* "UN Globalists are on suicide watch after President Trump's speech"
* "One of the best quotes of the speech. Socialist cucks BTFO!"
* "This tweet from David Brock's cucks is less than 2 weeks old and has already aged terribly."
* "Can you imagine a world without Islam?"
* "HE TRULY IS A GOD AMONG MEN" (God-Emperor Trump)
* "Since 9/11 there have been ~35,000 deadly Islamic terror attacks; that's an average of 2,000 per year... So let's (A) NEVER FORGET, (B) PRESS F, and (C) DRIVE. THEM. OUT. FROM. THE. EARTH!"
SALENA ZITO wrote (about Trump)
the press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.
You can map the same thing onto his subreddit. If we take them seriously but not literally, they're not wrong.
People with a globalist view really disliked Trump's speech.
There's a matter of opinion about a line in the same speech that his supporters apparently liked.
I'm not going to weigh in on David Brock.
Some God Emperor silliness. FWIW, the God Emperor of 40k led humanity very well up until the point of the Horus Heresy and every God Emperor depiction of Trump is one prior to the Emperor's wounding so it's well intentioned (at least).
And Islamic terror is the most deadly religious ideology in the world right now. Perhaps it's not the wisest thing to be concerned about but it's avowed enemy of America , democracy, and limited government so it's an almost perfect outgroup for self-styled American patriots.
Either Bill Maher (a liberal hero) is a racist islamaphobe, or, the_donald users who share the same views as him... aren't islamaphobes.
Because unless we're not talking about Islamaphobia, what else did you actually see that could be considered "hateful"? Because on that same sub you'll find people of all colors, and most religions discussing things. You'll find legal immigrants. You'll find ex-Muslims and atheists. You'll find gays. You'll find women. You'll find Brits. You'll find lifelong Democrats and Libertarians. You'll find ex-"Bernie Bros" who were furious at the DNC's betrayal of Bernie Sanders. You'll find people who grew up under Communist rule. I know, because I've seen every single one of those on that sub and almost every one of those demographics has posted a picture of themselves with a MAGA hat at one point or another.
If you want an actual white supremacist sub, you're thinking of /r/uncensorednews which actually lists Jews with (((triple parenthesis))). That's a pretty sharp contrast to the_donald. But it wouldn't be, if the_donald was as hateful as been claimed.
There's islamophobia, there's cherry picking of news about rape claims, infowars crap about illegal immigrants which is just hate mongering, posts like "let's trigger illegals and show some love for our ICE agents".
I'm not going to link to that dump specifically because they don't deserve the publicity. If you don't see this as hate mongering, we disagree on a very fundamental level.
He isn't a liberal hero these days and he definitely is a racist islamaphobe.
Yes, it is extremely important not to dehumanize our political opponents and to understand all the terrible things that made people be disillusioned with the establishment and vote for Trump.
But the_donald community is definitely extreme in their fundamentalism, way beyond just being supportive of Trump's political agenda. Looking at their front page does actually show islamophobic and sexists posts and frequent calls/cheers to violence, contrary to your claims.
Go read the comments. You will find plenty of that stuff.
"If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub?"
False equivalence. I don't recall Clinton ever saying she wanted to jail her political opponent. I don't recall her campaign ever retweeting literal white supremacists.
This part isn't really fair. If I want to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent, this is a big problem, but if I want to jail her because she's committed crimes, that's perfectly fine.
Except, as many, many investigations have proven over many, many years, she hasn't. Hence it largely being a dogwhistle for...
> [wanting] to jail my political opponent because she's my political opponent
It flabergasts me that otherwise reasonable people can say what you're saying. Is it confirmation bias? Is it a media that while rarely outright lying, just avoids mentioning anti-Clinton facts? How?
In the same way that many people did before her and in the same way that people continue to do now. Are you proposing to prosecute everyone the same way?
Why is it suddenly an issue when HRC is doing it but not when Gowdy and Chaffetz do it? Or when almost the entire Trump administration is doing it? Or when the Bush administration "lost" 50M emails they were supposed to have kept?
Hint: If you only have a problem with it when HRC does it, you probably want to check your sexism and misogyny settings.
I'm unfamiliar with your accusations against Gowdy and Chaffetz, but if they did something similar, I'd support their prosecution, too.
I had to remind myself of Bush's email scandal. It looks like, in the end, since the emails were found, there was no law broken? I'm unclear on this point. But the point is, that if they broke the law, somebody should have been prosecuted, then, too.
Your arguments seem to be going in the direction of "the other side is doing it, too." That's not a defense! It especially doesn't do anything to convince me, since I'm not on anybody's side.
And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about. Do you really think you can retreat to accusations of misogyny every time somebody says something negative about a woman you support?
The cases aren't comparable. One was a wilful mishandling of classified documents; the other was a widely accepted way of dealing with email.
> since the emails were found, there was no law broken?
A Senate committee said "[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened." That sounds like they broke the law.
> "the other side is doing it, too."
Not really - it's more that "Oh, look, the female candidate is getting slammed for things that everyone in USGOV has done, is doing, and will do whilst the male candidates and aides ... do not."
> And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about.
Then presumably you are now calling for Kushner's indictment?
If you assume the people you disagree with are "insane" or disregard them as "full of hate" then you'll never understand why they think the way they do and the division in our world continues unabated.
It still blows my mind that people who support the currently elected president, are considered a hate group. If the other candidate had won, would we consider her subreddit a hate sub? Would we care what the losing party thought about her subreddit? We all know the answer to that: "No." I have never before seen an election where "only one candidate is considered a human being."
Strange times.