Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 30,607
- 23,448
- 2,915
- Thread starter
- #61
How about that codified racism shit?Oh, dare I say it? Fuck you. If you want to have a realistic debate about what the Democratic party believes and advocates, fine. Let's do that.Typical Democrat-Nihilist.Oh, fuck you.Nihlism: Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ(h)ɪlɪzəm, ˈniː-/; ) is the point of view that suspends belief in any or all general aspects of human life, which are culturally accepted. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist at all.
Does that not most accurately describe the Democrat Party today? They promote fatherless children, infanticide, relative morality, families without a father, confuse children as to their born gender, use allegations to indict folks, let their own politicians commit rape. How could anyone be a Democrat?
You know, Jim Crow laws, "affirmative action", anti-miscegenation laws and shit like that.
That's the bigoted legal precedent the Democrats exported to Europe in the 1930s that led to the fucking holocaust, fucktard.
Fuck you, party of slavery supporter. You're an asshole.
Did Eugenics occur under the Democratic Party?
Forced sterilisation was rife in California.
Hey, the Trail of Tears took place under the auspices of Andrew Jackson, a Democrat. Do want me to defend that? I can't. I won't. I can only control what the Democratic Party does NOW. So you ought to defend what the Republican party is doing NOW, if you can.
Which begs the question: is there a Democratic Party? NOW?
Totally NOT an answer. Defend what the Republican party is doing during the Trump administration. Come on...
Because it’s not the answer you want.
And you'll have to be more specific about what the Republican Party is “doing”.
How about Trump's denial of climate change and his dismantling of environmental protections, for a start?
When you use the term 'climate change' you should qualify it. For instance, we all know the climate changes over eons however, the term was co-opted by radical, leftist environmentalists to mean a quick, human caused GLOBAL climate change so, you see, from the get-go that term is vague and misleading. "Dismantling environmental protections" is also a misnomer and misleading. The environment is largely dependent on natural forces that humans can never control....such as volcanoes, hurricanes, storms, earthquakes, etc. To somehow claim a human can 'dismantle' them is ludicrous at best. More accurate is that 'environmental protections' have to do with human beings making assumptions based on limited scientific and un-provable 'research' of a limited population of data, funded by groups that stand to make $$$$ or garner influence and power for convincing the public they actually know and can control global forces. The whole thing is a ruse mostly propagated by leftist socialist wannabes that wish to control as many people as possible.
Last edited: