defense of your family and property, or outright war - I consider you a major part of the problem. Every side uses the same reasoning to justify their violence, namely "we are doing what's right".
|
On August 14 2017 06:57 Nyxisto wrote:
It's a completely arbitrary distinction to turn speech into some kind of lawless thing that everybody can exercise everywhere, for no apparent reason.
Not only is it not arbitrary at all, it's absolutely mandatory. There should be absolutely minimal restriction on the expression of whatever you believe to be true. Somebody has to prove you wrong, or they need to erase you.
You can either negotiate with people who hold different opinions, or you can go to war with them. Those are the only two options.
|
On August 14 2017 06:57 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 06:53 Jockmcplop wrote:The definition of violence from Google: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. How does this apply to words? As I said earlier, if you give an order to someone in your chain of command then you are specifically involved in violence, saying things that rile people up is not violent. I don't understand why we have to keep constantly changing the definitions of words to make our arguments seem more effective. The speech of these Nazis is abhorrent. Is that not a bad enough way to describe it? Does it need to be wrongly defined as violent too just to get the point across, or is there some other agenda here that allows people to more easily censor speech? It's an insufficient way to describe it because speech has very real, direct effects. There is no magical barrier between speech and physical violence, as if the two are unrelated or only distantly hang together. Speech is at the heart of what empowers these movements, especially in our social media day and age, the dichotomy makes no sense, just like "guns don't kill people" has never made sense. It's a completely arbitrary distinction to turn speech into some kind of lawless thing that everybody can exercise everywhere, for no apparent reason.
I never said they are unrelated or tried to separate them though, I'm only trying to assert that having a discussion is impossible when the definitions of words keep changing. Sure, speech can be related to violence, and is the thing, more than anything else, that causes violence. Absolutely.
Words themselves are not violent.
There's a distinction there that shouldn't be ignored.
I wouldn't say that "This heat is sweating."
|
On August 14 2017 06:55 Kickboxer wrote:
I fully get it that some ideas - like Nazism and, incidentally, Communism - are intrinsically genocidal and dangerous.
I just don't believe one fights those ideas with violence. I think it's very easy to reasonably and logically make the case that that's just extremely stupid and wrong. Violence leads exclusively and only to an escalation of conflict. You cannot posibly change a person's mind by punching them, in fact, what you do is exactly the opposite. So then, I guess, what you have to do is kill them.
And so, down the line, it simply creates conditions where the power structure-that-be is able to willfully specify who is an "enemy of the people" and should get purged, which is a precursor to fascism and leads to nothing but dread.
It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in Stalin's Russia, it happened in Mao's China and it's happening all over the middle east, and the mechanisms are always the same. Dogma and the justification of violence for political purposes.
The Nazis count on people like yourself, who are uncomfortable with violent opposition, to temper resistance. They subvert the enlighten liberal ideas of free debate, speech and non-violent opposition to spread their message and gain a following. They do not value debate, logic, reason or the system that elects leaders, but claim they do. Because the act of claiming they want to have a good faith debate is enough for a lot of people. People want to have faith in the system and its checks to prevent the rise of violent people that will abuse the states power. And Nazism exploited that to its fullest to gain power.
This does not mean we need to get into a fist fight at every Nazi rally. Far from it. But right now they checking to see if we will. And when those conflicts happen, they will do their best to be seen as the victims.
On August 14 2017 06:58 Kickboxer wrote:
So no, don't talk to me about "justified" violence. If you believe in justified violence - outside of self-defense, the defense of your family and property, or outright war - I consider you a major part of the problem. Every side uses the same reasoning to justify their violence, namely "we are doing what's right".
Many of the resistance in Italy and German after world war 2 said the same thing: We should have fought back earlier.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement/
I've been hearing these warnings for the majority of my political life and nothing seems to happen. That investigation was just shut down by the white house. Same with tracking white supremacists movements. Some people who have supported white supremacists in the past work at the White House. At what point would you like people to start getting freaked out?
|
On August 14 2017 05:00 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 04:52 m4ini wrote:On August 14 2017 04:46 micronesia wrote:
I think DPB is talking about extremists in the USA, and in general it's not unreasonable to think that the left-wing extremists by some measures are less dangerous or violent than the right-wing extremists. What it comes down to is what exactly you are referring to. I'm sure the worst left-wing extremists can give the worst right-wing extremist a run for his/her money, but if you back it up to the 1% of the population in each direction, you will see statistically significant differences in displayed behaviors. I haven't researched this but it wouldn't surprise me if each group acted out in different ways (although both groups do some pretty bad things lets be honest). While possibly to some extend true, that's no different to the situation in germany. Left wing extremists took over houses and turned certain parts of cities basically into "law free zones". Not entirely, but close enough. That wasn't seen as a problem, with exactly the justification you just brought up. "They don't do harm, they don't bother anyone really" and most importantly the all time favourite "they're not as bad as right wing extremists" - and keep in mind, we have a considerably lower bar for what counts as right wing extremism based on our past. That changed though. Left wing extremists turned out to be decently armed, and also formed "militias" (Black Block). It's possible that the german/european ANTIFA is further "evolved" than the american one, but that doesn't stop them evolving. Extremism is extremism. There's no justification or "well they're not bad". Left, right, religious: it all ends up being the same, just with different reasoning. I haven't heard anything about those "law free zones", but it sounds comparable to the right wing "sovereign citizens" in the US who were identified by the FBI and Department of Homeland Security as the greatest terror threat facing the country.
It's not like sovereign citizens, actually. The podcast "99% Invisible" did an episode about this recently, but I'll summarize as best I can.
Squatters typically move into city buildings that are dilapidated and/or have been given up by their owners. In the case of NYC squatters on the lower east side, there were a lot of areas that just got abandoned in the 60's and 70's – the government closed down infrastructure to the area, landlords forfeited the property to the government rather than keep paying property taxes. So squatters moved in and just started fixing the places up themselves – which didn't bother the city at first, but then later the land started to become valuable again in the 80's and the city wanted to retake it.
So the city starts trying to crack down on squatting and homeless encampments, and kick people out of places they've lived for years. Protests and riots ensue. The squatters build a legal case for being rightful owners of the land and a judge gives them an injunction against being evicted until the case is settled, but the city ignores the injunction and starts evicting people anyway, so people take to barricading doors and windows when police come by. They have "Eviction watch lists" where if police come to evict you, you block them out and call people on the list, and they'll come to help stop the police from evicting you. As the police militarize their response to the squatters, the squatters' tactics become more violent as well – pouring tar on the street that officers would have to walk through, dumping garbage and buckets of urine out windows onto police coming to evict them.
My point in summarizing all this is that I don't see how you can look at something like squatters fighting with the police, juxtapose that with Nazis killing counter-protesters, and think there's any kind of equivalence there. I think squatters' rights are a difficult issue, and I don't really know if they're 100% justified in fighting with the police the way they do, but there's at least an argument for it. Neo-Nazis are just obviously the worst.
|
Funny thing is, while the US president was black, and even before when the pres was a warmongering de-facto idiot big oil right winger, there was minimal problems with KKK and the "nazis" (no, even these idiots are still not Nazis. Those lived in Germany in the 1930s and 40s. These are american rednecks who culturally approriated the nazi ideology and iconography, which, come to think of it, is really funny)
Now, on the other hand, that you've elected an utter fart, because your other option was too busy promoting PR drivel like gender relativity and "diversity" and sucking the corporate cock for moneys while thinking having a vagina is actual political capital, instead of focusing on sane policy, there's "nazis" all over the streets.
|
That 99% Invisible episode is pretty great. I worked on a bunch of similar cases for banks after the 2008 crash. The squatters always win because they are way more invested. And they were never violent or even threatened violence.
|
On August 14 2017 06:30 Kickboxer wrote:
Words cannot be violent. It's an idiocy concocted by the postmodernists or whomever. Words are words, and should go unmitigated so we can exchange ideas, especially when they are hurtful or wrong, because we can either negotiate with each other in search of common ground, or go to war. There is literally no other alternative
On the other hand, actual violence, you know, the type that gets people dead or in hospital with 3rd degree burns, is actual violence. The line is very thick and painted in neon, and if you disagree, you're simply wrong.
Why do you think yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal?
|
On August 14 2017 07:15 Kickboxer wrote:
Funny thing is, while the US president was black, and even before when the pres was a warmongering de-facto idiot big oil right winger, there was minimal problems with KKK and the "nazis"
I am going to tell you, the KKK and Nazi's were not problems before then either. It as only after we had a black president that they made a comeback in a big way. Maybe one party being desperate to defeat the black president might have lead to them courting a lot of voters that might be super racist. And then those voters became the base for the dude that claimed the black president was born in Kenya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-1136145-860_poster_16x9-hmpt-1136145.jpg)
