If they STILL support Trump I think we can agree that.. …..based on the mounting evidence of the unsuitability of Trump to lead the free world, one must conclude that those who are choosing to wilfully ignore, or too cheer on, his behaviour, have at least one prejudice that is being reinforced by the bigot that is Trump. And that prejudice is being fortified to such an extent they were not only willing to vote for a man who, on all the evidence, has absolutely none of the skills and attributes needed to be Commander in Chief, but continue to actively cheerlead his behaviour and his utter lack of competence. One, if being kind, may attribute a Trump vote to desperation, fear, ignorance, stupidity or anger. However, one can no longer be kind to those who continue to support Trump, for they are almost definitely going to be one (or more) of the following: A misogynist. Would someone who believes in gender equality ever truly be able to continue to support someone who is demonstrably sexist and sees women as possessions? Who dismisses sexual harassment in the work place? Make America Grope Again. Not all Trump supporters are misogynists. But pretty much all misogynists are Trump supporters. A racist. Would someone who believes in race equality and strives to bring about a fairer society for minority communities ever truly be able to support a man who accepts the panders to the white supremacist crowd, creates false equivalency when white terrorist Nazi’s march and kill, and is still a birther for crying out loud. Make America Great White Again. Not all Trump supporters are racists. But pretty much all racists are Trump supporters. Angry, white and fearful. Would someone who had the ability to navigate their way through the noise and hype ever be able to take this man seriously? His lack of single a coherent thought is not registering with a certain subset of the white community because they are angry and scared, and they are not going to take it anymore.... dammit. Not all Trump supporters are angry, white and fearful. But pretty much all those who are white and are excelling in emotional thinking right now because of anger and fear are Trump supporters. Has disdain for the constitution. Cheering stopping Muslims entering the country? Cheering transphobic bathroom laws? Excusing collusion and treachery? Cheering the attempted army trans ban? Not all Trump supporters have disdain for the constitution. But pretty much all those who do are Trump supporters. Now, I could go on; islamaphobe, isolationist, xenophobic, homophobe.......... Not all Trump supporters are these things but pretty much all who are those things are Trump supporters. Not all Trump supporters are all of the above, but pretty much all are at least one of the above. Shutting out all reason and the safety and security of not only America but the whole damned world, just because a racist bigot has given them permission to enjoy and feel secure in their prejudices. Just sayin’ Credits to the Twitter account to posted this https://twitter.com/share
College Dems leader resigns after declaring hatred of white men https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10152
Premise fail. Old school southern democrat (dixiecrat, dixie mafia) still hate Trump. The *most powerfull* racists never supported Trump.
I will be sure to make sure Louis Farakhan knows hes a Trump supporter. I just realized that Cigar just called himself a Trump supporter. Never would have imagined he would say that openly.
If mostly all racists are Trump Supporters, would that make mostly All Obama supporters Prejudiced to the Wealthy Class of The U.S? Did Obama give a false sense of Security to the middle and lower economic classes as to their fortitude in their prejudice against the Wealthy which the middle and lower classes might be fearful of releasing? From talks of 'No Prejudice' to 'No Racism' to 'No Biasness' to 'No Gender Discrimination' to 'Prejudice against the Wealthy' and 'Racism to the Elite White' to 'Screw the White Elite' to 'The Hetero White population is discriminatory'??? What a complete flip of what they themselves did not appreciate... Now it's them doing the 'attacking' when all along they were working on 'solving' the problem and not being part of the problem... This whole 'flip' in of itself is 'Prejudiced', 'Racist', 'Biased', 'Discriminatory' in that it is showing that mankind, in The U.S is nothing more than self seeking greeders who talk good but when it comes down to it, will do exactly what they said shouldn't be done. Maybe all the previous 'talk' of 'it is wrong' to be prejudice and all the 'talk' of it is 'wrong' to be judgmental, etc,, was nothing more than a cloak of envy for what the others possessed and what was being seen as possessing. When I said, 'they shouldn't judge me', maybe what I was saying was 'I wish I had what they have'. I can personally testify of this. When work was needed to purchase 'goods', I was envious of those that were employed. When no work was needed to receive 'goods', I was envious of those that didn't have to work to receive 'goods'. Both are envies to and of receiving 'goods'. The same applies to 'partying'.. When I needed to purchase my party 'drugs', I was envious of those that didn't have to purchase their party 'drugs'. And when I didn't have to purchase the party 'drugs', I was envious of those that were able to purchase the party 'drugs'. It's more like this. If you are outside the 'norm' of that place being in a life of unrighteousness, you will end up envying not being part of the 'norm' But the 'norm' is different everywhere you go. In some places, the 'norm' is to be very financially comfortable and to be complacent in that comfortability. And in other places, the 'norm' is 'flipped'. In some places, it is the 'norm' to be 'poorly' and less than median. In these places, being non poorly/above than median, of the 'norm' ,will cause you to feel as the odd man out just as being 'poorly' in affluent 'norms' will cause you to feel as the odd man out. But with God in my life, I neither have to envy the working class nor do I have to envy the non working class. I have become content; not complacent. So if the Entirety or majority of The U.S has sided themselves with the 'poorly/below median' 'norm', then it can be seen why many wealthy persons are beginning to feel prejudiced against. And this itself still is not understandable. Because even if this were true, how are monthly bills, monthly living expenses, etc,,, going to get paid so that the individual can go on 'living' in a world where monies are needed to pay off debts??? I might have been able to survive for a while under the median level and while living on the 'poorly' side of the economic scale, but when the necessity of having to pay for monthly bills begins to be a requirement again, what are those people who have grown complacent in their 'below median', 'poorly' economic environments going to do so they can be able to continue their thriving forward into their future? If such an opportunity was even given, the 'smarter' ones would have planned for their future instead of just living life like a party on the daily basis.. And still yet... Those that were 'prejudicing' against the 'wealthy', after they have entered into their lucrative job positions, might begin agreeing with the wealthy and they might begin 'leaving' their former ways of believing. It is not an enjoyable thing to work good hours only to have an acquaintance ask to borrow a portion of your earned income, time after time, paycheck after paycheck from 'good' hours.. getting an income through non 'good' hours... well those monies are spent and given as if they didn't come from any good thing... Such acquaintances need to be 'adopted' rather than befriended. 'Adopting' such a person would go against that person's 'natural/biological' immediate family and that person would have his/her own heart divided between 2 separate families. But realistically.... How many adult aged persons would anyone know who needs to be 'adopted' by another person? That is more of a disgraceful thought than a necessity to anyone. Seniors, or those who have reached past their age of self functionality, might need forms of 'human care' coming from other humans who are not in their immediate family, but for anyone who has not reached those years yet, they would be able to sustain and maintain their own daily functionalities and their own daily upkeeps. These persons would be the ones who would need to be assisted in their daily living as far as monies, supplies, purchases, assistances, etc... And and But when a person reaches their 'golden years' and has not any monetary 'nest', that would mean that they have squandered more than saved although they have lived healthily, up to their golden years. Most persons do not grow into their golden years without having had employment, self functionality, self perseverance. Looking at life from this perspective, I wonder if Christianity would be more beneficial if such a self determined, self sustainable person, were to become a Baptized Christian after he/she reached their retirement age(s) rather than before. You cannot serve God and mammon... A person might be able to be righteous while living with mammon but why would they desire to add such heavy responsibilities on top of their already heavy responsibility of having to be upright while living with and alongside mammon? That is twice the heavy work load... So maybe that is what the building called the Church is for. To remind, on a weekly basis, the necessity of remaining upright more so than learning about doctrines and theologies or even God...
Little doctrinal reminders and little theological reminders and even little Godly reminders of how good uprightness is in Church Services keeps the motivations, the joys, the hopes and determinations up and running well like a well running car engine.. The only thing that might be really 'MANDATORY' might be to keep yourself afloat in a world which is flooded with corruption and unrighteousness and dis-moral activities. But even this, isn't 'MANDATORY'... Anybody at Any time can, pretty much, join whichever 'group' they are interested in, especially in The U.S. I'm sure there are some stories of persons who left their well paying careers to join in with 'trouble makers' somewhere.
11 Inspiring Stories Of People Who Left Normal Life And Embarked On An Adventure 1. Jodi Ettenberg, Ex-Corporate Lawyer Now Traveling Food Blogger After five-plus years of working as a corporate lawyer in New York, Montrealer Jodi Ettenberg decided to pack it up and eat her way around the world for a year. Next thing she knew, one year turned into another and another, and she's now nearing six years of travel to faraway places. While she jokes that she "eats soup for a living", she's not too far off: Her site, Legal Nomads (which she started to keep her mother updated about her travels) houses photos of foods from around the world. Though Legal Nomads is unmonetized (she has turned down sponsored links or ads), Jodi supports herself with freelance writing, consulting work in social media, and, more recently, feeding her hungry eaters when they visit Saigon. https://www.buzzfeed.com/laraparker...-life-and-emba?utm_term=.lkoEwmyME#.dvM9Qoq29 These are NOT examples of what I am trying to get across. These persons left 'upright' lives for other 'upright' lives. What I am referring to are people who leave 'upright' lives for 'non-upright' lives. How ordinary people decide to become terrorists https://www.vox.com/2015/11/20/9764078/paris-terrorist-radicalization Would saying 'terrorism' is 'bad' be a discriminatory statement? Would it be in violation of U.S anti Discriminatory Guidelines? And would it apply in other Countries as well? Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or "inconvenient" as determined by government authorities or by community consensus. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. Censorship could be direct or indirect, in which case it is referred to as soft censorship.[citation needed] It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel. Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship Is Censorship the resulting necessity to having Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speech? The Law might say that I am unable to show 'live depictions' of children in sexual acts, but does The Law say that I am also unable to show 'paintings' or artistic portraits of such? Would censorship be needed to 'curb' my artistic work which is my own right to Freedom of Speech and of Press? The U.S Constitution gives me a Citizened Constitutional Right to Free Press and Free Speech. But what might the U.S Constitution NOT give me as far as Citizened Constitutional Rights are concerned? What personal 'rights' does the U.S Constitution have Precedence over? Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. https://usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html Is my right to post this painting up in School Hallways a violation to this Amendment? One last note: According to article 88 of the Syrian constitution, the president runs for a 7-year term after he is elected, and can only be reelected for one more term. (A total of 14 year(s)) Incumbent Bashar al-Assad since 17 July 2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Syria What is being, 'employed longer than allowed', called? Was he a 'dictator' of sorts during his rightful 14 year term or did he turn into a 'dictator' of sorts after his rightful 14 year term??? Why is it difficult for persons to step out of their 'Job' Seats AFTER their Job Tenure is completed? * i am not sure if this is correct, but i was told by some that the past U.S. President did not want to step out of his job seat also. Once again, i am not 100 percent sure if this is true. How any U.S. President would have been able to be serve in Office for 3 or 4 consecutive terms is confounding.
The only way someone can think only white people can be racist is if they live their lives hiding from the definition of racism in the dictionary.
Why does this matter? Who cares? I don't. It doesn't solve any of the issues talking about whose racist and who isn't. All it does is divide and creates and us vs them rather than looking for solutions.
These people only accuse whites of racism. They believe all unequal outcomes are caused by a worldwide white supremacist conspiracy theory without bothering to explore causes and contributors from elsewhere. In other words, so-called antiracism is anti-white racism. Before seeking supposed solutions to supposed racism, qualify that said racism even exists and isn't just another white conspiracy theory.
