cristo71

So you admit that you put low effort in your claims. This is why you couldnt prove your claims.

You accuse others of "pretend", 

I am not sure why are you refusing to prove or explain your claims.

Tell us.

You say you are unwilling to say that you are not racist. I assume peer pressure?

You seem to be failing to do something which you claim you can.

Can you tell us what "anti racist" is

Among other deficiencies.

Maybe ask your buddies what it means.

you didnt answer the question.

Do you also wonder what quotations around a word mean?

so one naturally wonders what you are.

Twas only inevitable when your solution for all social problems is "more racism in the other direction"

The historical idea of "skin culture" suggested that all white people shared a single, unified culture just because they have similar skin color. But this idea is easily debunked because white people come from many different ethnic backgrounds, like Irish, Italian, Jewish, and more, each with their own distinct traditions and histories. It's also rooted in colonial slaver history, where the concept of a mythical "white culture" was used to justify oppression and dominance. America today is composed of both colonists and immigrants, so there is no basis for the case that this exists today anywhere in America.

The "white privilege" refers to the advantages people seen as white often get in society, like easier access to jobs or fairer treatment by police. But this idea is equally debunked, mostly because it oversimplifies complex issues by focusing primarily on race without considering major factors like class, culture, or personal experience. Both of these postmodern concepts fail to recognize the diversity within racial groups and how actual privilege and culture work.

The only reason I can see why these shrill white "liberals" perpetuate the idea of privilege is to hold on to the myth that their skin color somehow makes them more than what they really are.

skin culture is a myth.

Clark is dead wrong.

Whites are patronizingly superior due to skin color and in the unique position to elevate people who are inferior due to their skin color.

The biggest or "real" reason why the Germans hated the Jews began in World War 1. During the war, German citizens bought war bonds. However, the Jews bought gold instead. After the war, the German economy collapsed and the only thing to trade that was worth value was gold. The Jews didn't support the war effort, and after the economy collapsed they purchased up all the businesses dirt cheap. This enraged so many Germans, that the Nazi movement gained support, so many people supported seizing the wealth of the Jews, because they felt it was swindled from them. The "war machine" put Germans back to work, and as their military research and arsenal grew, so did Nazi rhetoric and Germans felt emboldened to "punish the Jews" and things snowballed from there.

It happened in front of the whole country at the debate.

the level of unimportance of an issue on one side vs the caricature of importance the other side prescribed to it.

One of the most basic rules of politics is that you do not say anything that will cause a needles firestorm.

That's really simple and it's nothing new. That's why for example candidates always say they're campaign is doing just fine and they're not going anywhere... And then "suspend" their campaigns the next day.

Funny thing is, everyone understands this. No one turns around and calls them liars because they wouldn't publicly admit what they knew they were going to do. This is politics 101.

So even assuming the worst, what Joe Biden did by saying he wasn't going to pardon Hunter isn't remarkable at all. Admitting it would have caused a firestorm so Biden followed the same rule everyone follows.

He also refused to say he wouldn't sign one when asked point blank with the whole country watching

No one is suggesting otherwise. Criticizing them for it is still perfectly valid.

If what I suggested was in fact that truth then the only reason it was effectively a can kick is because Trump not only won…

So not exactly a refutation.

Again, imagine the headlines if he even showed ambiguity about his intentions.

But I'm not so sure he was lying about his intentions.

Standards only apply to democrats.

so I don’t see what else he was even supposed to say. 

So no, it doesn’t cut both ways.

He didn't just pardon.

That was before Trump won the election and then nominated a man who *publicly* said he would use the Justice department to go after Trump’s political enemies to lead the FBI. So much for all that “Trump’s not really going to weaponize the DOJ” BS. If I were Joe I’m certainly not about to hand my son who’s already been put through the ringer to this DOJ.

Second, no one who supports Trump has any ground to stand on when it comes to lying.

That doesn't counter anything unless you thought my position was that I agreed with them on everything.

Yes, that was exactly my point, but it went further than that. Not only did they hold her responsible, but they pretended these issues were central to her campaign and therefore representative of what her priorities would have been as president. That's where it gets ridiculous.