And it certainly doesn’t make any claims to genetics.
Everyone who has a masters has an undergrad. I don’t feel superior to anyone because I have one. I don’t often feel any need to point out academic accomplishments unless I’m interviewing for a job or something.
I have friends who high school diplomas who I believe can do all sorts of things I wish I could. In many aspects of life I feel inferior to them.
From the guy that never leaves. I can smell your bed sores through my monitor.
Seems like he has a long ways to go. I mean it’s not like our current President said our last President was a foreign born Muslim. Said Mexico is bringing rapists and drug dealers.
Called other places shithole countries. Said people in Congress need to go back where they are from (which is here). Said actual Nazi’s were good people.
You’re going to have a hard time convincing anyone Bernie has been more inflammatory than Trump. However my guess would be you agree with Trump on most issues and view him as speaking the truth and not being divisive?
White supremacists have said they support Trump because he speaks like one of them.
This isn’t someone running for President who probably won’t win. This is someone who is President.
I was explicitly asked if I had attended college LOL.
I mean seriously, I have been trying to remain civil, as I am interested in this topic.
I am ASKED about my own academics, I reply and you then state I am being obnoxious and superior by mentioning my education. I was asked! I also CLEARLY stated, I thought it was irrelevant to the topic at hand!
I have made probably 10 very detailed posts in this thread, and 80-90% of them are completely ignored so that some poster can come and dispute the most minor detail all while totally ignoring the 90% of it.
I have made very broad discussion points about many, many aspects of America and the level of response hasn’t exactly been up to much. As usual, it has descended again into you’re an incel/WS/racist/arrogant/troll/etc.
You haven’t answered the other aspects regarding Sanders, O’Rourke or Omar.
I am ambivalent toward Trump.
I know I was saying you don’t need to say you have a masters and an undergrad because if you have a masters then or course you have the other. I was saying I never bring up my academic accomplishments in real life personally unless it is needed for something.
I also have no idea why people would want them on the internet. It’s not like we can’t lie about everything on here. I’m an awful bencher with horrid numbers. But I can be a good one on here if I just say I am.
I’m not saying you’re lying btw.
I would also point out that you’ve done your fair share of ignoring as well. I detailed what I viewed as inaccurate views from you on education and on white nationalism and you didn’t reply to either until I asked you yet again.
But back to Webster’s definition of white nationalism and why we should support it if you would like to answer:
I can get to other stuff as I’m home now. You seem to want to ignore what I said about Trump and want to discuss the Dem candidates. I don’t think that’s very fair.
You pointed out that Bernie was inflammatory in your opinion. I countered with the dictionary definition of white nationalist. You said people get it wrong and said it means something different than what the dictionary said. It make sense to me to use the dictionary definition. Does it not to you? Does Webster’s have an anti white agenda like you believe American public schools have?
I point out instances of what I believe are incredibly inflammatory remarks from the current President not just one of a ton of candidates and you dismiss it all as you are ambivalent about what the current President says? Instead you would just like to discuss Dems?
You’ve been saying you want insult free discussion and points made against what you’ve said. I may be behind now as I was gone but I’m not going to bother trying if I need to respond to all you say and you pick and choose with me. I think that’s fair don’t you?
And, it’s back.
You’re a troll. It doesn’t matter what anyone says, you will say it’s irrelevant. You will say that no one has been able to contradict any of your points. You will claim you have won the internet. You’re a troll.
Change my mind.
That’s a weird thing to bring up to support your point. So I guess we should ignore all the changes to documents that took place since then? Making slavery illegal? Giving women the right to vote? Etc? It should all be whatever the 1790 act states? Which was then changed numerous times.
The changes made were made by white people put in power by white voters. They ended slavery legally. They gave people who couldn’t vote the right to do so. You’re complaining about things that white people did that they thought were just, fair, and would improve the nation.
So if you want to know who to blame for this country not being a white utopia the answer is simple. White people decided they didn’t want that here. You seem to want to go against the will of Americans to create something the majority of Americans reject. And the majority of white Americans at that.
This is a weak point I feel. It hasn’t been the same year in and year out you can easily look it up. So what’s the right amount? Is 94.3 good? If it drops to 94.1 what happens? How do you determine the right amount. From your posts you seem to think 100 is the right amount. But people don’t feel like you so it won’t happen. Your view isn’t even shared by the vast majority of people who are white man.
But stopping immigration wouldn’t keep it constant. What if the white people who are here start having less kids? And the Asians, Hispanics, and blacks remain the same. The number is changing and it’s bad you say. What do we do? Do we kill those people? Make it illegal to marry someone who isn’t your race? Have the government put limits on non white births?
And note, the troll will answer questions that he can lie about it, like education. He won’t answer questions that force him to use any sort of independent thinking or require a deep understanding of the issues. An example is Haiti. He brought it up and I demonstrated that I actually know more about its history than he. So he ignores it because he can’t engage in a back and forth discussion that would require he knows what he is talking about.
It has already been proven that he made up the 95% figure. He admitted that.
It has also been proven that there were blacks who could vote back when the nation was formed while there were whites who couldn’t. He’s a troll so he ignores it.
America was created by white for whites.
If this is the case why did the people who created the founding documents of the country not explicitly say so? And why did they make the founding documents of the country something that people could change? Why did they not get rid of all non whites?
Why did they let blacks vote? Why did they not let poor whites vote?
Thanks for the reasonable response, seems I went overboard in my defence.
Sorry could you repeat the point on WN, I have been otherwise occupied.
Whatever the dictionary states is fine with me, I can’t recall the point you were making.
I am ambivalent toward Trump in the sense that you seemed to suggest I was a definite supporter.
My views on Trump’s comments are they are nothing in comparison to Sanders. Sanders has used a race and the word war in the same sentence. It is fair to assume that is a literal threat to kill whites.
Trump is a ridiculous character. Nobody takes him seriously. He could say he was gonna nuke Africa next week and I doubt event the most ardent WS Trump fanatic would raise an eyebrow.
Of course, he’s a Jew.
Of course you wouldn’t.
I feel your last few points are too tangential for me to respond to in a meaningful way. No I don’t think all laws are irrelevant and your point on 95% or 94.3% was similar. So was your questioning as to why the Founding Fathers didn’t add certain things to the Constitution.
No, you are just a troll.