BLM Rhode Island Co-Founder endorses Trump

[StarstruckIllusion 53,579]

18 minutes ago, skaxboy said:

Didn’t one of the BLM leaders steal donations and buy a mansion? It saddens me how opportunistic grifters like this guy essentially exploit a good causes for their own personal gain.  
 

I can’t help but laugh at what the hardcore “All Lives Matter” MAGAts will have to say about Trumps newly founded support for a BLM leaders. 

I remember hearing that too. This second embarrassment is not a good look for the BLM Establishment… hope he’s replaced swiftly 

[27monster27 15,917]

This is exactly why I say that tokenism is so dangerous. Tokens (like Candace Owens and Blaire White) are given a lot of power to demean people. It's a lot of (weirdly willful) brainwashing too.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

 

*Uncle Ruckus*   

Interview with said individual…  😒😒😒

 

[djBuffoon 12,239]

3 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

 

 

This interview tells me… everything I need to know about Mr. Fisher.

Look, being disappointed or disillusioned with the Democratic Party, I can understand that, even if this current administration has - factually - been very successful by most metrics. Low unemployment, lowered inflation, healthy GDP, student debt forgiveness, a return to favor with our allied countries, and so on. If you honestly think that because Dems have disappointed in some areas, Trump should be elected instead, you’re beyond help for the time being. 

[Bronco 25,949]

16 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

Not all black people care about police and judicial reforms though. And if they did care, they might think Republicans are the better of two evils considering Democrats believe in defunding the police, and allowing crimes to happen. Also, some black people are single issue voters, so their interest might be based on abortion above laws above police reform for example. Im not saying they are right or wrong, but calling them sellouts who are voting against their interest doesnt make sense to me.

I swear your political posts always end up like a bad chatbot AI roleplaying a right wing shitposter. 

[faysalaaa 5,341]

On 12/1/2023 at 9:10 AM, Bronco said:

I swear your political posts always end up like a bad chatbot AI roleplaying a right wing shitposter. 

Nothing I said is right wing, and im not a right winger.  Maybe try to attempt to respond to my argument instead of telling me what you think I sound like..

[Bronco 25,949]

15 hours ago, faysalaaa1 said:

Nothing I said is right wing, and im not a right winger.  Maybe try to attempt to respond to my argument instead of telling me what you think I sound like..

Babe. You've repeatedly spread alt right talking points on various threads - call yourself what ever you want but understand that this is how people view your bs. 

"Nothing I said is right wing" Babe you legit verbatim copied an alt-right attack point against democrats by saying 

 

On 12/1/2023 at 2:10 PM, Bronco said:

Democrats believe in defunding the police, and allowing crimes to happen.

Which is total fiction. 

Firstly, the Democrats as a political body do not support the defund the police movement. Even if some fringe democrats at fed level & small groups do down ballot. 

Secondly, the claim that defunding the police means allowing crimes to happen is a direct lie. Now, having seen you regularly talk about twitter politicos I'm making the educated guess that's where your talking points come from so I'm not going to assume you are knowingly lying here but rather mislead & uneducated. 

Defund the police is a poor slogan for a movement that talks about reducing police funding in America - bare in mind that American police are some of the least trained & over armed in the western world. While some fringe folks talk about eradicating the police (which ironically is also the demands of fringe libertarian republicans) the primary ideology and goals behind "Defund the police" is simply to demilitarize the US police force.
Theres other elements which have also gained steam in the UK and other western nations like diverting funding from the police into social work & emergency services because people oppose (and actually in many countries like the UK the police also oppose) police being first responders to non-criminal activity like suicide attempts & other mental health related crises.  There's also other ideas like decriminalizing drugs/allowing safe injection sites etc which have scientific proof they are the more effective policy. 
 

[nATAH 57,300]

On 11/30/2023 at 8:53 PM, Onlygaga said:

I’m not Black or even a POC, so I can’t really speak on this, BUT why in the world would any minority endorse this monstrosity of a “man”?? I’m white and I would rather vote for literally anything else. I just don’t get it 

i think people just vote for the opposition as a last minute hope for drastic change, no matter who it is

that's the only way i can make sense of it

[faysalaaa 5,341]

8 hours ago, Bronco said:

Babe. You've repeatedly spread alt right talking points on various threads - call yourself what ever you want but understand that this is how people view your bs. 

"Nothing I said is right wing" Babe you legit verbatim copied an alt-right attack point against democrats by saying 

 

Which is total fiction. 

Firstly, the Democrats as a political body do not support the defund the police movement. Even if some fringe democrats at fed level & small groups do down ballot. 

Secondly, the claim that defunding the police means allowing crimes to happen is a direct lie. Now, having seen you regularly talk about twitter politicos I'm making the educated guess that's where your talking points come from so I'm not going to assume you are knowingly lying here but rather mislead & uneducated. 

Defund the police is a poor slogan for a movement that talks about reducing police funding in America - bare in mind that American police are some of the least trained & over armed in the western world. While some fringe folks talk about eradicating the police (which ironically is also the demands of fringe libertarian republicans) the primary ideology and goals behind "Defund the police" is simply to demilitarize the US police force.
Theres other elements which have also gained steam in the UK and other western nations like diverting funding from the police into social work & emergency services because people oppose (and actually in many countries like the UK the police also oppose) police being first responders to non-criminal activity like suicide attempts & other mental health related crises.  There's also other ideas like decriminalizing drugs/allowing safe injection sites etc which have scientific proof they are the more effective policy. 
 

I wasnt sharing my personal opinion, I was simply giving an example of how other people might think. Instead of calling black Republicans sellouts that vote against their own interest, I explained the complexity of the situation. But I guess that makes me an alt right republican?

The Young Turks, which is the most "mainstream" Leftist network online, constantly talk about how Gavin Newsom and Democrats are allowing crime. Again, this is not my opinion, but to say these are alt right talking points, and that I get my sources from right wing people on twitter is not accurate.

You can label me whatever you want, I dont care, aslong as you engage with what im actually saying. Calling me alt right wont scare me, these tactics only works on white Americans.
 

[Bronco 25,949]

2 minutes ago, faysalaaa1 said:

The Young Turks, which is the most "mainstream" Leftist network online, constantly talk about how Gavin Newsom and Democrats are allowing crime.

Right - firstly Gavin Newsom & California Democrats have not in anyway supported "Defund the Police" as a policy. Their relevance here is zero. But let's discuss the TYT anyway. 

The Young Turks are named after the movement responsible for the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide & Greek genocide by the Ottomans. 
Cenk Uygur has supported Armenian genocide denial. Has a history of racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti-semitic & homophobic beliefs. He opposed TYT's staff wanting to unionize going so far as to fire an employee for pro-union activites & withheld bonuses and payrises from others. Staff have spoken out about him behaving inappropriately to women at TYT. 
Ana Kasparian this year tweeted out that language used internally within the medical & scientific profession designed to ensure actual education & inclusion of trans people was "degrading" to women. 

They're not leftists, they're you're typical grifters who saw a gap in the market to profit from. Ana Kasparian has publicly spoken about how she saw TYT not as a political tool but as a profitable buisness she wanted to benefit from.
They also don't identify as leftist, and you have a strange obsession with this word "leftist" which is a purely American concept that the Republicans have tried to export as a new form of McCarthyism - they identify as progressives. 
Why do I point this out? There is a significant gulf between people who promote progressive politics & actual political ideological beliefs. Being a progressive, means to support positions that bring about social change and is often irrelevant to specific ideological leanings. Anyone can be a progressive or identify as such - regardless of placement on the political spectrum. 

Conservatives can identify as progressive, although it's unpopular to do so currently but in the prior decade was the go to approach for them - they argue their policies are the best for social mobility. 
Centrists always use the progressive label because it's the only thing they get off the fence for (providing it's to support white people). 
And then socialists currently love the progressive label, especially in America. 

[faysalaaa 5,341]

8 hours ago, Bronco said:

Right - firstly Gavin Newsom & California Democrats have not in anyway supported "Defund the Police" as a policy. Their relevance here is zero. But let's discuss the TYT anyway. 

The Young Turks are named after the movement responsible for the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide & Greek genocide by the Ottomans. 
Cenk Uygur has supported Armenian genocide denial. Has a history of racist, sexist, islamophobic, anti-semitic & homophobic beliefs. He opposed TYT's staff wanting to unionize going so far as to fire an employee for pro-union activites & withheld bonuses and payrises from others. Staff have spoken out about him behaving inappropriately to women at TYT. 
Ana Kasparian this year tweeted out that language used internally within the medical & scientific profession designed to ensure actual education & inclusion of trans people was "degrading" to women. 

They're not leftists, they're you're typical grifters who saw a gap in the market to profit from. Ana Kasparian has publicly spoken about how she saw TYT not as a political tool but as a profitable buisness she wanted to benefit from.
They also don't identify as leftist, and you have a strange obsession with this word "leftist" which is a purely American concept that the Republicans have tried to export as a new form of McCarthyism - they identify as progressives. 
Why do I point this out? There is a significant gulf between people who promote progressive politics & actual political ideological beliefs. Being a progressive, means to support positions that bring about social change and is often irrelevant to specific ideological leanings. Anyone can be a progressive or identify as such - regardless of placement on the political spectrum. 

Conservatives can identify as progressive, although it's unpopular to do so currently but in the prior decade was the go to approach for them - they argue their policies are the best for social mobility. 
Centrists always use the progressive label because it's the only thing they get off the fence for (providing it's to support white people). 
And then socialists currently love the progressive label, especially in America. 

Can you engage with what im actually saying? I dont care about TYT history or who they are! My point is its not an alt right talking point to say Democrats are allowing crime as alot of progressives talk about it too. And also, I wasnt even sharing my personal opinion! I dont want to repeat myself, so please go read my comments again and try to engage with what im actually saying, then maybe we can have a productive conversation..

[Bronco 25,949]

2 minutes ago, faysalaaa1 said:

My point is its not an alt right talking point to say Democrats are allowing crime as alot of progressives talk about it too.

I did engage. 

I'm positing the point that the origins of the talking point comes from the Alt Right as an attack on the Democrats in response to the BLM movement & later Defund movement. 

You've brought it up in this thread in direct reference to the Defund movement, regardless of where you obtained it from it's come from the deliberate dissemination of false information by the Alt-right. 

You claim progressives talk about it as if they are homogenous bloc - as I've made clear, not the case. And so far the only evidence you've brought is a media operation ran by a former conservative who started preaching populism to make money and touch up female staff.  

The left wing critique of crime in California, especially in San Francisco, is not that the right-wing Democrats in the state are allowing crime. But actually that the right-wing California democratic establishment have allowed the Tech industry to cause unchecked social harm in the state & pushed more people into poverty & homelessness. Naturally crime levels increase as poverty & homelessness increase - 1) because America treats these things as criminal and 2) because people in poverty or people who are homeless quite literally have to steal to survive. In fact, many homeless people will commit crime intentially to be put into the prison system as it's the only guarantee of a roof, bed & food. As someone who experienced homelessness for a period, I did it. 

You bring up Gavin Newsom when talking about Defund the Police - Newsom went on record (and I quote this from Fox News) as saying "don't ever confuse" him with the movement.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-rejects-defund-police-movement
Newsom is actually defunding the police accountability tools in the state of California. 
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2023-06-23/opinion-editorial-on-government-seeking-to-defund-police-accountability-measure

My overall point is that you don't know what you're talking about, take random media grifters at face value & clearly have a superficial understanding of the subject. 

[faysalaaa 5,341]

8 hours ago, Bronco said:

I did engage. 

I'm positing the point that the origins of the talking point comes from the Alt Right as an attack on the Democrats in response to the BLM movement & later Defund movement. 

You've brought it up in this thread in direct reference to the Defund movement, regardless of where you obtained it from it's come from the deliberate dissemination of false information by the Alt-right. 

You claim progressives talk about it as if they are homogenous bloc - as I've made clear, not the case. And so far the only evidence you've brought is a media operation ran by a former conservative who started preaching populism to make money and touch up female staff.  

The left wing critique of crime in California, especially in San Francisco, is not that the right-wing Democrats in the state are allowing crime. But actually that the right-wing California democratic establishment have allowed the Tech industry to cause unchecked social harm in the state & pushed more people into poverty & homelessness. Naturally crime levels increase as poverty & homelessness increase - 1) because America treats these things as criminal and 2) because people in poverty or people who are homeless quite literally have to steal to survive. In fact, many homeless people will commit crime intentially to be put into the prison system as it's the only guarantee of a roof, bed & food. As someone who experienced homelessness for a period, I did it. 

You bring up Gavin Newsom when talking about Defund the Police - Newsom went on record (and I quote this from Fox News) as saying "don't ever confuse" him with the movement.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-rejects-defund-police-movement
Newsom is actually defunding the police accountability tools in the state of California. 
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2023-06-23/opinion-editorial-on-government-seeking-to-defund-police-accountability-measure

My overall point is that you don't know what you're talking about, take random media grifters at face value & clearly have a superficial understanding of the subject. 

I made it clear multiple times that im not saying TYT is right or wrong, and I only used them as an example to show how its not an alt right talking point. Yet you frame the conversation like im using TYT as a source for an argument I never made! The more I explain myself the worse it gets!

You then say that I accused Democrats of defunding the police, but I explained to you how I wasnt sharing my personal opinion, I was just painting a picture of what a black republican might be thinking.

I dont know if you are being dishonest, or maybe its my English, but I dont think we should continue to engage. Its always extremely hard to have a conversation with you!

[Red 99,191]

Far-right supporters' brains should be studied after they die