The Racist Liberal Attack on Kanye West

An American entertainer made a statement supporting his president. Doesn’t seem like news to you? In the age of the liberal freakout, think again.

Here is what Kanye said:

President Trump will do the things that are necessary … he wants to be the greatest president, and he knows that he can’t be the greatest president without the acceptance of the black community. So it’s something he’s gonna work towards, but we’re gonna have to speak to him.

Do you think it is controversial?

Justin Trudeau Private Tantrum Over Trump, Trade

President Trump won a great victory when he finished negotiations with Mexico on a new, better trade deal for America. But petty Canadian prime minister Trudeau spoiled the announcement by rejecting the deal. He’s probably just jealous and wants attention.

Trump’s reaction was priceless. Take the deal, or leave it. It is so refreshing to have a real leader in the White House again who negotiates from a posture of strength.

Ask a Politician: I hate both Trump and Clinton. What should I do?

I’ll assume your question is honest.

First, if you hate both it stands to reason that you’re in the middle of the political spectrum, neither a right wing or left wing ideologue, but more of a pragmatic moderate.

Which means you can use nonpartisan factchecking sites like Fact-checking U.S. politics | PolitiFact and I suggest you look up both candidates on those sites to weigh the truthfulness of the claims they’ve made—and of the claims made against them by the other side.

One telling item was an article in the New York Times about a check PolitiFact did on both candidate’s public statements. It found that Clinton lied 28% of the time, while Trump lied 76% of the time. That’s a big, big difference.

It’s easy to find hit pieces on both candidates in the partisan media, so I look for sources that seem more trustworthy on a given topic.

For example, here’s a detailed article on Trump’s business dealings in Fortune Magazine (source of the Fortune 500 list), a longstanding business publication that’s read by captains of industry:

How Donald Trump Made Millions Off His Biggest Business Failure

Here’s the article’s conclusion:

“No amount of spin will make Trump’s dozen years at the helm of a Trump Hotels, the only public company Trump has ever run, look like anything but a flop that damaged thousands of shareholders, bondholders, and workers. The sole “winner” now packs arenas across America, mesmerizing tens of thousands of cheering fans with tales of his business triumphs.”

And here’s an equally detailed article from the Washington Post listing and describing authoritative Republicans who have decided to vote for Clinton instead of Trump:

Here’s the growing list of big-name Republicans supporting Hillary Clinton

And on CNN:

Republicans for Hillary?

In foreign policy, Politico reports this:

“More than 100 Republican foreign policy elites signed a March open letteropposing Trump on the grounds that he is unqualified to oversee American national security — a searing concern that Trump has not assuaged with his shifting statements on foreign policy and unfamiliarity with basic issues. In a sign that Trump has largely failed since the end of primary season to win over reluctant critics within his party, at least a dozen of those people now say they expect to cast a ballot for Clinton.”

Read more:…

I haven’t been able to find equally authoritative reportage of Democratic officials saying they’ll be voting for Trump.

Hope this helps resolve your delimma.

Just remember, not voting for one = voting for the other. It’s like the story about two campers in Alaska with a Grizzly bear poking its nose in the tent. One camper starts putting on his shoes. The other says “What are you doing? You can’t outrun a Grizzly.” The other replies “I don’t have to outrun the Grizzly.”

Get it?

Trump zealots will think this image is terrific, and clever too. Others will find it means Trump looks a lot like Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish president who’s currently imprisoning many tens of thousands of political opponents, using an abortive military coup as pretext. Calling for the imprisonment of political foes—whatever the basis—threatens democracy, causing visions of 3rd world countries exercising “Victor’s Justice.”

Which political opinions make you angry?

That hate and violence and destroying people’s lives is ok as long as you are holding the “right” political views and you sorta-maybe suspect your opposing group for being whatever thing that was really bad in the past… (such as fascist).

Apparently today, if you align with personal freedom then you’re a fascist…

Here’s the definition of a fascist:…

Definition of fascism

  1. often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
  2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial controlearly instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge


\ˈfa-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective, often capitalized


\fa-ˈshi-stik also -ˈsi-\ adjective, often capitalized

When you call someone who stands for freedom of expression/choice/speech and rights for the individual, not groups… a fascist… You can not avoid making yourself look like a fool because that’s completely different from what a fascist really is.

But that’s not the important message. The important message is that your ideology is NEVER ever “the right one”… I wouldn’t even dare believe that about my own… But at least I conduct my discourse peacefully. I do not condone violence or using force against dissenters… which is more in line with fascism than supporting the “wrong” ideology is.

It really really angers me, that people have so much malice and evil inside them that they would cause others violence and ruin their lives, try to take away heir means of supporting themselves, practically forcing them into poverty… all because they didn’t agree.

Shifting people’s views and mentality takes time and effort… and peace. You cant beat people over the head with your ideology and expect them not to resist you…

You cant threaten people with forcing them to be poor just because they didn’t understand your political view and not expect them to fight you.

if you threaten people’s basic needs such as safety and the need for survival(food, shelter, water)… You trigger their basic animal survival instincts. They will fight. You will be creating your own war. It’s basic psychology. If you want people to stop acting like animals, step one is to stop treating them like one.. or at least not triggering their animal instincts, which is rather involuntary when faced with real danger.

Here’s the thing, if your ideology cannot survive without consistent violence and threats and force… You do not deserve it at all.

People can be ignorant as hell. But logic, compassion and sympathy will usually win them over. Show people love. Show people that you believe in the best intentions.. rather than having automatic suspicion to everyone. Stop violence.

In the end… all our ideologies are wrong. They always always are… 10000 years from now, our future generations will look at us as barbarians who fought over whether green or blue is the best color… Because their ideology will likely have evolved so far, that all ideologies today will be looked upon with such flaws that none of them are defendable… Therefore I feel debate, discussion and continuous observation and self-criticism is the key to getting everyone on board with something that benefits everyone…. Look for the non zero sum games 🙂

People are stupid… Sometimes they infuriate them… But I try force myself to be in their shoes… to understand their plight.. and realize they aren’t horrible human beings… Rarely anyone is… We’re all just deeply flawed. Only a low percent of the population is iredeemably evil.

Anyway yea… Show peace and love… 🙂 rage and hate just breeds rage and hate. Leave the bats and hatches at home.

Why do people get so angry, defensive, and offended over politics?

Well for one, many of their political beliefs (including the ones littered with absolutes and nonsensical animosities) were basically coerced into their subconscious thought processes at a young age before they could develop the critical thinking skills to resist and question those beliefs. As a result, they went all through life viewing the world from narrow but penetrating perspectives that caused them to scour acutely for evidence that supports their beliefs with telescope-precision—while ignoring the mountains of evidence that might exist in the peripheral.

They become highly proficient at finding evidence that supports their ludicrous beliefs but their viewpoints are so constricted that they can’t see the forest for the trees.

Using the ladder of inference to support my point, their instilled beliefs cause them to continually select data that supports and reinforces those beliefs and that cycle only perpetuates.

Also, the more time someone invests in their beliefs and their way of viewing the world, the more traumatic it would be for them to examine evidence that proves they potentially wasted years, decades, possible the majority of their lives, chasing a pipe dream. They would have to come to grips that their numerous criticisms and denunciations of people they disagreed with were probably ill-conceived and needlessly harmful to others.

That thought is too upsetting for many people so they continue to follow the line of least resistance and reinforce their existing beliefs—doubly and triply so when someone confronts them with objectivity or worse…substantiated and observable evidence that’s contrary to what they want to be true.

What are some politically incorrect opinions you hold?

Going anonymous on this one since I have relationships to keep up.

  • Islam is not a religion of peace

A peaceful religion would not oppress women by forcing them to cover up completely and forcing them to be obedient housewives while allowing their husbands to hit them if they fear disobedience, oppress non-muslims by forcing them to either convert or pay jizya, kill gays, kill critics of the religion, kill adulterers, kill anyone who leaves the religion, kill people guilty of blasphemy.

A prophet of a religion of peace wouldn’t marry and f*uck a 9 year-oldtorture and kill a man (Kinana ibn al-Rabi) and abduct and marry his wiferaid caravans and kill the unsuspecting drivers, or take sex slaves

(Quran 33:50 *”O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee,…”
Quran 23:1–6 “Successful indeed are the believers. Those who offer their Salat (prayers) with all solemnity and full submissiveness. And those who turn away from Al-Laghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk, falsehood, and all that Allah has forbidden). And those who pay the Zakat. And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts). Except from their wives or (the captives and slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame.”)

And honestly there would be 1000 more cases against Islam, but noone would read the whole thing anyway.

For further information, I think Mike Muluk’s answer to Do you agree that “ISIS is practicing pure Islam as Mohammed did in 7th century Arabia”? Why? is very insightful.

  • Abortion isabsolutely morally disgusting

Patrick Tomlinson is an idiot on this. On Twitter, he published a thought experiment that supposedly “no pro-lifer could answer honestly”, and it went something like this:

You are in a burning building. You enter a room – in one corner is a crying five year old child, in the other a container with 100 viable fetuses. The smoke starts getting thicker, you know you can only save one.

And according to pro-choicers, if you save the child it proves that you’re not really pro-life and that you simply want to control women, and if you save the fetuses you are immoral and disgusting for not saving the child.

Honestly – if you as a pro-lifer can’t dismantle such an obvious logical fallacy, you’re probably just not very strong on your arguments.

In real life, an abortion looks more like this:

You are in a safe, warm building. There is a container with a viable fetus in it, growing and developing peacefully. You run into the room with the container and kill the fetus.

That’s it. In 99% of cases, the abortion is not performed in a life or death situation, but simply for the convenience of the mother.

And it is true, it’s her body that is being used to grow the fetus, however:

(()The part highlighted in bold is indeed HER body


(()) The now highlighted part is NOT her body. It is an individual body, contained within her body. In most cases, it was her choice to open her legs (this doesn’t count for rape of course), and just because she can’t afford a child or simply doesn’t want it, she decides to kill it.

“But it’s just a tiny lump of cells!”

Humans are all a lump of cells, just of different sizes.

At what point exactly does a “lump of cells” turn into a baby?

What makes a baby inside the womb different to a baby outside the womb?

Actually, let me make a similar analogy to that from Patrick Tomlinson.

You have a little sister, let’s say about 5 years old. You’re her only living relative.

As you drive her home from school, you get into a serious accident. Your sister is severely injured, she’s in a coma, her brain barely shows any activity, and a machine simulates her heartbeat.

For some reason, you get to have her in your home, all with the necessary equipment. The doctors say that she will be in that coma for about 8 or 9 months, but it is almost certain that, after she wakes up, she will be completely fine and grow up to be happy and healthy.

However, for as long as she is in that state, you’ll have to keep her in a seperate room, look after her, and abstain from things like alcohol or drugs to make sure you can care for her before and after she wakes up.

Even if you can’t provide care for her after she wakes up, you have the option to give her to an institution in which she will be looked after.

Would it be okay for you to unplug her wires and kill her?

We already established the criteria which pro-lifers use to justify their opinion that a fetus is not a life and CAN be aborted: no brain activity, no heartbeat, and contained in your space. “My house my choice”.

Yet, most people’s answer to my above question would (hopefully) still be no.

And why?

Because the child is already born, and already lived some time. Because they’ll actually have to look at her face while killing her, or having her killed.

Because they care more about a child that they can see directly than an even younger child that they cannot see until they murdered it.