Deplorable

I'm not a Milo fanboy, though I admit that I will click on a newslink if he's in the headline. My understanding is that he said the age of consent was about right, but that some males post puberty but below the age of consent can have productive sexual relationships with adult. He remembered his relationship fondly and made a joke about how he learned to give good head. None of that strikes me as massively incorrect. I'm sure if a lefty made the same comments we would be hearing about how we need to understand that gays have a different experience from us and we need to understand. And I'm sure if he were straight and was joking about ol Johnny Robinson's newly divorced mom teaching him how to eat pussy that this wouldn't be a big deal. The pervert in this story is the priest, though I can understand how Milo would have conflicted feelings personally about that. If he's guilty of the second thing you mention, I have no problem condemning him. I hadn't heard that before. As for the first item, he spoke out against a trans activist who had publically led a campaign to change the bathroom rules on that campus, but was no longer a student. I find it amazing that the left now says we can't even debate back if the other side is part of an officially labeled oppressed group. He didn't say anything racist about Leslie Jones.

The alt right are 10000 nerds on the internet. It's just a boogeyman for the left. What's really dangerous about Milo is that he's so popular with young conservatives and libertarians, and that he's saying things about Muslims, transgender activists, and feminists that are necessary to talk about but ignored by the respectable "Washington Generals" conservative movement. He was breaking down and ignoring the taboos the left had erected around political discourse, and he was being cheered by thousands and thousands of normal young people.

James O'Keefe supposedly has hundreds of hours of CNN newsroom video that he's about to release. Should be fun. Hopefully it's the real deal. We'll get to see what all those TV folks really think. As for Milo, I read his statement. His explanation seems reasonable. I'd assume if there was more to see other than a few bad jokes edited to make them appear worse the people out to get him would have let us know. http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/02/21/full-remarks-milo-delivers-speech-press-conference-amid-video-scandal/

So, I was wondering why we need to ban the Welsh since I've never met one. I typed "Welsh stereotypes" into the Google machine. It tells me that "To Welsh" means to go back on a deal.

He can spend as much money as he wants traveling so long as he keeps firing members of the State Department Shadow Government.

Most straight guys who had a good sexual experience at 13 or 14 with an adult female would brag about it and remember it fondly. That's different than justifying the behavior from the adult's perspective. You can still think it should be illegal in general and want the adults who behave in this way put in jail. I didn't listen to the Milo interviews, so I'm not sure exactly what he said. Just a thought.

Not defending the adult, but when a 13 year old gay dude has sex with an adult male is it closer to: When the 13 year old male student has sex with his female teacher the initial male response is usually, "Where were these teachers when I was in high school?" or "Was she hot." We focus on the dude's perspective. When the 13 year old female student has sex with her male teacher the initial male response is, "Lock that creep up." Again, we focus on the dude's perspective. That math of focusing on the dude's perspective gets mixed up when it's two dudes.

N word.

Yes, that word is number 2 on our national most offensive list. We try to save it for use on special occasions. Chris Wallace is straight news and asks hard questions of any political representative on his show. You guys know that Fox News has a mix of different types of hosts, right? And you know that the Murdoch's are globalists, right?

No they don't. They pretty clearly show average differences in black and white behavior that lead to different wealth outcomes even if income is equalized. Just did a quick google search and threw the first couple links in. There's a million studies. It's not a controversial topic. I'm not personally in favor of this policy, but one of the most fascinating integration projects was carried out by Oak Park, Illinois. They got ahead of the curve and decided to integrate their suburb before the federal government forced them. They embarked on a so-called "black a block" project. This involved tying all apartment properties together through various means in a public private partnership. They would rent based on race to make sure that no apartment became too black. They would even pay owners to keep apartments open until a renter of the proper race could be found. For sale signs were banned and direct marketing from realtors was banned to stop unscrupulous realtors from engaging in the block busting activities that became so normal in white areas near to black areas as segregation was ended. The city was successfully able to integrate without white flight, a massive crime increase, or a drop in property values. The areas all around this suburb became violent ghettos within a decade of segregation ending. http://astro.temple.edu/~ruby/opp/3qrpt02/finalversion.pdf This is an example of what I am trying to demonstrate can happen if the government acknowledges real world problems regarding race and culture. This was a rich lefty city that wanted to integrate, but didn't behave like modern leftists who bury their head in the sand because their ideology requires them to ignore the real world.

I do think most of the people in this thread are intelligent. I'm not sure how some corrections that I make come across, but I feel that from time to time people should just take my word that they are missing some of the context for what is going on. That's outside of agreeing or disagreeing with anything I say. I think Trump is brilliant outside of whether I support his politics. My whole life I've known about Trump and his reputation was always that of a clownish billionaire. He's been talking for as long as I can remember about running for President, always insisting that he would win if he tried. It was a running national joke. Then he declared that he was running and I was laughing about it with my friends. I remember a specific conversation with a friend just after he pulled into 2nd place in the Republican Party polling for the first time and I was still laughing at him. He convinced me though. And he convinced a lot of other people. The dude was right that he could be President when he wanted. He's a genius. If this forum is anything representative of what people are thinking overseas, it seems like instead of admitting that they were wrong about Trump's incompetence that they have shifted the goalposts to saying that Americans are dumb. Go back and look at the posts made here about Trump during the campaign. Everyone was laughing about how supposedly incompetent he was as a candidate. Now they are making the same assumptions about his Presidency based on the same media reports.

How close do you guys stand to each other when waiting in line?

Seems like a bit of an oddball. Gay New Yorker if I had to guess. Nice moment for a guy who's probably a decent dude. Good for him.

Line for Trump's rally in Florida was miles long hours before he arrives.

Shep Smith has long been suspected to be a Democrat and was along with Megyn Kelly the two most anti-Trump voices at Fox during the campaign. Nothing surprising there.

Did you miss that part that this rule being repealed was put in place two days before Obama left office? We are going back in time one month? Lol. That's what I mean about how much misinformation you bring to this thread. It's amazing.

Again, not racist if you believe that racism is based on treating people differently based on their race. Do you think that if 3 million black Americans moved to Scotland it would be no different in it's affect, both long and short term, than if 3 million white Americans moved there? Surely you do think there would be a difference. What about 3 million Muslims and 3 million Buddhists? All I've ever argued is that perhaps we should take some of these differences into account when deciding public policy. To bury our heads in the sand because of a clearly false ideology that all cultures are equal makes life demonstrably worse for large groups of people within society. It stops us from being able to solve real problems.

I was responding to a specific post saying that taxing the rich in order to give handouts to blacks is the biggest thing you could do for black Americans. I said that blacks on average have different habits regarding spending / wealth that would preclude that idea from working. http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/10/how-home-ownership-keeps-blacks-poorer-than-whites/ Here's an article in a mainstream publication written by a black professor of tax law at Emory University. If you read through it you'll note two points that are relevant. Even controlled for wealth, houses in black neighborhoods appreciate at a much, much lower rate. She doesn't mention this, but I suspect the reason is that black violence levels at around the 90th income percentile is about the same as white violence levels at around the 10th income percentile. Non-blacks won't move into neighborhoods that are largely back even if it is rich black people. There's also the different sexual habits of black and white youths, which would matter to non-black families raising kids. These are cultural barriers that keep blacks from accumulating wealth at the same rate as white people. The author also notes that white people at each income levels are more likely to invest their money in high return assets like the stock market. One final thing is the difference in family obligations as black people are more likely to feel pressure or obligation to help family members financially. Again, differences in culture even when the income gap is removed. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/conspicuous-consumption-and-race-who-spends-more-on-what/ Here's an article from an Ivy League school noting that blacks spend much more on flashy goods or visible signs of wealth, and that the difference comes out of saving and investing. The article pushes back on the idea that this is purely cultural, but it doesn't matter if this spending is the end result. Racial reparations is just one jump away from Zimbabwe redistributing farm land and thinking that would fix the racial wealth gap. It's lazy thinking constrained by an obviously wrong headed ideology that there are no average cultural differences between racial groups in America and quite dumb.

Sure. He has to attack the mainstream media. They are one of his main points of opposition and still the lens through which many people view national politics. Delegitimizing the press is a necessity if he is going to successfully accomplish his agenda because they are going to oppose him and paint his policies in the worst light for his entire Presidency. Yank Mike came home drunk from the bar one night, made a joke using the F word in a thread involving accusations regarding King William's sexual orientation. Then he made another joke by replying that he wasn't homophobic when people accused him of being a racist, homophobe.

Right. That is a long term problem for coal producers. It doesn't mean that the government has to jump on the back of coal in an attempt to drive them out of business quicker. These specific regulations were put in place in the last weeks of Obama's administration, so they wouldn't have been included in any study. Also, what our representatives argue is that the federal government has a certain amount of control in deciding the make up of the raw materials which go into the electricity grid. They constantly prioritize this or that pet project, but coal is always treated as the red headed step child. I don't think the people here are seeking a permanent subsidy for coal, but something to help smooth out the transition and diversification of our economy would be helpful. And really it's not much different than Iowa asking for ethanol subsidies or NYC asking for banker bailouts.

The rally is meant to change the optics that the opposition mainstream media is presenting and to show his drawing power to keep the Congressional Republicans in line. I know I'm talking out my ass sometimes, but I'm not sure there's a less informed poster here than Mr. Danger. In other news, Trump kept his promise on repealing Obama's anti-coal regulations that would have cost thousands of jobs in the poorest areas of the country. Trump even invited a coal miner from my town to say a few words.

To be fair, this is quite a bit different than what the Democrats claim Russia did in the US election. They claim Russia had a preferred candidate and selectively leaked information gained through espionage in order to change the outcome. It looks like the US was just keeping tabs, which I expect is normal. And I suspect that the foreign intelligence services of most countries that matter keep tabs on the US elections. And honestly, I'm not opposed to the US government trying to influence foreign elections in certain instances. Stopping the Communists in certain Western countries post WWII being obvious examples. Like I've maintained throughout this thread, it doesn't offend me even if Russia was trying to influence our election. It's something we do and it's something that countries have done to us since the beginning. It's normal behavior.

Trudeau is a white supremacist. People here are fans of BLM, correct?

Trump exposing to the Republican Party voters the lying press, the deep state, and the corrupt leftist judiciary that's been attempting to destroy America for the past 50 years. Great work so far. Trump is having a new rally in Florida. It's a great idea. He needs to be having a rally each week to remind people of his popularity with the real people in America. He's been allowing the media to focus on the protests.