KKK-ENDORSED Laura Ingraham’s Anti-Immigrant Rant Was So Racist It Was Endorsed by Ex-KKK Leader Dav

"Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis and white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans" -DT

 

Yes, after a year, Fake Don was shamed into finally mouthing the disavowal of his neo-nazi and other white supremacists followers who hail him as their "Glorious Leader!" and "God Trump Emperor!"

Now, the pertinent question is, "Will he continue to follow their agenda and command their allegiance, or will he stop doing what has endeared him to them?"

 

You haven't evidenced how calling demographic change a "national emergency" implies "white supremacy." You won't be able to because it doesn't. Taken in full context of Ingraham's comments and subsequent, context conveniently omitted by LW media, the "white supremacist" narrative falls apart like toilet paper in the rain:

“There is something slipping away in this country and it’s not about race or ethnicity..."

"All white nationalists, and especially one racist freak whose name I will not even mention, you do not have my support, you don't represent my views, and you are antithetical to the beliefs I hold dear."

Some "dog whistle."

/thread

Though I doubt race-baiters will agree. They don't give up their hateful, race-baiting lie narratives easily.

Facile. What you distorted was one opinion as -evidence- of anything, not the substance of the opinion itself. But you know this full well and are once again playing obtuse. You have done lots of that in posts to this thread.

OP claims "KKK... Ingraham...KKK" based not on any content of what Ingraham said at all. She made no "white supremacist" claims or direct statements, none, as a matter of fact and not opinion. Thread argument of dog whistle racism is based rather on -inference- from those words, making the above erroneous. Calling those inferences into question by suggesting an alternate reason (misogyny against female conservatives) as to why race-baiters are inferring the racist content is not a red herring, as much as you'd like it to be. Or rather, you were just attacking Ingraham for being a female conservative, same error.

You still haven't made an argument, right or wrong. "referencing changing demographics" + "Trump base" = "racism" is not an argument, just a very shaky opinion. Since Ingraham's words posted above directly contradict that opinion, surely you'll be changing it soon.

 

yeah but they're not really going after black so I don't buy that. They were going after drug crimes the purpose was to go after drug crimes.

you kids still just not do crack in the black can not suffer any consequences.

well my claim is negative that is its doubting your claim that nothing changed in 54 years.

it's a negative claim kind of like claiming that leprechauns don't exist I don't have to show proof that leprechauns don't exist you have to show proof that they do.

There simply is no evidence that systemic racism is still a problem.

the history is history and this isn't 1959. I don't have to prove to you something doesn't exist you have to prove that it does.

And I'm with you on court sentencing sentences seem to be harsher on black people but that's it.

 

That particular quote was not the one he made this year but was from a year ago and he made several others before that. He condemned the 20 person pathetic march this year as well.

 

they're not seeing it they are imagining it

we are cheap that 45 years ago. The only place I see that we could use some improvement is in sentencing of convicted people our courts seem to be harsher on black people.

the charge of rape carries with it severe penalties. So it's imprisonment.

that depends on who you ask but I seriously doubt the soldiers who were often very young men and poor would fight for rich people's rights to keep slaves.

apparently it's privilege. That's what some people tell me either you don't want me to have this imaginary privilege or you want it as well.

slavery was solved 150 years ago before your grandparents were born. So that isn't the problem that ever touched your life. Segregation was solved 50 years ago maybe you're in your 60s and you were a 10 year old boy and faced segregation and that sucks but it's over now. Maybe you're in your 30s and your parents did but it's still over now.

The only thing you face now is a higher likelihood of getting a longer sentence if you get convicted of a crime. And that's wrong. We should change that.

I wouldn't concern myself with the klan if anything I would celebrate their demise. But the party seems a little late.

in this day in age that's what white privilege is. We can't use the crutch that there was racism so we have to take responsibility for ourselves or fail.

certainly not every black person lives in the ghetto but the only ones that get out of it are the ones who quit making excuses of why they can't succeed.

So you don't know what's black culture is? I can't help you if you're willfully blind go driving to a poor black neighborhood and look at all the vibrant businesses and the Beautiful Homes. And pay special attention to the amazing diversity.

 

A significant factor in court sentencing is recidivism.

 

I don't think a black person is any more likely then a white person who is convicted of a crime to do the crime again.

 

Frontline just aired an excellent exposé of the current upsurge of white supremacists in America and their enthusiasm for their "Glorious Leader"'s agenda.

 

Not exactly. This is from her subsequent speech. Like I said before, Ingraham has to walk a tightrope just to get bronze placement to Hanity and Carlson at FOX, and she slipped off trying to win over that Trump base. Damage control is damage control, and she has now has to denounce racism to get back up on that tightrope, and not risk more advertisers.

So to be clear, you're changing claims from I distorted his opinion to, one guy doesn't prove anything? That's fair. I'm just saying, it was an excellent demonstration of my hypothesis.

Here's my reasoning:

-Study shows that Trump’s base, his most reliable voters, his largest voting block’s (uneducated, white, Christian, males) greatest predictor of voting for Trump is fear of losing social status in the nation (Take our country back).

-Ingraham, a third place commentator (at best) at FOX, needs this base on her side.

-Ingraham, makes a purposefully vague, cryptic commentary, about a ‘national emergency’ of ‘demographic change’ that she and other Americans ‘do not like’ and says ‘much of this relates to’ immigration. No indication of what the rest of this relates to. --
-Our own test case, one of our own posters here, tells us that what he heard from Ingraham is reference to racial demographics, or specifically policy to make whites a minority. A perfect demonstration of the validity of my hypothesis.

Your rebuttal to all of this is ‘people on the left don’t like conservative female commentators’. So, let’s do the red-herring test: If I assume that this is true, and the criticism is simply due to left-wingers being angry because Ingraham is conservative and female, how would that refute any item in my argument?

There's my argument above. Point for point.

 

"Black offenders had the highest recidivism rate after five years — 80.8% compared with 73.1% among whites and 75.3% among Hispanics"
https://www.businessinsider.com/department-of-justice-report-shows-high-recidivism-rate-2014-4
A Florida study found that "black inmates are 43.6% more likely to reoffend than non-blacks". One theory postulates the environment many re-enter after leaving the prison system.

 

I'm not talking about averages. During the sentencing phase of a trial you do do not take in the average amount of people who share some arbitrary characteristic for recidivism.

 

[/QUOTE]
Mainstream media has done its best to prop up and sensationalize this resurgence in racism, but the last "march" clearly demonstrated how pathetic the actual movement is.

 

Yeah they were hoping and praying for a bigger turnout for that thing then they really got.

People who are right wing don't go to unite the right they're probably at work. Lol

 

[/QUOTE]
Saw it. Excellent piece, hopefully some much needed prosecutions will ensue.

 

You do take into account whether a person has committed crimes in the past. Because blacks are more likely to have committed crimes in the past then on average this will cause an increase in the sentencing for those with previous criminal histories.

 

If you are unable to deal with documented reality that does not mindlessly venerate your Trump, I cannot help you.

The Traditionalist Worker Party (TWP) is a neo-Nazi, white nationalist group based in the United States.
Established in 2013 by Matthew Heimbach under the name Traditionalist Youth Network,
the group promotes white separatism and a white supremacist view of Christianity.

“He’s opened up a door. His movement has opened up a door.
But it’s up to us to take the initiative.”​

 

only if past criminal history is admissible in court and generally it isn't

 

"After showing videotape of Trump from last August trying to create a moral equivalence between the Neo-Nazis and counter-protesters, saying there was “blame on both sides,”

I don't know who or what David Zurawik is (actually I know he is an anti civil libertarian lackey for Big Brother) but the idea that there isn't blame for both sides in Charlottesville is frankly sickening. There sure as hell is!
That's fact! Not moral equivalence.

And such rationalizing for the benefit of the thugs in Antifa who attack police, news people and innocent bystanders amounts to condoning evil and validates the old story about getting a tiger to get rid of a bothersome dog. Zurawik, and the person who cited him, is okay seemingly with the criminals in Antifa because they oppose Nazis.

We virtually all do. That doesn't mean we give a pass to the little commie/anarchist criminals in Antifa, however. They are BOTH responsible for the carnage in Charlottesville and their recent performance over the weekend tells most people they are even worse than far right boogeymen that are a useful tool for the radicals in Antifa.

Without the specter of Nazis as a clear and present danger, in reality they are a tiny, tiny contingent of cranks and morons with no power at all except that the left gives them, there would be no Antifa. Perhaps that's what David Zurawik likes.

 

No one denies that a handful of these idiots still exist out there. Fortunately they are now rare and condemned, often outcasts to American society.

 

"These evidentiary rules do not apply in the punishment phase of a criminal trial. Article 37.07, § 3(a)(1) allows for an open season on a defendant’s criminal history and prior misconduct. The prosecution may offer, and the trial judge has virtual unlimited discretion to admit, evidence of past crimes and/or bad acts."

https://www.johntfloyd.com/extraneous-offense-evidence-during-punishment/

 

Well I guess that makes sense.

Makes me wonder what the stats are as far as sentencing upon first offense.

 

How did you feel about former KKK leader Robert Byrd when he agreed with the message of the democrats?

I don't get it, why do you people never think ahead?

 

It's odd to see the OP supporting illegal immigrants. Last I checked, blacks and Mexicans hated each other. Ah, nevermind, I almost forgot it was midterms.

 

The differences appear to be quite significant:

Methamphetamine, 5-49 grams pure or 50-499 grams mixture
1st offense - Minimum 5 years in prison, maximum 40 years. Minimum 20 years in prison and maximum of life if serious bodily injury or death occur. Fine of up to $5,000,000 for individual, up to $25,000,000 if not an individual.

2nd offense - Minimum 10 years in prison, maximum life imprisonment. Life in prison if serious bodily injury or death occur. Fine of up to $8,000,000 for individual, up to $50,000,000 if not an individual.

https://www.michigan-drug-attorney.com/federal-drug-crimes-1st-2nd-and-3rd-offenses.html