POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

It’s not there, guy. I don’t know what to tell you.

 

not for me, wasn't in the first 2 pages at least.

 

Guess I’m not the only one that sucks at Google.

Whatever that means.

 

I googled it when it was first mentioned and it was right at the top but just now I didn’t see it on the first page

 

But still isn’t that hard to find

https://www.thedailybeast.com/insid...t-far-right-politics?source=email&via=desktop

 

doesn't Google now give custom search results based on browsing and search behavior?

 

I said it’s referenced:



Literally just typed his name. And this is on my work phone, which I hadn’t previously used to read about the ordeal.

 

don't know what to tell you. the daily beast doesn't show up at all.

 

neither does Breitbart for me, either.

 

Not there. Referenced.

Tell the truth. You don’t want to see it. Saying it’s not there allows you to continue playing dumb. It’s not a coincidence that other people are finding the article with no problem, but the two people who have been pushing back against the idea of cancel culture’s existence can’t seem to locate it.

 

Had to click the arrow at the top of the page, but Breitbart showed up for me. I don't frequent it, but I'll land there on a click off drudge. Maybe that's why. I dunno.

 

That’s fine. It’s been linked multiple times at this point, as have other examples.

Let us know when you’ve made your assessment.

 

I see the Breitbart piece in mine. Don’t see dailybeast. But did read it.

Struck me as over the top. The Trump clearly a racist part struck me as someone trying to be controversial. Was this intending to be news or just an opinion piece? I understand the ‘if you have committed racist act (such as a statement that that is prejudiced based on physical appearance) then are you not a racist?’ argument that float makes. But that is nuanced and requires discussion - and recognition of the spectrum of racism and that racism does not equal white supremacy. Throwing it out like that achieves. Lying other than controversy.

I do think that the Israel focus is interesting. It is entirely possible to be against the policies of Israel and their use of force without being anti-Semitic. But very similar to the racist buzz saw, if you say anything critical of the government you are likely to be labeled anti-Semitic by someone.

I am personally in the middle on Israel (like a lot of issues I guess). I get the motivation for some of their policies and the threats they feel. But I also understand history is against harmony there and they are often heavy handed.

 

I read it yesterday when it was linked. I asked if cancel culture is talking about a public figure's espoused views. I may have missed what they were calling for, it seemed as though they were just going through a history of his views and whatnot. were they calling for him to not be in the HoF, or not to watch baseball? when is something cancel culture rather than first amendment and consumer choice/boycott?

 

if it is the one I linked yesterday, it is marked "opinion" at the top. which really makes this concern from Indy weird to me. like this opinion is too far because it is an opinion on the subject's opinion. opinion inception.

 

Ha ha

 

That quote is pretty benign. This is good.

 

Shocker

 

If Trump made it there would be 24x7 coverage of the outrage.

 

Its the old 80/20 rule, except reverse. I believe maybe 20% vote intelligently. The other 80 vote based on the many other reasons, bias, hate and ignorance among them.