Racist African American TA calls for killing of White People

[Landslide Lyndon]

1. It's not whataboutism when you posted that it's "unproven" that Trump is a sexual predator and I respond with an event that suggests otherwise. It would be whataboutism if this were a thread about Clinton or Franken or whoever, but labeling this particular instance whatboutism shows that you either are posting in bad faith or have a shocking lack of understanding of what the term means.

2. Are you really saying that you don't believe in anyone's guilt until they are convicted of a crime, regardless of evidence or literal confessions? Didn't think so. After all, if you applied that standard to Michael Brown and Bill Clinton, what you even ramble about anymore?

Nothing's been proven on Bill Clinton, beyond what he's admitted to.  My objection there is the OK-ness with throwing Juanita Broaddrick under the bus while insisting anyone accusing Trump (or some other Republican) be treated as guilty.

And, no, I'm not going to refer to anyone as a Sexual Offender or Sexual Predator until they are convicted of a crime and adjudicated as such.  That's basic fairness.  I'll note accusations, but I will not label someone with a label that has real legal meaning.  

Trump has never been charged with a crime in his life, yet people call him a criminal.  He's under investigation, and there is factual information out there that would be enough for a reasonable person to say, "No, I won't vote for Trump."  But if Trump ought not be above the law, he ought not be below it, either.  Ditto Bill and Hillary Clinton.  (I have never been part of the "Lock Her Up!" crowd, and I have disapproved of that explicitly on Atlas.)

Trump has been charged, convicted and fined on, I believe, four occasions.  At other times, as with Trump University, he settled and paid a fine.

With Trump University, he can hide behind its corporate entity and claim it wasn't him personally, with these other convictions and fines, I believe that isn't the case.

These are civil matters, not criminal matters.  If you don't know that, you are uninformed.  If you do know that and wish to imply otherwise, you are lying.

I must have missed that Bible class where it says that it's ok for people to be crooks as long as they are convicted only in a civil court.

[Fuzzy Bear]

1. It's not whataboutism when you posted that it's "unproven" that Trump is a sexual predator and I respond with an event that suggests otherwise. It would be whataboutism if this were a thread about Clinton or Franken or whoever, but labeling this particular instance whatboutism shows that you either are posting in bad faith or have a shocking lack of understanding of what the term means.

2. Are you really saying that you don't believe in anyone's guilt until they are convicted of a crime, regardless of evidence or literal confessions? Didn't think so. After all, if you applied that standard to Michael Brown and Bill Clinton, what you even ramble about anymore?

Nothing's been proven on Bill Clinton, beyond what he's admitted to.  My objection there is the OK-ness with throwing Juanita Broaddrick under the bus while insisting anyone accusing Trump (or some other Republican) be treated as guilty.

And, no, I'm not going to refer to anyone as a Sexual Offender or Sexual Predator until they are convicted of a crime and adjudicated as such.  That's basic fairness.  I'll note accusations, but I will not label someone with a label that has real legal meaning.  

Trump has never been charged with a crime in his life, yet people call him a criminal.  He's under investigation, and there is factual information out there that would be enough for a reasonable person to say, "No, I won't vote for Trump."  But if Trump ought not be above the law, he ought not be below it, either.  Ditto Bill and Hillary Clinton.  (I have never been part of the "Lock Her Up!" crowd, and I have disapproved of that explicitly on Atlas.)

Trump has been charged, convicted and fined on, I believe, four occasions.  At other times, as with Trump University, he settled and paid a fine.

With Trump University, he can hide behind its corporate entity and claim it wasn't him personally, with these other convictions and fines, I believe that isn't the case.

These are civil matters, not criminal matters.  If you don't know that, you are uninformed.  If you do know that and wish to imply otherwise, you are lying.

I must have missed that Bible class where it says that it's ok for people to be crooks as long as they are convicted only in a civil court.

It's not right, but it's not criminal, and there is a different standard of proof.

You're not interested in facts, however.  Nor are you interested in fairness.

[136or142]

1. It's not whataboutism when you posted that it's "unproven" that Trump is a sexual predator and I respond with an event that suggests otherwise. It would be whataboutism if this were a thread about Clinton or Franken or whoever, but labeling this particular instance whatboutism shows that you either are posting in bad faith or have a shocking lack of understanding of what the term means.

2. Are you really saying that you don't believe in anyone's guilt until they are convicted of a crime, regardless of evidence or literal confessions? Didn't think so. After all, if you applied that standard to Michael Brown and Bill Clinton, what you even ramble about anymore?

Nothing's been proven on Bill Clinton, beyond what he's admitted to.  My objection there is the OK-ness with throwing Juanita Broaddrick under the bus while insisting anyone accusing Trump (or some other Republican) be treated as guilty.

And, no, I'm not going to refer to anyone as a Sexual Offender or Sexual Predator until they are convicted of a crime and adjudicated as such.  That's basic fairness.  I'll note accusations, but I will not label someone with a label that has real legal meaning.  

Trump has never been charged with a crime in his life, yet people call him a criminal.  He's under investigation, and there is factual information out there that would be enough for a reasonable person to say, "No, I won't vote for Trump."  But if Trump ought not be above the law, he ought not be below it, either.  Ditto Bill and Hillary Clinton.  (I have never been part of the "Lock Her Up!" crowd, and I have disapproved of that explicitly on Atlas.)

Trump has been charged, convicted and fined on, I believe, four occasions.  At other times, as with Trump University, he settled and paid a fine.

With Trump University, he can hide behind its corporate entity and claim it wasn't him personally, with these other convictions and fines, I believe that isn't the case.

These are civil matters, not criminal matters.  If you don't know that, you are uninformed.  If you do know that and wish to imply otherwise, you are lying.

Nope, I could be wrong on the number, but he has somewhere around 4 criminal convictions for which he has paid a fine on each.  All of them carried potential jail time.

[Badger]

1. It's not whataboutism when you posted that it's "unproven" that Trump is a sexual predator and I respond with an event that suggests otherwise. It would be whataboutism if this were a thread about Clinton or Franken or whoever, but labeling this particular instance whatboutism shows that you either are posting in bad faith or have a shocking lack of understanding of what the term means.

2. Are you really saying that you don't believe in anyone's guilt until they are convicted of a crime, regardless of evidence or literal confessions? Didn't think so. After all, if you applied that standard to Michael Brown and Bill Clinton, what you even ramble about anymore?

Nothing's been proven on Bill Clinton, beyond what he's admitted to.  My objection there is the OK-ness with throwing Juanita Broaddrick under the bus while insisting anyone accusing Trump (or some other Republican) be treated as guilty.

And, no, I'm not going to refer to anyone as a Sexual Offender or Sexual Predator until they are convicted of a crime and adjudicated as such.  That's basic fairness.  I'll note accusations, but I will not label someone with a label that has real legal meaning. 

Trump has never been charged with a crime in his life, yet people call him a criminal.  He's under investigation, and there is factual information out there that would be enough for a reasonable person to say, "No, I won't vote for Trump."  But if Trump ought not be above the law, he ought not be below it, either.  Ditto Bill and Hillary Clinton.  (I have never been part of the "Lock Her Up!" crowd, and I have disapproved of that explicitly on Atlas.)

The best analogy I can offer is that John Gotti was acquitted by a jury multiple times, but I would have felt no compunction whatsoever about referring to him as a gangster none the less.

In Trump's case, we have an admission. A proud admission at that. Bragging about it! That + 31 separate accusers...

I don't recall many if any left-wing avatars here defending or denying Clinton's Behavior. I will readily acknowledge and explain in great detail why Trump's is materially far worse, but it doesn't excuse Clinton for grossly inappropriate behavior that, fortunately for him, was adjudged under different standards 20 years ago.

At most, I think leftists hear dispute whether or not Clinton deserve to be impeached for such Behavior, because as much as we can go on about how it was allegedly perjury, etc etc, the underlying case and support of the accusers were heavily funded bye far right-wing billionaires and well-funded legal Networks, which is an absolute verifiable quantifiable fact, explicitly designed to trap Clinton in just such a situation. And Slick Willy, to his Everlasting shame as a husband, president, and person, walked merrily through that door dick first.

But I digress. Few if anyone hear defends or denies Clinton's actions. I think the only dispute is whether or not 20 years ago he deserved peachman for it. And that doesn't Begin by even a scintillas breath 2 justify either denial or defense of Trumps Reckless I can get away with anything to the point of bragging about it on National radio recidivist sexual battery and voyeurism.

[136or142]

1. It's not whataboutism when you posted that it's "unproven" that Trump is a sexual predator and I respond with an event that suggests otherwise. It would be whataboutism if this were a thread about Clinton or Franken or whoever, but labeling this particular instance whatboutism shows that you either are posting in bad faith or have a shocking lack of understanding of what the term means.

2. Are you really saying that you don't believe in anyone's guilt until they are convicted of a crime, regardless of evidence or literal confessions? Didn't think so. After all, if you applied that standard to Michael Brown and Bill Clinton, what you even ramble about anymore?

Nothing's been proven on Bill Clinton, beyond what he's admitted to.  My objection there is the OK-ness with throwing Juanita Broaddrick under the bus while insisting anyone accusing Trump (or some other Republican) be treated as guilty.

And, no, I'm not going to refer to anyone as a Sexual Offender or Sexual Predator until they are convicted of a crime and adjudicated as such.  That's basic fairness.  I'll note accusations, but I will not label someone with a label that has real legal meaning.  

Trump has never been charged with a crime in his life, yet people call him a criminal.  He's under investigation, and there is factual information out there that would be enough for a reasonable person to say, "No, I won't vote for Trump."  But if Trump ought not be above the law, he ought not be below it, either.  Ditto Bill and Hillary Clinton.  (I have never been part of the "Lock Her Up!" crowd, and I have disapproved of that explicitly on Atlas.)

The best analogy I can offer is that John Gotti was acquitted by a jury multiple times, but I would have felt no compunction whatsoever about referring to him as a gangster none the less.

In Trump's case, we have an admission. A proud admission at that. Bragging about it! That + 31 separate accusers...

I don't recall many if any left-wing avatars here defending or denying Clinton's Behavior. I will readily acknowledge and explain in great detail why Trump's is materially far worse, but it doesn't excuse Clinton for grossly inappropriate behavior that, fortunately for him, was adjudged under different standards 20 years ago.

At most, I think leftists hear dispute whether or not Clinton deserve to be impeached for such Behavior, because as much as we can go on about how it was allegedly perjury, etc etc, the underlying case and support of the accusers were heavily funded bye far right-wing billionaires and well-funded legal Networks, which is an absolute verifiable quantifiable fact, explicitly designed to trap Clinton in just such a situation. And Slick Willy, to his Everlasting shame as a husband, president, and person, walked merrily through that door dick first.

But I digress. Few if anyone hear defends or denies Clinton's actions. I think the only dispute is whether or not 20 years ago he deserved peachman for it. And that doesn't Begin by even a scintillas breath 2 justify either denial or defense of Trumps Reckless I can get away with anything to the point of bragging about it on National radio recidivist sexual battery and voyeurism.

Trump has also admitted to bribing civic officials as a property developer.  He even claimed in the campaign that his knowledge of how to use and abuse the system made him the ideal person to clean it up.

[HisGrace]

If this were some evil white male talking about killing black people or Muslims there wouldn't be all this deflection and people saying he wasn't really a threat so it is no big deal.

Trump is bad, the alt right is bad, this guy is bad. I can have all those opinions at the same time.

[Badger]

If this were some evil white male talking about killing black people or Muslims there wouldn't be all this deflection and people saying he wasn't really a threat so it is no big deal.

Trump is bad, the alt right is bad, this guy is bad. I can have all those opinions at the same time.

( thinks about it)

Hey! Me Too!

[HisGrace]

And the Democrats wonder why white voters are fleeing more to the GOP, despite their flaws.

Democrats think they have the moral ground, they don't. Neither party has.

All both parties have is racial grievances.

I know a lot on the left here will defend him, because "whites must reckon with their privileged lives"

Bronz, I know you deeply enjoy racebaiting, but cut the sh**t. No one here has defended him.

Deflecting is a form of defending someone these days. IDK why it's so hard to acknowledge that this isn't a good thing to do and move on.

[Calthrina950]

This much is true. There is a serious double standard that seems to exist in these kinds of cases.

Yes, the double standard is from Republicans, who decide whether they believe accusers not by a careful examination of the facts like Democrats do, but whether the accused is a Republican or a Democrat.

If Franken, Conyers, or that Nevada congressman whose name escapes me were Republicans, they would still be in Congress and would be widely supported by Republicans here and nationwide.

Would they? I doubt it. The double standard has been found within both parties. Unfortunately, most of the left-leaning posters on here like to bathe themselves in the pool of righteousness, and think that the Democrats are blameless, doing no wrong.

[DrScholl]

And the Democrats wonder why white voters are fleeing more to the GOP, despite their flaws.

Democrats think they have the moral ground, they don't. Neither party has.

All both parties have is racial grievances.

I know a lot on the left here will defend him, because "whites must reckon with their privileged lives"

Bronz, I know you deeply enjoy racebaiting, but cut the sh**t. No one here has defended him.

Deflecting is a form of defending someone these days. IDK why it's so hard to acknowledge that this isn't a good thing to do and move on.

No one has said these remarks were good. Maybe that is what some people are seeing in their heads, but it's not reality. And this guy isn't a leader of the Democratic Party like some people are trying to pretend. This is some random person who has no political power whatsoever, so it's not really relevant to directly or indirectly compare him to political figures.

[7,052,770]

If this were some evil white male talking about killing black people or Muslims there wouldn't be all this deflection and people saying he wasn't really a threat so it is no big deal.

Trump is bad, the alt right is bad, this guy is bad. I can have all those opinions at the same time.

Virtually all liberals will agree will all 3 of those statements

[Fuzzy Bear]

If this were some evil white male talking about killing black people or Muslims there wouldn't be all this deflection and people saying he wasn't really a threat so it is no big deal.

Trump is bad, the alt right is bad, this guy is bad. I can have all those opinions at the same time.

Virtually all liberals will agree will all 3 of those statements

Then let them say this.

I'm not sure every red avatar agrees here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm going to stay as far as possible from this dumpster fire of a thread, but as a TA myself, I find it absolutely hilarious that he's being called a "professor".

[Badger]

If this were some evil white male talking about killing black people or Muslims there wouldn't be all this deflection and people saying he wasn't really a threat so it is no big deal.

Trump is bad, the alt right is bad, this guy is bad. I can have all those opinions at the same time.

Virtually all liberals will agree will all 3 of those statements

Then let them say this.

I'm not sure every red avatar agrees here.

I don't have this entire thread memorized verbatim, but I'm not sure there's any actual empirical evidence of that here in.

However, it's a huge distinction from hordes of conservatives defending those snotty little Covington students in the other thread.

[Sestak]

I'm going to stay as far as possible from this dumpster fire of a thread, but as a TA myself, I find it absolutely hilarious that he's being called a "professor".

but narrative.

[Hollywood]

Boy the MAGA kids harassing the Native Americans thread really triggered you Hollywood

The story in that thread was another Democrat lie. This is a true story about a racist in our collegiate institution. 

[Hollywood]

And the Democrats wonder why white voters are fleeing more to the GOP, despite their flaws.

Democrats think they have the moral ground, they don't. Neither party has.

All both parties have is racial grievances.

I know a lot on the left here will defend him, because "whites must reckon with their privileged lives"

Bronz, I know you deeply enjoy racebaiting, but cut the sh**t. No one here has defended him.

Deflecting is a form of defending someone these days. IDK why it's so hard to acknowledge that this isn't a good thing to do and move on.

Exactly the point of this thread.  Conservatives are supposed to defend every moron that makes a slightly inappropriate remark about any race, gender, ethnicity, etc.  They're suppose to condemn and disassociate.   It only becomes a ridiculous standard when you hold Democrats accountable for bigoted remarks. 

[Badger]

And the Democrats wonder why white voters are fleeing more to the GOP, despite their flaws.

Democrats think they have the moral ground, they don't. Neither party has.

All both parties have is racial grievances.

I know a lot on the left here will defend him, because "whites must reckon with their privileged lives"

Bronz, I know you deeply enjoy racebaiting, but cut the sh**t. No one here has defended him.

Deflecting is a form of defending someone these days. IDK why it's so hard to acknowledge that this isn't a good thing to do and move on.

Exactly the point of this thread.  Conservatives are supposed to defend every moron that makes a slightly inappropriate remark about any race, gender, ethnicity, etc.  They're suppose to condemn and disassociate.   It only becomes a ridiculous standard when you hold Democrats accountable for bigoted remarks. 

Ahem. Just one Teensy tiny point about this matter if I can briefly interject....


ABSOLUTELY NO ONE DEFENDED THIS TWAT! NO ONE! NOOOOOO ONNNNNNNNNNE! YOU ARE HAVING A VICTIMIZATION PITY PARTY DISPITE NO ONE DISAGREEING THIS TA IS A TWAT!!!

The MOST you've gotten is the fact that no one particularly cares that some nameless ta in Academia, who is quite rightly never going to even Teach as an adjunct for some Community College because of this, pales in comparison to Republican after Republican after Republican after Republican, some admittedly small fry County Central Committee Schmucks, some significantly higher-ranking, oh, and let's not forget the freaking elected head of the Republican party and president of the United States, is consistently horrid, but forgiven for it by your type because, I dunno, white power?

Everyone here on the left agrees this guy is a racist a******* and want nothing to do with him.

Okay, now your turn with Trump. We're waiting.

[Famous Mortimer]

I made a comment about how college lectures are the first step towards normalization of violence against white people. It was deleted for "excessive hyperbole".

Yet just this week we have seen journalists at major news organizations calling for a white teenager to be beaten because he smiled.

If anything, my comment was too conservative.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Yet just this week we have seen journalists at major news organizations calling for a white teenager to be beaten because he smiled.

Reported for blatant lying.

[Famous Mortimer]

Reza Aslan, who works for CNN, said the kid had a "punchable face". Erik Abriss, a reporter for NY Mag, said he hoped the teenager and his entire family would die.

[Badger]

Reza Aslan, who works for CNN, said the kid had a "punchable face". Erik Abriss, a reporter for NY Mag, said he hoped the teenager and his entire family would die.

Aslan was fired from CNN in 2017, FYI. Real dick move by him. Abaris was fired for his tweet.

It looks like the left is getting rid of and failing to defend these assholes. Your turn now with Trump. We'll wait.

[Devout Centrist]

Morty, I know you’re itching for a race war, but certain fringe elements have been saying stuff like this since Nat Turner’s rebellion.

This TA is a vile scumbag. All people who preach genocide are.

[DrScholl]

I made a comment about how college lectures are the first step towards normalization of violence against white people. It was deleted for "excessive hyperbole".

Yet just this week we have seen journalists at major news organizations calling for a white teenager to be beaten because he smiled.

If anything, my comment was too conservative.

What channel was this on? Which newspapers? And let's just dismiss the idea that just smiling is not harassment. You can harass people without saying a word. Getting up in their face is enough. That isn't to say he should be beaten up, but he clearly shouldn't be framed a good person.

[Famous Mortimer]

Morty, I know you’re itching for a race war, but certain fringe elements have been saying stuff like this since Nat Turner’s rebellion.

This TA is a vile scumbag. All people who preach genocide are.

I've never advocated for a race war. If I wanted a race war I would support the political left and agenda of white disenfranchisement to force white people's hand.

I want a de-escalation of anti-white rhetoric and anti-white policies, to de-escalate racial tension generally.