MS13 Are Animals

[braces_for_impact]

I'm having trouble with this "context" that many suddenly think is so vital. On the last page, I read the "full context" of the conversation provided by dismal. MS-13 was not mentioned until after the "animals" comment. We have ICE officers expressing frustration because they feel caught between federal and state law - to which I say, Welcome to Federal Law Enforcement. The conversation in itself is blurring the lines between immigrants that have crossed the border into our country for a variety of reasons and more serious criminal behavior. The fact that there's hardly a person there to notice this is frightening and makes one understand that the local people that make the local laws might be attempting to correct overreach by the Federal government. Unfortunately, the so very "states rights" conservatives and GOP suddenly care not one whit about states rights when it comes to chasing brown people. I notice one can predictably tell exactly where most will land on the issue depending on whether they agree with the particular law - not based on an ideology of greater freedom or of a state to legislate it's own destiny.

This is ICE. They're having a conversation with Trump. It's practically a Klan rally discussing the fate of all the brown people they arrest and complaining because there are local courts attempting to protect the rights of those they're trying to arrest in greater and greater numbers. ICE isn't well known for their constitutional protections they afford their arrestees. Trump himself has a grossly exaggerated and illogical view of how many immigrants turn out to be serious criminals. A view that is reinforced by his inner circle and now, ICE.

I draw your attention to the fact that no one is here complaining that MS13 shouldn't be compared to animals. I've seen no such defense, and if there were a few it's in no great number. Nevertheless, the POTUS shouldn't use such language. He should be a dispassionate enforcer of the law, and passionate about protecting the rights of anyone that is caught within his purview - regardless of their immigration status. When a President uses such language, it causes people to doubt his willingness to protect those that are arrested but still have rights. When you combine it with his other "problems" over the last few years, you see a pattern of racist behavior and talk that leaves little doubt as to where Trump is on the spectrum between casual racism and wearing a hood at the next rally.

The typical people we find in this thread defending this type of behavior don't consider themselves racist. Racists seldom do. But separate yourselves for a minute, and realize that even if you sincerely believe that your views aren't racist, Trump could be very igoted and we would see exactly the behavior we see from him every single day. Sorry about the rambling and bad grammar here, had to fire this off before I attend to something.

 

[Derec]

Yes. Note what I said: "the GOP turned it against her and then the lie stuck, even to the point of Obama and the BLM repeating it."

But it seems to be the other way around. #BLMers got upset, then GOP took it up as a convenient wedge issue that was, however, created by racial activists from the Left.

Can you show me any GOPers making hay out of the "superpredator" comment?

You mean beside Donald Trump and Reince Priebus? Is your google broken?

That article is from August 2016. #BLM activist Ashely Williams confronted Hillary back in February 2016.

Here's a piece he wrote in 1995 that essentially started the firestorm: The Coming of the Superpredators (a theory that was proved wrong and he subsequently recanted, but only after HRC made that speech btw).

Yeah, I know Hillary did not come up with the term. But it does not change the fact that criticism of Hillary's usage of the term "superpredator" came from the Left, specifically #BLM. GOP merely deftly exploited that already existing rift.

This highly critical piece in Jacobin gives you additional context:

By that time, the “tough on crime” political rhetoric of the 1990s was under strong criticism. The Black Lives Matter movement arose as a reaction to decades of abusive policing practices and failed criminal justice policies. To a new generation of activists, Hillary’s having called kids “superpredators” seemed perverse.

From that article. It suggests again that it is the "new generation of activists", and "Black Lives Matter" that found the phrase unacceptable.

Confirming DiIulio’s analysis was James Q. Wilson, the conservative political scientist who had devised the theory of “broken windows” policing. The broken windows theory posited that minor crimes in a neighborhood (such as the breaking of windows) tended to lead to major ones, so police should harshly focus on rounding up petty criminals if they wanted to prevent major violent crimes.

The role DiIulio played is not in dispute here. I don't know what you are trying to prove with this quote. Note, DiIulio did not attack Hillary claiming she called black kids "superpredators". It was activists from the Left who first did that.

Put into practice, this amounted to the endless apprehension of fare-jumpers and homeless squeegee people.

Fare-jumpers steal from fare-paying folk. What's wrong with apprehending them? And squeegee-people are just practicing low-level extortion. But neither count as superpredators.

It also created the intellectual justification for totalitarian “stop and frisk” policies that introduced an exasperating and often terrifying ordeal into nearly every young black New Yorker’s life.

Totalitarian? Those Jacobin writers are really something else, aren't they?

Even the language used by the professors, of “Godless” and “brutal” juveniles without “fixed values,” was plainly the talk of Republican Party moralists, rather than dispassionate social scientists.

"Dispassionate" social scientists? That is the most politicized and least rigorous of all disciplines with "science" in its name.

Nobody in the professional circles of a “children’s rights” liberal like Hillary Clinton would have given the “superpredator” concept a lick of intellectual credence, even when it was at the peak of its infamy.

So, the left-wing Jacobin seems to be attacking Hillary for her usage of "superpredator" rather than making your case that it was the GOP, not Leftists, who were attacking her.

Now, beside the fact that the right wing capitalized on the theory more so than the left, it was the left (Bill Clinton and Hillary in particular) that got the most slack for it.

Because often these gangbangers are part of their base. Remember that giving felons the vote generally helps Democrats.

Now jump to 2014, when no less an austere right wing publication as Breitbart News introduces the Black Conservatives Fund. If that combination of Breitbart and "Black Conservatives Fund" doesn't tell you all you need to know, here's my favorite part of the piece in light of the deliberately misleading ad it created that we'll get to in a minute:

BCF will be providing “direct contributions in addition to running TV and radio ads, conducting get-out-the vote drives, and funding any other activities our endorsed candidates need.”
Their goals are to...Present an accurate portrayal of the Republican party and our history with the black community.

So there is a Republican outreach to black voters. What's wrong with that?

By presenting an inaccurate portrayal of Hillary Clinton with the black community. Jump to November 2nd of 2016: Black Conservatives Fund recalls Clinton’s “super-predators” and “firewall” comments (emphasis mine):

The ad, “Hillary Hates,” features the candidate’s 1996 comments where she was caught using racially divisive undertones to champion a bill that ultimately locked up a generation of black men. The ad also uses 2016 footage of her run-ins with Black Lives Matter protestors.

A November 2nd ad? That ad came many months after #BLM activists started ranted about Hillary and superpredators. Taking advantage of a shitstorm is not the same as creating it.

Just eight days after the ad saturated black demographic markets came this incendiary piece in The Nation on November 10: Why Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote, by Michelle Alexander (emphasis mine):

Michelle Alexander is a well-known left-wing activists. The Nation is a very left-wing publication. Her article also came out in February 2016, months before the Hillary Hates ad or any statements by Trump or Preibus.

In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Yupp. This misconstrual of the "superpredator" quote was common in 2016 on the far left, particularly among the #BLM crowd.

What happens next just eight days after that? A young graduate student by the name of Ashley Williiams steps forward (emphasis mine):

The timeline is all over the place. The Jacobin piece states explicitly that Alexander article and Williams stunt came after the GOP ad, when in reality they came months earlier. Check the dates for yourself!

And full circle. So, what began as a predominantly right-wing embraced mythology in the nineties referenced briefly by HRC in a speech in 1996 where she specified gangs (not "black youth") gets weaponized by the GOP through the "Black Conservatives Fund," who were the ones to dig up the speech and then revise it (though one must wonder how they even knew about it, considering its length and age), take it out of context and combine it with the Black Lives Matter movement, thus ensuring any BLM activists would see it.

Again, it was the black activists like Alexander and Williams who took up the issue and then the GOP took up that outrage.

Days after the ad floods targeted black markets--most notably in North Carolina--the same out of context snippet is picked up on by Michelle Alexander (indirect Sanders supporter) and Shaun King (HUGE Sanders supporter)--the former of which writes an incendiary piece referencing the clip--and then a few days later a North Carolinian graduate student and BLM activist, apparently, repeats the same lie, only directly to HRC's face and at a fundraiser (iow, not the appropriate forum to address any such thing).

Except that all this happens months before the ad and not after. Look at the ad. It even shows Williams with her "bring them to heel" banner at the Hillary fundraiser. Does GOP have time travel? Is Trump Rittenhouse? Actually that would explain a lot.

By the way, the original speech can be found here. It is over thirty-five minutes long and the short snippet we're talking about comes around the 22 minute mark. What do you think the chances are that either Ms. Alexander or Ms. Williams (or Shaun King for that matter), both just happened to be searching C-Span archives within a few days of each other and both of them just happened to watch the entire speech (or at least the first 22 minutes) for them to have seen the actual footage and not based everything they subsequently said/wrote entirely on the BCF's version?

Do you think Alexander is incapable of digging for herself? Do you have any evidence of Hillary and superpredators being dug up before 2/10/16?

Because if they had both done their primary source research and not merely regurgitated a GOP lie, this is what they would have heard her say (from the transcript based on the closed captioning C-Span offered at the time):

But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people and they are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often. The kinds of kids that are called super predators. No conscience. No empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel and the president has asked the F.B.I.. To launch a very concerted effort. Against gangs. Everywhere. In addition to that. He has appointed a new drug czar. You probably saw him Tuesday night he's one of the most distinguished.

Gangs. No mention at all of black youth anywhere in the context of the quote nor for that matter in the entire speech. Note in particular the phrases "No conscience. No empathy."

I know. I agree that the attack was grossly unfair. But that does not mean that it could not possibly have come from the far left. Quite the opposite.

No conscience. No empathy. The point being, that Clinton didn't make up the term or the theory; she was merely referencing something that was already a dominant if misguided theory.

I do not see it as misguided. If young people commit heinous crimes, that is not a youthful indiscretion. They should be locked up. There is a case from Atlanta, that people like Shaun King champion (he went to Morehouse).
The 13-year-old boy who grew up in a Georgia prison: Michael Lewis, now 18 years into his sentence
I would say that is a superpredator.

And finally, it's worth noting that Sanders himself repeated the lie in April of 2016 (a month after he should have dropped out of the primary, no less) saying perhaps the most egregious thing imaginable: ‘We All Knew’ What Hillary Clinton Meant By ‘Super-Predators’:

All is fair in love and primaries. Note that Sanders is a left-wing candidate, not a right-wing one. So again, that fits my thesis. The "superpredator" kerfuffle started and had most currency on the left, although GOP did exploit it later on.

It's worth it to watch the GOP's ad, in particular the part where they cut away from HRC in order to have the activist say "She called young black kids like me super predators" at the 15 second mark. No, she most definitely did not. But it's uncanny how Ms. Alexander repeated what the supposed activist (again from the Black Conservatives Fund ad) said and not what Hillary Clinton actually said, in spite of the fact that, as a journalist, she should have quoted the actual speech and not GOP lies, don't you think?

The Black Conservatives Fund activists is echoing Alexander, not vice versa.

And then the BLM and then even Obama. Thus, the GOP turned it against her and then the lie stuck, even to the point of Obama and the BLM repeating it

Again, it happened the other way around.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Derec, you’re right. I fucked up the chronology. Curse of a dyslexic brain. It looks like it was all Michelle Alexander’s fault, though I still find it curious where she would have even got the idea of listening to the speech in the first place.

The speech was given at Keen State University, which is in Keen, New Hampshire, back in January of 1996 (yes, I’m triple checking the dates this time). From the C-span link it aired five times over three days (Jan 28-30 on C-span only (no network news covered it that I can find). Since it aired, it’s had only 6,347 views.

Sanders visited Keen often during the primaries, beginning in June of 2015, where there was a large and enthusiastic turnout (some 46,000, apparently). Combine that fact with the way in which Sanders said, “We knew what she meant” (or words to that effect) and I’m now suspecting it was somehow all the Sanders camp via someone at Keen U that was there.

But that too is a stretch. Assuming it was Alexander who did indeed start all of this, she would have had to have studied anything and everything that Clinton ever said—including back in the day when she was just on the campaign trail—watched that whole 35 minute speech until getting to the 22 minute mark and then decided to deliberately misconstrue what Clinton had said.

But why would Alexander do that if it were not politically motivated? And if it were politically motivated, then it is difficult to believe that anyone but Republicans would have made any note of that speech.

Clearly I need to go deeper.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ok, after more digging I was able to find this piece from Fair.org, which notes (emphasis mine):

The fact that as this remarkable decline in youth crime was happening, Clinton was warning that many “kids” were now “superpredators” whom “we have to bring…to heel” is surely relevant in a campaign in which Black Lives Matter has brought criminal justice issues to the forefront, and media constantly refer to African-Americans as Clinton’s “firewall” against the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders. Despite this, in the nine months after Buzzfeed‘s Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie first unearthed the [1996] speech, there’s been a virtual blackout of Clinton’s “superpredator” quote in US newspapers.

Here is that piece by Kaczynski and Massie: Three Areas Where Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Her Husband's Legacy (from May of 2015). Note that they quote Clinton accurately:

In one speech that year, she called kids in gangs "super-predators" with "no conscience, no empathy."

"But we also have to have an organized effort against gangs, just as in a previous generation we had an organized effort against the mob. We need to take these people on. They are often connected to big drug cartels. They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called 'super-predators.' No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way but first we have to bring them to heel and the President has asked the FBI to launch a very concerted effort against gangs everywhere."​

The Fair piece erroneously goes on to reveal:

According to a broad search of US newspapers and wires in the Nexis news database for stories containing the words “Hillary Clinton” and either “superpredator,” “super predator” or “super-predator,” there were only four stories that referenced the quote before Ashley Williams’ intervention—all from February 2016.

But they do not mention the Michelle Alexander piece, probably because it was not technically published in a newspaper, but it isn’t until Alexander—on February 10, 2016–asserts that Clinton “used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals.”

Here’s a well-checked chronology from Fair:

The first was in a college paper, the Miami Student of Ohio’s Miami University, where Brett Milan (2/2/16) wrote of Clinton:

For starters, she helped perpetuate the racist myth of the super predator in 1996 and supported the 1994 crime bill, the worst crime bill in American history.​

Next was Walt Rubel, managing editor of the Las Cruces, New Mexico, Sun-News (2/14/16), who wrote:

As a member of Congress, Bernie Sanders voted for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Omnibus Crime Bill. Hillary Clinton was not in Congress at the time. But as first lady, she was an enthusiastic supporter of the legislation, at one point referring to youthful offenders as “super-predators.”​

The Nashville Pride (2/19/16), an African-American paper in Tennessee, published an interview (credited to the Trice Edney News Wire) with former NAACP chief Ben Jealous , in which he explained his endorsement of Sanders:

Jealous detailed how Clinton, on one hand, built the Children’s Defense Fund; but on the other hand, “championed the super predator theory which said that a child at age six months could be a sociopath beyond redemption. And it’s only used to explain the actions of young black men.”​

So it seems confirmed that it was Alexander (a Sanders supporter) who first deliberately misconstrued Clinton’s comments, which in turn were picked up by the ironically named Ben Jealous who made a point of repeating the lie in his endorsement of Sanders. And then we have Sanders with the most egregious lie—after HRC set the record straight, no less and in direct contradiction to her doing so—that, basically was, “Yeah, but we all knew she was talking about black kids.”

So the chronology is, apparently, first Sanders supporters, then BLM and then GOP. I sit corrected.

 

[steve_bank]

If CNN began a policical pressure campign to deal with MS13 there would undoudtedly be blowback over defaming immigrants.

On the other hand there was weeks of repeated calls for an apology to McCain over an off hand remark as if it were the crime of the century. Endless moralizing.

 

[dismal]

MS-13 was not mentioned until after the "animals" comment.

On my screen it appears in the immediately preceding comment. But then it's possible my monitor is messed up.

SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.

THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy.

Anyone else seeing it there?

 

[braces_for_impact]

And why is the right's response tp this whole thing to again bring up...Clinton? You guys need help.

 

[dismal]

You guys need help.

So, by thread rules I'm going to assume by "guys" you mean "Hitler and the Nazis" and you have now revealed yourself as a Nazi sympathizer in saying that Hitler and the Nazis deserve to be helped.

If this was not your intent, it's still your fault for using language sufficiently imprecise to allow me to leap to this conclusion when I stripped your remark from context and applied my own absurd biases.

 

[braces_for_impact]

Ha! That was really, really bad. Hitler would be disappointed [emoji26]

 

[arkirk]

MS-13 was not mentioned until after the "animals" comment.

On my screen it appears in the immediately preceding comment. But then it's possible my monitor is messed up.

SHERIFF MIMS: Thank you. There could be an MS-13 member I know about — if they don’t reach a certain threshold, I cannot tell ICE about it.

THE PRESIDENT: We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — and we’re stopping a lot of them — but we’re taking people out of the country. You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people. These are animals. And we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before. And because of the weak laws, they come in fast, we get them, we release them, we get them again, we bring them out. It’s crazy.

Anyone else seeing it there?

Both of these clowns are racists, pure and simple. Calling any human being an "animal" does two terrible things...If that human is guilty of crimes, you are asserting that animals would be guilty of crimes and subject to punitive actions. If that human has not committed a crime, you are saying it is okay for you to abridge human rights...what is your basis for making a distinction...somebody is not from "around here" PURE XENOPHOBIA! Crossing a fucking line in the sand IS NOT A CRIME...NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCARDY CAT YOU ARE...NO MATTER HOW XENOPHOBIC AND PARANOID YOU ARE, NO MATTER HOW UN SCOTCH YOU ARE. Armed and fenced borders are for people who are authoritarians and usually these people are "dick" taters! So where does Derec fit into this maze of frightened 10 year olds? I haven't a clue. He defends rapists often. It makes no sense to me.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Trausti]

On my screen it appears in the immediately preceding comment. But then it's possible my monitor is messed up.



Anyone else seeing it there?

Both of these clowns are racists, pure and simple. Calling any human being an "animal" does two terrible things...If that human is guilty of crimes, you are asserting that animals would be guilty of crimes and subject to punitive actions. If that human has not committed a crime, you are saying it is okay for you to abridge human rights...what is your basis for making a distinction...somebody is not from "around here" PURE XENOPHOBIA! Crossing a fucking line in the sand IS NOT A CRIME...NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCARDY CAT YOU ARE...NO MATTER HOW XENOPHOBIC AND PARANOID YOU ARE, NO MATTER HOW UN SCOTCH YOU ARE. Armed and fenced borders are for people who are authoritarians and usually these people are "dick" taters! So where does Derec fit into this maze of frightened 10 year olds? I haven't a clue. He defends rapists often. It makes no sense to me.

Without strong boarders, how do you keep this out? NSFW

Show

 

[dismal]

Hitler would be disappointed [emoji26]

Well, you oughta know better than anyone.

 

[arkirk]

On my screen it appears in the immediately preceding comment. But then it's possible my monitor is messed up.



Anyone else seeing it there?

Both of these clowns are racists, pure and simple. Calling any human being an "animal" does two terrible things...If that human is guilty of crimes, you are asserting that animals would be guilty of crimes and subject to punitive actions. If that human has not committed a crime, you are saying it is okay for you to abridge human rights...what is your basis for making a distinction...somebody is not from "around here" PURE XENOPHOBIA! Crossing a fucking line in the sand IS NOT A CRIME...NO MATTER WHAT KIND OF SCARDY CAT YOU ARE...NO MATTER HOW XENOPHOBIC AND PARANOID YOU ARE, NO MATTER HOW UN SCOTCH YOU ARE. Armed and fenced borders are for people who are authoritarians and usually these people are "dick" taters! So where does Derec fit into this maze of frightened 10 year olds? I haven't a clue. He defends rapists often. It makes no sense to me.

Without strong boarders, how do you keep this out? NSFW

Show

This is not a matter of borders. It is a matter of law and order. I do not believe we should be tolerant of that type of murder anywhere. We are seeing similar violence being done to Palestinians in Gaza by allegedly civilized Israelis. I do not think a border or walls will stop this type of thing. Good law enforcement and good education and good economic opportunity for youths of all stripes would go a long way toward curbing violence of all types. There will always in any society be those who are extremely perverse and will do or attempt to do the these things and you think can this can somehow be walled off. These people need to be caught and segregated from society in prison. Don't imprison the rest of society on the basis of your fear of these people. Your view of justice seems to give the nod to injustice to people who are not part of your favored fraction of human society. Your disfavor has nothing to do with the atrocities you are attempting to link to people who are not committing them. This is usually on a race, nationality, or religious basis, rather than actual individual specific evidence.

 

[Trausti]

Without strong boarders, how do you keep this out? NSFW

Show

This is not a matter of borders. It is a matter of law and order. I do not believe we should be tolerant of that type of murder anywhere. We are seeing similar violence being done to Palestinians in Gaza by allegedly civilized Israelis. I do not think a border will stop this type of thing. Good law enforcement and good education and good economic opportunity for youths of all stripes would go a long way toward curbing violence of all types. There will always in any society be those who are extremely perverse and will do or attempt to do the these things and you think can this can somehow be walled off. These people need to be caught and segregated from society in prison. Don't imprison the rest of society on the basis of your fear of these people. Your view of justice seems to give the nod to injustice to people who are not part of your favored fraction of human society. Your disfavor has nothing to do with the atrocities you are attempting to link to people who are not committing them. This is usually on a race, nationality, or religious basis, rather than actual individual specific evidence.

People bring their culture with them. Duh. Do we really need this enrichment?

Not Safe for Life (NSFL)

Yeah, these aren't animals at all. They're just misunderstood. Open the borders!

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is why no one takes your asses seriously, as well as why no one thinks your memes are funny. No one is standing for up for rapists and murderers. We're standing up for illegal immigrants being increasingly treated as rapists and murderers. This point is obvious to anyone with a few minutes of self-reflection. So, you spread false rumors that Democrats, liberals, lib-tards, whatever the insult of the week is want to stand up for hardened criminals. If you have to lie and purposely misrepresent your opponent's position, that tells me how strong you think your actual position is. It also tells us something else that's very important. That you are dishonest. So, when you fail to show your actual motivation for doing such despicable things yourselves, as you malign those that disagree with you, don't be surprised when they remain unimpressed or unconvinced when you tell them how you're not a bigot.

 

[Trausti]

This is why no one takes your asses seriously, as well as why no one thinks your memes are funny. No one is standing for up for rapists and murderers. We're standing up for illegal immigrants being increasingly treated as rapists and murderers. This point is obvious to anyone with a few minutes of self-reflection. So, you spread false rumors that Democrats, liberals, lib-tards, whatever the insult of the week is want to stand up for hardened criminals. If you have to lie and purposely misrepresent your opponent's position, that tells me how strong you think your actual position is. It also tells us something else that's very important. That you are dishonest. So, when you fail to show your actual motivation for doing such despicable things yourselves, as you malign those that disagree with you, don't be surprised when they remain unimpressed or unconvinced when you tell them how you're not a bigot.

It's hard to take you seriously when the misquoting of Trump was such obvious bullshit. It you're going to behave that way, don't get your panties up your crack when it's thrown right back at you.

 

[braces_for_impact]

This is why no one takes your asses seriously, as well as why no one thinks your memes are funny. No one is standing for up for rapists and murderers. We're standing up for illegal immigrants being increasingly treated as rapists and murderers. This point is obvious to anyone with a few minutes of self-reflection. So, you spread false rumors that Democrats, liberals, lib-tards, whatever the insult of the week is want to stand up for hardened criminals. If you have to lie and purposely misrepresent your opponent's position, that tells me how strong you think your actual position is. It also tells us something else that's very important. That you are dishonest. So, when you fail to show your actual motivation for doing such despicable things yourselves, as you malign those that disagree with you, don't be surprised when they remain unimpressed or unconvinced when you tell them how you're not a bigot.

It's hard to take you seriously when the misquoting of Trump was such obvious bullshit. It you're going to behave that way, don't get your panties up your crack when it's thrown right back at you.

Where did I misquote Trump? I said he didn't mention MS13 during his animals comment, and he did not. What's wrong? Does it upset you when the assclown and chief gets taken out of "context"? I thought you types were tough and not "snowflakes"? I'm just glad I'm not in your position. To have to defend Trumpelthinskin simply because he represents my bigoted views. So glad I have more of a conscience than that. You are what you represent. When your greatest champion is a draft dodging, idiotic fool that cannot even complete a single thought, a man that does not read, and has the mental maturity of a bratty five-year-old. A man whose followers are all this themselves and proud of his behavior. A man that freaks out because everyone now knows he takes Propecia for a head of hair that looks like cotton candy piss. Enjoy your brief time. The bigotry never really goes away, it just goes slinking back into the shadows. Once your proud champion is gone, you will all go back to telling "off-color jokes" and text messaging your fellows about Obama phones and food stamps. Once again your views will be deemed unacceptable public behavior and you'll go back to the "red pill forums" and 4chan where you're always so brave and honorable.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is why no one takes your asses seriously, as well as why no one thinks your memes are funny. No one is standing for up for rapists and murderers. We're standing up for illegal immigrants being increasingly treated as rapists and murderers. This point is obvious to anyone with a few minutes of self-reflection. So, you spread false rumors that Democrats, liberals, lib-tards, whatever the insult of the week is want to stand up for hardened criminals. If you have to lie and purposely misrepresent your opponent's position, that tells me how strong you think your actual position is. It also tells us something else that's very important. That you are dishonest. So, when you fail to show your actual motivation for doing such despicable things yourselves, as you malign those that disagree with you, don't be surprised when they remain unimpressed or unconvinced when you tell them how you're not a bigot.

It's hard to take you seriously when the misquoting of Trump was such obvious bullshit. It you're going to behave that way, don't get your panties up your crack when it's thrown right back at you.

His context was sloppy and you would have defended him in either case.