Winning

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by punch it in

Doesn’t fit Creds agenda. Lol. His master has taught him well.....

Here is the question/response from youtube. He was respectful (to a far more degree then acosta was) but he called the question racist, i would say it was more race-baiting or race-loaded then racist but - he did answer the question - he was referring to himself as a nationalist(proud to be an american type of thing) vs a globalist not some supposed dog whistle of white nationalism - but again the question presupposes that he is a racist and was signalling others.

It is a race baiting question, because it has been asked and answered and the simple purpose of asking is to keep alive the implication that he is a racist.

[MTK]

What do you expect when you call yourself a nationalist FFS

Know the power of your words

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

What do you expect when you call yourself a nationalist FFS

Know the power of your words

No. A nationalist versus a globalist is a positional debate. (THAT THESE REPORTERS PROBABLY UNDERSTAND) Obama Bush 2 and the Clintons have been globalists that was the distinction he was making.

White nationalist or aryan pride type idiots are follower of the national SOCIALIST parties that are nothing at all similar to being a nationalist

Maybe history just isnt peoples strength but that doesnt make nationalism and pride in country a racist or bad thing. FFS

[MTK]

'I am a nationalist': Trump's embrace of controversial label sparks uproar

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...al/1748521002/

Look, if you’re going to use that term you should be able to calmly and respectfully explain your position. Acting annoyed with the question and straight up dismissing it as racist was a total cop out.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by MTK

'I am a nationalist': Trump's embrace of controversial label sparks uproar

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...al/1748521002/

Look, if you’re going to use that term you should be able to calmly and respectfully explain your position. Acting annoyed with the question and straight up dismissing it as racist was a total cop out.

I get that a month ago. But its been asked and answered and at some point the "journalists" ought to acknowledge they understand, instead they play dumb and try to goad an outburst from him and then get offended when he does.

The first time you ask me if i killed the puppy i will say no and explain i was in a different state. The second time you ask me i might be frustrated but i will show you my travel receipts. The 45th time you ask me i am going to assume you dont give a damn about what i really meant and am gonna go tell to get the hell out of my face.

[CRedskinsRule]

Or maybe journalists could stop assuming evil intent and help our nation heal by looking to positive reasons ie nationalism vs globalism instead the halcyon cry of racism.

Maybe when nearly half the country sees it a way other than they do and they want to be seen as helpers not haters they can report the more likely/less sinister motives of the general base and not try to exacerbate the division.

All the main politicians today ON both sides and including Trump laid out places where the parties can and likely will work together, and after as divisive a race as we just had on both sides thats a great thing, maybe the press could have followed suit for a day or two. Maybe.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Or maybe journalists could stop assuming evil intent and help our nation heal by looking to positive reasons ie nationalism vs globalism instead the halcyon cry of racism.

You don't get it, their job is to ask the questions and stop all "assumption"! When the person in charge can not handle the question and in turn attacks the interviewer there can be nothing more than assuming or assumption of lying or wrong doing and that is never for the good.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Or maybe journalists could stop assuming evil intent and help our nation heal by looking to positive reasons ie nationalism vs globalism instead the halcyon cry of racism.

Maybe when nearly half the country sees it a way other than they do and they want to be seen as helpers not haters they can report the more likely/less sinister motives of the general base and not try to exacerbate the division.

All the main politicians today ON both sides and including Trump laid out places where the parties can and likely will work together, and after as divisive a race as we just had on both sides thats a great thing, maybe the press could have followed suit for a day or two. Maybe.

This whole nationalism debate reminds me of the porch monkey thing from Clerks 2. The problem is you are trying to rebrand nationalism as "putting America first" whereas nationalism has already been co-opted by actual racist organizations as their rallying cry. Come up with your own term that racists aren't using and you won't have this issue.

Also if you don't catch the reference, take a wild guess who you are in this scenario:

[Giantone]

LOL, I can see the next few years around here are going to be fun.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

This whole nationalism debate reminds me of the porch monkey thing from Clerks 2. The problem is you are trying to rebrand nationalism as "putting America first" whereas nationalism has already been co-opted by actual racist organizations as their rallying cry. Come up with your own term that racists aren't using and you won't have this issue.

Also if you don't catch the reference, take a wild guess who you are in this scenario:

Just because you want to change the meaning of the nationalism to what you want it to mean...doesn't actually change the meaning of the word.

You realize that right?

Some of the left thinking seems to be trending into "thought police" territory.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Just because you want to change the meaning of the nationalism to what you want it to mean...doesn't actually change the meaning of the word.



You realize that right?



Some of the left thinking seems to be trending into "thought police" territory.

When it comes to Captain bigmouth yes. Stop acting like he does not use dog whistles to rally the racist part of his base because he needs their vote. Just stop. U r trending into “acting stupid” territory.
And are you actually lecturing us on changing the meaning of words? Didn’t u guys invent alternative facts?

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by punch it in

When it comes to Captain bigmouth yes. Stop acting like he does not use dog whistles to rally the racist part of his base because he needs their vote. Just stop. U r trending into “acting stupid” territory.
And are you actually lecturing us on changing the meaning of words? Didn’t u guys invent alternative facts?

This is what im talking about...we are in thought police territory.


Which is not surprising because in the age of social media people these days are allowed to take a tweet, post, comment, etc. and skew it, take it out of context, invent their own context, etc.

Critical thinking isn't a value of this medium. It also has allowed a bullying, mob mentality where personal freedom, freedom of speech is not valued.

Its very interesting...I find it ironic in many cases where those who rightfully call for the ending of discrimination would also call for the right to discriminate against thought/idea they disagree with. You want diversity, but not the diversity of ideas.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Just because you want to change the meaning of the nationalism to what you want it to mean...doesn't actually change the meaning of the word.

You realize that right?

Some of the left thinking seems to be trending into "thought police" territory.

I'm literally saying nationalism is most commonly thought of as a pc-alternative to white supremacy, and that's already what most people think of when they hear the term. You and Cred are the ones trying to turn "nationalism" into "pro-Americanism".

Your president said "I am a nationalist." His non-racist supporters hear "I am pro-America", his racist supporters hear "I support racism" and his non-supporters hear "I support racism."

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

I'm literally saying nationalism is most commonly thought of as a pc-alternative to white supremacy, and that's already what most people think of when they hear the term. You and Cred are the ones trying to turn "nationalism" into "pro-Americanism".

Your president said "I am a nationalist." His non-racist supporters hear "I am pro-America", his racist supporters hear "I support racism" and his non-supporters hear "I support racism."

I'm so going to try to stop commenting after this post, I may just stop the warpath cuz the skins are just as disheartening as the political threads.

editing your last sentence to what is more accurate:
OUR president said "I am a nationalist." His non-racist supporters hear "I am pro-America", his racist supporters hear "I support racism" and his non-racist non-supporters hear "I am pro-America" , his racist non-supporters hear "I support racism."

People who want to see racism in every word is a large part of the ongoing issues this country has with racism.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by mooby

I'm literally saying nationalism is most commonly thought of as a pc-alternative to white supremacy, and that's already what most people think of when they hear the term. You and Cred are the ones trying to turn "nationalism" into "pro-Americanism".

Your president said "I am a nationalist." His non-racist supporters hear "I am pro-America", his racist supporters hear "I support racism" and his non-supporters hear "I support racism."

Sure, just take what his says...rearrange, change the meaning of the words...create the context. Cut and paste to what you and others want to believe.

Just understand my ability to look at the facts, the meaning of words and call bullshit.

Its a free country.