Suspect arrested for allegedly stealing MAGA hat from teen.

[Kayze]

I hear this a lot and yet no one has shown concrete evidence of this support of white supremacy that it supposedly stands for. It all reeks of BS from people who hate Trump just because he is an asshole. You would have a point if it -WAS- a Klan Hood or a Swastika, but it's just a Maga hat. The only bad thing from it is what people try and attach, it symbolizes the midwest far more than the klan. I am honestly more surprised at the constant need to scream that Trump is an asshole, is this like something we were not supposed to have known in the oh 50ish years he has been a public figure? Point being putting a label on this hat is nothing but political bitching, a full on grow up moment.

You probably should check Bannon's supporters and Trumps "both sides" statement. I guess it's easier to blame Democrats at a moment's notice but take days to maybe disavow white supremacists... Sorta. You know, saying you don't like white supremacists but then defending them with the "both sides" crap. Guess he should say the same with the war against ISIS.

[Seylene]

You probably should check Bannon's supporters and Trumps "both sides" statement. I guess it's easier to blame Democrats at a moment's notice but take days to maybe disavow white supremacists... Sorta. You know, saying you don't like white supremacists but then defending them with the "both sides" crap. Guess he should say the same with the war against ISIS.

Blame democrats? O.o odd jumping point seeing as I have no issue with them. And yes I remember the idiots right after the election same as the black bloc twits. But those two faded away fast and as stated the Maga hat has more in common with middle america than it does with white supremacy. I am sorry I don't follow Bannon so dont know the stuff he said and I do remember Trumps both sides comment, but to put that all on a hat symbol instead of a feigned attempt at an idiot trying to be "Presidential" seems a reach. I honestly do not get this vitriol over a hat. I see this hat more in the labor sector and ironically among the Latino grouping here in Arizona. So I just can't grasp it being seen as a tool of white power it just seems a reach that leads to idiots like this in the video. If I am missing something over it being a rallying point for people please let me know.

[Ragedaug]

No, they are referring to the same time period white supremacists said when they marched in the streets with the same slogan. A time when minorities and immigrants weren't privy to SS, medicare, federal housing. A time when lynchings would go unreported, a time when generations of immigrants and AA's were confined and isolated into ghettos. That's the time they want.

When did he say it?

No, you are referring to that. The Republicans are not. No Republican is referring to making slavery legal again. Not a single one. Only you and the Democrats think about slavery and segregation when someone says "make America great again", so I think it says more about you.

Clinton said it all the time, in most of his campaign speeches. It just wasn't his slogan. But he said it a lot when he ran for president. Same as Reagan, but I would guess you call Reagan a racist too.

- - - Updated - - -

I was referring to its current iteration....but I'm sure you knew that.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's just say pre 2008 shall we?

OK, so when your tribe says it they only say it with good intentions, but when the other tribe says the exact same thing, they only have evil motivations?

Did I get that about right?


And for the record, I did know you were only talking about the current iteration. That's the hypocrisy I've been talking about. Not a single Democrat or minority was offended by "make America great again" when Clinton said it, but so many are when Trump says the same thing.

[Ragedaug]

For all those who haven't figured it out, what "make America great again" means is "If you vote for me, America will be 'great' again like it was the last time someone from our tribe was in office".

Reagan would have been referring to pre-Carter
Clinton would probably have to go back to pre-Nixon (I'm guessing even Clinton skips the Carter years)
Trump is likely referring to Reagan, as Trump kinda hated Bush, though I would suspect most Republicans are referring to pre-Obama when they say it.

It's a political phrase that both sides use, that it basically meaningless in the grand scope, but fires up your tribe to put on the rose colored glasses to pretend everything was super rosy the last time your tribe had control of the White House. If you say it means anything more than that, it just shows you are a partisan hack and your opinions can be dismissed.

[Vyxn]

Yes I can, as a matter of fact that was the entire point of my response to you but I guess you missed it.

I will spell it out for you. Most of the deaths due to commie rule were not intentional. There, hopefully you got it this tome around.

that's were you are wrong

Rudolph Rummel

Rudolph Joseph Rummel (October 21, 1932 – March 2, 2014[1]) was professor of political science who taught at the Indiana University, Yale University, and University of Hawaii. He spent his career studying data on collective violence and war with a view toward helping their resolution or elimination. Rummel coined the term democide for murder by government (compare genocide), such as the Stalinist purges and Mao's Cultural Revolution.
Rummel estimated the total number of people killed by all governments during the 20th century at 212 million, and he estimated that 148 million were killed by communist regimes from 1917 to 1987.[2][3] To give some perspective on these numbers, Rummel pointed out that all domestic and foreign wars during the twentieth century killed in combat around 41 million. His figures for Communist regimes are higher than those given by most other scholars, which range from 60 to 100 million.[4] In his last book, Rummel increased his estimate to over 272 million innocent, non-combatant civilians who were murdered by their own governments during the 20th century.[5] He concluded that democracy is the form of government least likely to kill its citizens and that democracies do not wage war against each other.[6] This is known as the democratic peace theory.
Rummel was the author of twenty-four scholarly books, and published his major results in Understanding Conflict and War (1975–81). He spent the next fifteen years refining the underlying theory and testing it empirically on new data, against the empirical results of others, and on case studies. He summed up his research in Power Kills (1997). Other works include Lethal Politics: Soviet Genocides and Mass Murders 1917–1987[7] (1990); China's Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900[8] (1991); Democide: Nazi Genocide and Mass Murder[9] (1992); Death by Government[10] (1994); and Statistics of Democide[11] (1997). Extracts, figures, and tables from the books, including his sources and details regarding the calculations, are available online on his website. Rummel also authored Factor Analysis[12] Understanding (1970) and Understanding Correlation[13] (1976).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel

and no Rummel isn't some fringe crackpot he knows what the hell he is talking about

Awards and nominations
In 1999, Rummel was awarded the Susan Strange Award of the International Studies Association.[43] This award recognizes a person "whose singular intellect, assertiveness, and insight most challenge conventional wisdom and intellectual and organizational complacency in the international studies community."[44]
In 2003, Rummel was given The Lifetime Achievement Award from the Conflict Processes Organized Section of the American Political Science Association for "scholarly contributions that have fundamentally improved the study of conflict processes."[45]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolph_Rummel

[Theodarzna]

Hello woke independent

Is that the forums new favorite phrase?

[zenkai]

It's rather scary how violent some of these liberals are getting.

[tyrlaan]

It's a political phrase that both sides use, that it basically meaningless in the grand scope, but fires up your tribe to put on the rose colored glasses to pretend everything was super rosy the last time your tribe had control of the White House. If you say it means anything more than that, it just shows you are a partisan hack and your opinions can be dismissed.

Have to agree with this.

I walked past someone with a MAGA hat on someone's head last week. It was, amazingly, the first time I saw one "in the flesh" and I'm not gonna lie, I instantly had a prejudgment of the guy that was not pleasant. However that's because I don't know how you can look at Trump and his administrations actions thus far and be like "he's doing so great that I want to wear his promo hat!" What that prejudgment was not is "that dude is a Nazi because he's wearing a symbol of white supremacy."

[Daelak]

No, you are referring to that. The Republicans are not. No Republican is referring to making slavery legal again. Not a single one. Only you and the Democrats think about slavery and segregation when someone says "make America great again", so I think it says more about you.

Clinton said it all the time, in most of his campaign speeches. It just wasn't his slogan. But he said it a lot when he ran for president. Same as Reagan, but I would guess you call Reagan a racist too.

- - - Updated - - -



OK, so when your tribe says it they only say it with good intentions, but when the other tribe says the exact same thing, they only have evil motivations?

Did I get that about right?


And for the record, I did know you were only talking about the current iteration. That's the hypocrisy I've been talking about. Not a single Democrat or minority was offended by "make America great again" when Clinton said it, but so many are when Trump says the same thing.

I wasnt talking about slavery era. I'm talking about the time in the mid 20th century where white society curbed the rights of other citizens through government and business, and decried the "federal overreach" of desegregation and the civil rights act.

- - - Updated - - -

For all those who haven't figured it out, what "make America great again" means is "If you vote for me, America will be 'great' again like it was the last time someone from our tribe was in office".

Reagan would have been referring to pre-Carter
Clinton would probably have to go back to pre-Nixon (I'm guessing even Clinton skips the Carter years)
Trump is likely referring to Reagan, as Trump kinda hated Bush, though I would suspect most Republicans are referring to pre-Obama when they say it.

It's a political phrase that both sides use, that it basically meaningless in the grand scope, but fires up your tribe to put on the rose colored glasses to pretend everything was super rosy the last time your tribe had control of the White House. If you say it means anything more than that, it just shows you are a partisan hack and your opinions can be dismissed.

No, Make America Great Again is grounded in Jim Crow era white supremacy rhetoric. The KKK marched with banners saying it after brown v. Board of education.

Reagan announced his candidacy in a town in Mississippi where civil rights activists "rioters" in your new doublespeak, were murdered by white supremacists, proclaiming to the Philadelphia, Mississippi people that he was going to make America like it was before the liberal government desegregated and stomped over states rights.

Clinton was no different, since he two was pushed into the White House via southern whites, the beating heart of southern strategy conservatism born from disgust of the federal overreach in desegregation.

[JohnBrown1917]

lol look at this guy and Bandanna. And what kind of name is that even?

[Allybeboba]

lol look at this guy and Bandanna. And what kind of name is that even?

If you are referring to his first name, I believe it is Scottish. It may have been a family name considering his hair color and skin tone.

Cheers

[Daelak]

If you are referring to his first name, I believe it is Scottish. It may have been a family name considering his hair color and skin tone.

Cheers

Fucking immigrants getting into trouble.

[Ragedaug]

@Ragedaug @Greathoudini

This is who you share common cause with. This is who you are empowering. Every second that goes by and you do not condemn this president and the movement he stands for, the more you are complicit with this unprecedented attack on the US. It's happening in all western countries, a coordinated right-wing strike by Russian counter intelligence to weaken us.

Yeah, you don't make any sense. I've never supported Trump. I put it in my signature to try to help people like you who will assume everyone who disagrees with you is a <insert very nasty personal attack here>.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton used the phrase "Make America Great Again" many times in their campaign speeches. I've explained it's meaningless political rhetoric. That's it. I don't want to defend Trump, because I don't like him. But when you say, "when Trump says the same thing as someone I like, it's bad because Trump is evil when he says it". That's meaningless circular logic. You force me to call you on your bullcrap.

Trump is evil because he says MAGA because MAGA is evil because Trump said it.
Clinton is great because he says MAGA because MAGA is great because Clinton said it.

[Daelak]

Yeah, you don't make any sense. I've never supported Trump. I put it in my signature to try to help people like you who will assume everyone who disagrees with you is a <insert very nasty personal attack here>.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton used the phrase "Make America Great Again" many times in their campaign speeches. I've explained it's meaningless political rhetoric. That's it. I don't want to defend Trump, because I don't like him. But when you say, "when Trump says the same thing as someone I like, it's bad because Trump is evil when he says it". That's meaningless circular logic. You force me to call you on your bullcrap.

Trump is evil because he says MAGA because MAGA is evil because Trump said it.
Clinton is great because he says MAGA because MAGA is great because Clinton said it.

And you are ignoring my response to you as to why both Bill Clinton and Reagan used it, but Carter didn't.
Read it above, learn some historical context.

[Ragedaug]

Trump isn't "my tribe" as you put it but yes you get the idea.

There's lots of levels of tribe, which can be as small as your family or best friend. But how I've been using 'tribe' in this thread is in reference to the DNC and the RNC. Trump was a Democrat all of his life. His children are registered Democrats. Trump heavily supported Democrat politicians throughout his career. He acted back then pretty much exactly how he acts now, but I don't remember Democrats being outraged at his behavior back then, and I don't remember Republicans excusing that type of behavior.

Once Trump switches his tribe, you have his former friends now outraged at the exact same things he did before, and Republicans who were outraged at Clinton's behavior, excusing it when Trump does it.

That's what's so frustrating for me seeing tribal political warfare everywhere, with very few people being intellectually honest. That said, while there's hypocrisy all the way around, it feels like Left has lost their collective minds promoting mob violence and assault against their political opposition, and equating everything Trump says and does to Nazi Germany and Armageddon, I truly believe that's what's going to keep the GOP in power at the end of this year, and will give Trump a 2nd term.

[Daelak]

There's lots of levels of tribe, which can be as small as your family or best friend. But how I've been using 'tribe' in this thread is in reference to the DNC and the RNC. Trump was a Democrat all of his life. His children are registered Democrats. Trump heavily supported Democrat politicians throughout his career. He acted back then pretty much exactly how he acts now, but I don't remember Democrats being outraged at his behavior back then, and I don't remember Republicans excusing that type of behavior.

Once Trump switches his tribe, you have his former friends now outraged at the exact same things he did before, and Republicans who were outraged at Clinton's behavior, excusing it when Trump does it.

That's what's so frustrating for me seeing tribal political warfare everywhere, with very few people being intellectually honest. That said, while there's hypocrisy all the way around, it feels like Left has lost their collective minds promoting mob violence and assault against their political opposition, and equating everything Trump says and does to Nazi Germany and Armageddon, I truly believe that's what's going to keep the GOP in power at the end of this year, and will give Trump a 2nd term.

And guess who Trump, like the KKK, Reagan, and Clinton before him targeted for votes?

[Ragedaug]

And you are ignoring my response to you as to why both Bill Clinton and Reagan used it, but Carter didn't.
Read it above, learn some historical context.

Yes I was. I already explained why they used it. I think you are completely wrong. You see racism everywhere, whereas I only see it in the media. I know racism exists and there are bad people out there, I just think it's much more rare in this day and age then the media would have us believe. I have ran across very few racists in my life. Hundreds of non-racists compared to only a handful of actual racists that I've come across. Every where I work has been completely integrated and very ethnically diverse environments with absolutely no racial tension.

We have black and white (and other) workers, and we have black and white (and other) managers. We have both Conservatives and Liberals, and no one has any problem working with each other and we all hang out together after work.

So while what I've experience is obviously anecdotal, I'm not seeing the racist bogeyman you are seeing, so when I see someone who sees everything in the world through the lens of racism, I think it says more about you.

- - - Updated - - -

And guess who Trump, like the KKK, Reagan, and Clinton before him targeted for votes?

Trump, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and Obama did everything they can to fire up their base while attempting to piss off as few people as possible who still might vote for them.

Welcome to politics. Please let me know if I can explain any other facets of politics you aren't familiar with.

[tyrlaan]

So while what I've experience is obviously anecdotal, I'm not seeing the racist bogeyman you are seeing, so when I see someone who sees everything in the world through the lens of racism, I think it says more about you.

Well that's the rub, isn't it? Most evidence on both angles of the argument are anecdotal. And to your point about tribalism, it's why every damn post on this forum that's like this one - "here's this one person doing this thing that supports the sweeping generalization I want to make" - are patently absurd.

Dude steals MAGA hat. It's theft, he should get punished accordingly. It's not some new trend of "leftist violence". Moving on.

Ted Nugent says something ridiculous. Yup, it's ridiculous. He doesn't speak for all conservatives. Moving on.

What should get attention is when the anecdotes start to pile up, but even then you have to be careful because of the sensationalist nature of the news.

I believe racism is more prevalent than you think it is, but I also don't think you are inherently ridiculous or a Nazi because you don't agree with me. My belief is likely a result of being exposed to different anecdotal experiences than the ones you've experienced.

And we have the news plus politicians plus social media to thank for more and more people only thinking and speaking in extremes.

[Daelak]

Yes I was. I already explained why they used it. I think you are completely wrong. You see racism everywhere, whereas I only see it in the media. I know racism exists and there are bad people out there, I just think it's much more rare in this day and age then the media would have us believe. I have ran across very few racists in my life. Hundreds of non-racists compared to only a handful of actual racists that I've come across. Every where I work has been completely integrated and very ethnically diverse environments with absolutely no racial tension.

We have black and white (and other) workers, and we have black and white (and other) managers. We have both Conservatives and Liberals, and no one has any problem working with each other and we all hang out together after work.

So while what I've experience is obviously anecdotal, I'm not seeing the racist bogeyman you are seeing, so when I see someone who sees everything in the world through the lens of racism, I think it says more about you.

- - - Updated - - -



Trump, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and Obama did everything they can to fire up their base while attempting to piss off as few people as possible who still might vote for them.

Welcome to politics. Please let me know if I can explain any other facets of politics you aren't familiar with.

Its not about me seeing racism, its historical, and in Trump's case, recent proof of using racist dog whistling to bring out racist southern conservatives to vote for them. You are in denial in how that specific messaging was so successful because you yourself are conservative and you would rather remain willfully ignorant and talk about anecdotal platitudes of your own life and its "absence" of racism.

Both Clinton and all modern Republican candidates have used those dog whistles to bring out racist conservatives, borne from the conservative protesting federal overreach of states rights from desegregation.

[Ehrenpanzer]

The teens deserved it, wearing that vile hat is equivalent to wearing a KKK mask in my eyes, they’re lucky that they didn’t get beaten up worse

Ah yes, the usual far left "violence is ok as long as I dont like their opinions".