Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2017-08-15, 1:59 PM #3521
This is true. And truly frightening and concerning.

That said, it does matter who is president! Look at the article from Foreign Policy I just linked to, in which the FBI and DHS warned about this growing threat months ago. The US has experienced several periods of growing right wing extremism all within the past 50 years, and I am sure federal law enforcement has a rich history of investigating and prosecuting these folks. I am not sure how much direct influence the White House has on the scope and zeal of these efforts, but I would imagine it could make a big difference.
2017-08-15, 2:29 PM #3522
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
That said, it does matter who is president! Look at the article from Foreign Policy I just linked to, in which the FBI and DHS warned about this growing threat months ago. The US has experienced several periods of growing right wing extremism all within the past 50 years, and I am sure federal law enforcement has a rich history of investigating and prosecuting these folks. I am not sure how much direct influence the White House has on the scope and zeal of these efforts, but I would imagine it could make a big difference.


This makes me angry:

Quote:
A few weeks before Heather Heyer was murdered and many others were injured after a coalition of hate groups gathered violently in Charlottesville, Virginia, the Trump administration—under guidance from trusted aides such as Katharine Gorka—revoked a $400,000 federal grant from a U.S. nonprofit dedicated to rehabilitating former white supremacists and other extremists.

Just before President Donald Trump took office in January, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that Life After Hate would receive funding from the $10 million appropriated by Congress for the department's Countering Violent Extremism Grant Program (CVE).

"In this age of self-radicalization and terrorist-inspired acts of violence, domestic-based efforts to counter violent extremism have become a homeland security imperative," Barack Obama's DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson said when the first round of grants were announced.

However, when Trump took office a week later, his new DHS Secretary ordered a full review of CVE, and when the revised list of grantees was released in late June, it made no mention of Life After Hate or any other groups focused specifically on countering white supremacy extremism.

Even before Trump took office, Katharine Gorka—a controversial national security analyst and anti-Muslim activist who has been credited, along with her husband and research collaborator Sebastian Gorka, with "driving Trump's national security policy"—had been trying to kill Life After Hate's grant, as the Huffington Post reported:

Trump aides, including Katharine Gorka, were already working toward eliminating Life After Hate's grant and to direct all funding toward fighting what the president has described as "radical Islamic terrorism."

In December, Gorka, then a member of Trump's transition team, met with George Selim, the DHS official who headed the Countering Violent Extremism program until he resigned last month, and his then-deputy, David Gersten.

Gorka told Selim and Gersten she didn't agree with the Obama administration's approach to countering violent extremism―particularly the way the administration had described the threat of extremism…

Both Gorkas vocally advocate for U.S. policymakers using the term "radical Islamic terrorism," and as Politico reported earlier this year, strongly criticized the Obama and DHS under his administration:

Katharine Gorka wrote in 2013 that the Obama administration "seems to be allowing Islamists to dictate national security policy." And she criticized President Barack Obama's DHS for allegedly changing its training protocols to include an "emphasis on Islam as a religion of peace."

The married couple have both have written for Breitbart News—the far-right website formerly run by White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon—and they both served on Trump's transition team. Sebastian, now deputy assistant to Trump, earned a Ph.D. from the little-known Corvinus University of Budapest, and as Bob Dreyfuss reported in Rolling Stone: "During the decade and a half Gorka spent in Hungary, he was enmeshed in a web of ultraright, anti-Semitic, and even Nazi-like parties, politicians and media outlets."

Katharine Gorka, as The Intercept revealed in May, now works as an "adviser" to DHS.

That same month, "federal law enforcement agencies expressed concern...about the domestic threat white supremacist groups posed and would continue to pose," according a government intelligence report obtained by Foreign Policy, as Common Dreams reported Monday.

This report, White Supremacist Extremism Poses Persistent Threat of Lethal Violence (pdf), noted that white supremacist groups were "responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016, more than any other domestic extremist movement," and was prepared by the FBI and DHS less than a week before prominent white supremacist Richard Spencer led protests over Charlottesville's plan to remove a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

May's protests over the statue's removal were followed by the massive "Unite the Right" white supremacy gatherings in Charlottesville this weekend, which left one counter-protester dead and dozens injured.

Christian Picciolini, a former neo-Nazi and co-founder of Life After Hate—the group that lost its DHS funding—spoke with NPR about Charlottesville on Sunday. "It was both disheartening to me but also, unfortunately, not a surprise because my organization and myself have been warning about this specific situation for many, many years," he said.

Picciolini also echoed the concerns expressed in the May FBI/DHS report:

What people need to understand is that since Sept. 11, more Americans have been killed on U.S. soil by white supremacists than by any other foreign or domestic group combined by a factor of two. Yet we don't really talk about that, nor do we even call these instances, of the shooting at Charleston, South Carolina, or what happened at Oak Creek, Wisconsin, at the Sikh temple or even what happened in Charlottesville this weekend—as terrorism.

DHS did not directly respond to the Huffington Post's inquiries about whether it views white supremacy as an extremist threat, or why it cut funding for the group that aims to de-radicalize neo-Nazis. However, a department spokesperson told the news outlet that 16 of the 26 groups that received DHS funding "have applicability to all forms of violent extremism and as such will address the threat of domestic terrorism."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/08/15/ahead-charlottesville-trump-cut-funds-group-fighting-white-supremacy
2017-08-15, 2:30 PM #3523
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Ah, but who gets to determine what is "offensive" other than the offended party?


I'm not trying to talk about whether some Tumblr user gets offended because of something trivial. I'm talking about real discourse.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
And I shudder at the open-ended scope of the word "consequences". This interpretation of your post pretty well illustrates exactly the kind of damper on speech that defines the notion of political correctness today.



Regarding the Cleese video, he said something like "you do not have the right to not be offended". It's not hard to come up with thought experiments where the opposite intuition is true. Imagine you worked in an office, and people regularly made remarks calling you ugly. Imagine you had a son and your neighbor called him a sissy as he was walking by. Would either of these be tolerable to you?

The point I'm getting is that the rhetoric given about this topic is often impassioned and very unreasonable. I think it's pretty clear that we need to find some middle ground and have a discussion. People have a right to not be offended to a certain degree. The problem is finding where those limits are. I don't find the term "political correctness" to be used in reasonable discussions about what offensive communication we should and should not allow. Instead it's used as a rhetorical soundbite.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the whether or not the person making the ostensibly "offensive" statements is doing so in good faith and for the purpose of furthering discourse rather than repeating memes.


I agree, but I've found that most of the time the people criticizing political correctness are just distracting from more serious offenses. A good case being the one of Jordan B. Peterson, who claims the outrage is due to him refusing to use pronouns, but the information I cited in another post makes it pretty clear that people are more outraged about him apologizing for harassers and discounting his role in causing it.
2017-08-15, 2:34 PM #3524
Also the title of that video, screaming about the fascism of political correctness is right-wing hyperventilation.
2017-08-15, 2:38 PM #3525
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
This is true. And truly frightening and concerning.

That said, it does matter who is president! Look at the article from Foreign Policy I just linked to, in which the FBI and DHS warned about this growing threat months ago. The US has experienced several periods of growing right wing extremism all within the past 50 years, and I am sure federal law enforcement has a rich history of investigating and prosecuting these folks. I am not sure how much direct influence the White House has on the scope and zeal of these efforts, but I would imagine it could make a big difference.


That's completely true. Not going to deny that. When the government gets less serious about combatting domestic terrorism, as it has since Trump has become president, domestic terrorist groups become more powerful and more capable of doing terrible things. (It should now be easier for the public to appreciate why the FBI and intelligence organizations take domestic terrorism to be a greater threat to the US homeland than salafi-jihadist terrorism.)
former entrepreneur
2017-08-15, 2:39 PM #3526
Quote:
People have a right to not be offended to a certain degree.


Yeah, well, unless you are drawing the line at people invading their personal space, I can totally see that this where you went off the rails there. You most certainly don't have a right not to be offended, and trying to carry out this fantasy is dangerous.
2017-08-15, 2:40 PM #3527
Let me repeat, from the video:

“If people can't control their own emotions, then they have to start trying to control other people's behavior.”

― Robin Skynner
2017-08-15, 2:41 PM #3528
Originally posted by Eversor:
The National Guard would be a better response than citizens armed with blunt weapons.


The National Guard came after the protest was declared illegal to enforce the area. Bu I mean as citizens, should we tolerate neo-Nazis gathering in our cities? The violence was started because anti-fascist protesters were blocking the streets to prevent the Nazis from entering. The Nazis decided to deal with that by charging the crowd and beating people. Guess what? The police did nothing. It was after that that people on the left began attacking.

Maybe there was some other way we should have responded? Should we tolerate the Nazis and let them speak? Should we not fight back if they fight us? What's the appropriate response when a judge rules for them to be there and the police don't contain the violence?
2017-08-15, 2:42 PM #3529
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Yeah, well, unless you are drawing the line at people invading their personal space, I can totally see that this where you went off the rails there. You most certainly don't have a right not to be offended, and trying to carry out this fantasy is dangerous.


Hold up, when did I ever mention invading other people's personal space? Being called ugly has nothing to do with personal space. That's just you being offended super easily.
2017-08-15, 2:43 PM #3530
Originally posted by Reid:
I'm not trying to talk about whether some Tumblr user gets offended because of something trivial. I'm talking about real discourse.



Regarding the Cleese video, he said something like "you do not have the right to not be offended". It's not hard to come up with thought experiments where the opposite intuition is true. Imagine you worked in an office, and people regularly made remarks calling you ugly. Imagine you had a son and your neighbor called him a sissy as he was walking by. Would either of these be tolerable to you?


Bullies are bad. People can be *******s. And bullying might well not be tolerable for individuals. But wouldn't it be an instance of government overreach if bullying was illegal? Because if we're saying people have a "right" not to be offended, wouldn't we expect that right to be backed up by the law? And by the ability to prosecute and press criminal charges if one is bullied?
former entrepreneur
2017-08-15, 2:45 PM #3531
Originally posted by Reid:
Hold up, when did I ever mention invading other people's personal space? Being called ugly has nothing to do with personal space. That's just you being offended super easily.



You implicitly mentioned that limit when you implied that you drew the line beyond it, where you suggested that people have a right not to be offended in circumstances where their personal space was not violated.
2017-08-15, 2:47 PM #3532
Originally posted by Eversor:
Bullies are bad. People can be *******s. And bullying might well not be tolerable for individuals. But wouldn't it be an instance of government overreach if bullying was illegal? Because if we're saying people have a "right" not to be offended, wouldn't we expect that right to be backed up by the law? And by the ability to prosecute and press criminal charges if one is bullied?


Just to be clear, there is a big difference between harassment and speech.

I guess there are those who would blur the line by interpreting hurt feelings as consequences of fighting words. Actually if you guys want to have a philosophical debate about this and show just how culturally relative this issue is, I think ground zero for this is Muslims who want to kill people because of a stupid little cartoon somebody drew.
2017-08-15, 2:47 PM #3533
Originally posted by Eversor:
Bullies are bad. People can be *******s. And bullying might well not be tolerable for individuals. But wouldn't it be an instance of government overreach if bullying was illegal? Because if we're saying people have a "right" not to be offended, wouldn't we expect that right to be backed up by the law? And by the ability to prosecute and press criminal charges if one is bullied?


I wasn't exactly speaking about laws given by the government, I was more thinking of the social contract we are a part of in society.
2017-08-15, 2:48 PM #3534
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
You implicitly mentioned that limit when you implied that you drew the line beyond it, where you suggested that people have a right not to be offended in circumstances where their personal space was not violated.


I don't know how that has to do with personal space, because everything I've said falls under the same realm of speech as anything else we say.
2017-08-15, 2:50 PM #3535
Originally posted by Reid:
I don't know how that has to do with personal space, because everything I've said falls under the same realm of speech as anything else we say.


Because presumably, people who say nasty things on the internet without threatening to track you down and murder you, etc., are not actually violating your personal space, and therefore I find it highly questionable to extend to them a "right to not be offended".

In fact I am not even sure what that would look like, except to suggest that it leads to the very notion of "political correctness" which you would so easily dismiss as right wing moaning.
2017-08-15, 2:53 PM #3536
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Because presumably, people who say nasty things on the internet without threatening to track you down and murder you, etc., are not actually violating your personal space, and therefore I find it highly questionable to extend to them a "right to not be offended".


So you think it's acceptable for people to call other people retards, ******s, online?
2017-08-15, 2:54 PM #3537
Not so unacceptable that I think they should be outright banned.

As it happens, I am not so fond of the dynamic of our society in which we like to downvote things we don't like. People tried to "downvote" Trump and just look what happened. Grow some skin folks.
2017-08-15, 2:56 PM #3538
And I do understand that the target of that slur is the third party causality, of which we ought to be mindful and careful not to become party to their further maligning, but when the people making the insult are usually doing so in bad faith, the only practical answer is to ignore them rather than try to punish them. You cannot punish trolls and avoid making the problem worse. You can try to make their voices fainter and pay less attention to them, but don't try to stamp them out so much that they become virulent. When will people get this?
2017-08-15, 2:58 PM #3539
I don't think so either, and that's not what I'm advocating for. I don't think it's "politically correct speech" to say "people should not use words like retard or ****** as insults". And it's not some crazy left-wing bull**** to discuss that.

Regard Cleese and what he was saying, there's also a difference between a comedian making a societal point, and jokes like this:



It's the Daniel Tosh rape joke.
2017-08-15, 3:00 PM #3540
Originally posted by Reid:
I wasn't exactly speaking about laws given by the government, I was more thinking of the social contract we are a part of in society.


I don't know why you'd use the language of "rights", then. Rights are backed up by laws, or else they aren't really rights (because only if they are backed up by laws is there a legal penalty when they're violated, and only under such circumstances are rights truly guaranteed).
former entrepreneur
2017-08-15, 3:00 PM #3541
Let me give an example of the kind of bull**** I am talking about.

If I had made my stupid comment about female suffrage on Twitter, it would have been re-Tweeted as a small chunk of text, ultimately leading to my downfall if I were a public figure.

What is better, us having a discussion in which I am disabused of my mistake, or that I am downvoted to oblivion and then amplified by the rage-industrial complex because my mistake caused some initial small offense?
2017-08-15, 3:00 PM #3542
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
And I do understand that the target of that slur is the third party causality, of which we ought to be mindful and careful not to become party to their further maligning, but when the people making the insult are usually doing so in bad faith, the only practical answer is to ignore them rather than try to punish them. You cannot punish trolls and avoid making the problem worse. You can try to make their voices fainter and pay less attention to them, but don't try to stamp them out so much that they become virulent. When will people get this?


Ignoring bad language is not a blanket solution to the problem. There are times when speech can be ignored, and there are times when it should be spoken against.
2017-08-15, 3:02 PM #3543
I decry political correctness which seeks to end the career of the person who made a mistake by attempting to construe them as inherently bad people. What needs to be dealt with is media which allow anonymous memes to be propagated in bad faith in a way that profits the rage-industrial complex.
2017-08-15, 3:03 PM #3544
Originally posted by Eversor:
I don't know why you'd use the language of "rights", then. Rights are backed up by laws, or else they aren't really rights (because only if they are backed up by laws is there a legal penalty when they're violated, and only under such circumstances are rights truly guaranteed).


Natural rights are closer to what I was thinking, but I was more referring to what we give license to the people around us to do or say. Like, I can say, "you have the right to take candy from my desk", but I don't think that's a legal statement.
2017-08-15, 3:04 PM #3545
Originally posted by Reid:
Ignoring bad language is not a blanket solution to the problem. There are times when speech can be ignored, and there are times when it should be spoken against.


Heh. You're going to lose this war. Spamming memes in bad faith is always cheaper than countering it with reason. In fact it gives them pleasure to see you try because they can just call you a cuck and laugh at you for wasting the effort.
2017-08-15, 3:04 PM #3546
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I decry political correctness which seeks to end the career of the person who made a mistake by attempting to construe them as inherently bad people. What needs to be dealt with is media which allow anonymous memes to be propagated in bad faith in a way that profits the rage-industrial complex.


I absolutely support political correctness if it ends the career of far-right nationalists in positions of power, i.e. the police. That doesn't mean I support all witch hunts, but this stuff is acceptable to me.
2017-08-15, 3:05 PM #3547
I mean really has the internet really not learned the time honored dictum, "don't feed the trolls"?
2017-08-15, 3:05 PM #3548
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
Heh. You're going to lose this war. Spamming memes in bad faith is always cheaper than countering it with reason. In fact it gives them pleasure to see you try because they can just call you a cuck and laugh at you for wasting the effort.


I know. That's why I went to counter-protest the Nazis.
2017-08-15, 3:05 PM #3549
Originally posted by Reid:
I absolutely support political correctness if it ends the career of far-right nationalists in positions of power, i.e. the police. That doesn't mean I support all witch hunts, but this stuff is acceptable to me.


Okay, so you at least acknowledge that political correctness run amok exists when you referenced witch hunts that you don't support.
2017-08-15, 3:06 PM #3550
I never denied it exists, I just don't like the term political correctness for it.
2017-08-15, 3:07 PM #3551
Originally posted by Reid:
I know. That's why I went to counter-protest the Nazis.


First of all, you are pretty courageous for attending that counter-protest, so you have my respect for that.

I want to point out here that the online communication is rather different than face-to-face interaction, and generally speaking I don't think we can talk about the two in the same way.
2017-08-15, 3:07 PM #3552
Originally posted by Reid:
I never denied it exists, I just don't like the term political correctness for it.


That's fair, but I don't know what else to call it.
2017-08-15, 3:10 PM #3553
Originally posted by Reid:
I absolutely support political correctness if it ends the career of far-right nationalists in positions of power, i.e. the police. That doesn't mean I support all witch hunts, but this stuff is acceptable to me.


And just to be clear here, police are a super narrow example, when you think about what police do professionally and what racist ideology revealed by a slip of the tongue can reveal about their potential misconduct that affects people's lives in a terrible way.

That's a rather far cry from feeding the rage-industrial complex that seeks to fire people like Jeffrey Lord from his job on CNN because he made a totally legit joke about grammar Nazis on Twitter. I mean honestly there should be labor lawas against firing people due to pressure campaigns that were founded on unrelated personal offense. CNN so obviously fired the guy because they were just looking for an excuse to get rid of the pro-Trump contributor on their network.
2017-08-15, 3:14 PM #3554
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
First of all, you are pretty courageous for attending that counter-protest, so you have my respect for that.

I want to point out here that the online communication is rather different than face-to-face interaction, and generally speaking I don't think we can talk about the two in the same way.


That's probably true, as it stands de facto the internet is a place where tolerance for offensive language is greater. I wouldn't claim that the internet should be exactly as civil as personal conversation. But I do think that idea, that we have no right to respond to offensive language, is really a bizarre claim that doesn't hold up well to scrutiny.

Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
That's fair, but I don't know what else to call it.


That's fine. Regarding the start of this conversation, I asked about the term because I was curious to hear your thoughts about what it meant to you personally. And, to unravel a bit, because it's such a politically packed term that it's rather meaningless without a serious discussion.
2017-08-15, 3:19 PM #3555
Quote:
that we have no right to respond to offensive language


You have every right to respond to trolls, just as you have every right to personally contact people who send you spam email. I choose to filter people who make statements in bad faith. They are just about as easy to detect as a spam email.

Which brings my to something I said much earlier which still suffices to speak to what you wanted to clarify here:

Originally posted by Reid:
That's fine. Regarding the start of this conversation, I asked about the term because I was curious to hear your thoughts about what it meant to you personally. And, to unravel a bit, because it's such a politically packed term that it's rather meaningless without a serious discussion.


Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
At the end of the day, it all comes down to the whether or not the person making the ostensibly "offensive" statements is doing so in good faith and for the purpose of furthering discourse rather than repeating memes.


The thing is, 99.9% of social media consists of anonymous comments made in bad faith.
2017-08-15, 3:19 PM #3556


This is your daily reminder that the only reason Trump hasn't been removed from office is because Republican congressmen don't want to lose the white supremacist vote.
2017-08-15, 3:21 PM #3557
White supremacist president from white supremacist party has a white supremacist cabinet member who acts to benefit white supremacists. It's not even news.
2017-08-15, 3:22 PM #3558
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
I did learn a few things. The racist corners of 4chan have unequivocally been taken over now by oughtright Nazis, who are unabashedly displaying Nazi flags over their posts. But in the hours before this, many other people on the fence of trolling and outright murderous hatred seemed to be expressing frustration and disillusionment with the board. Those who are braving this "raid" by "storm***s" are ridiculing these people as "Nazi larpers", which is heartening.

Of course that leaves the site's only remaining constituency-an alliance between the KKK and 14 y.o. edgelords.


don't forget about crossdressers who like guns
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-08-15, 3:23 PM #3559
Originally posted by Reid:
Natural rights are closer to what I was thinking, but I was more referring to what we give license to the people around us to do or say. Like, I can say, "you have the right to take candy from my desk", but I don't think that's a legal statement.


That's fine. In other posts, you've used the word "acceptable". (As in, 'racism is not acceptable'.) You can say over and over again that things aren't "acceptable", but it doesn't matter if there's no way to enforce norms. That's the problem with so-called "political correctness". Political correctness is a set of beliefs about what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and it enforces those norms through castigating and reprimanding those who defy them. But it's not always clear what the correct norms happen to be (never mind what the ought to be), because they are established by the consensus of the opinions, which is constantly changing, rather than by an overarching authority. That means people can flaunt the norms for fun, or whatever other reason, without any real penalty (and if there is a penalty, it's a social penalty). People can say to violators, "that's not acceptable", but those who violate the norms can do so with impunity (and, saying that there behavior is unacceptable might even goad them into being even more abrasive, depending on who they are). Ultimately, the 2010s wave of political correctness has been toothless, and has largely increased the exact kind of behaviors and actions its tried to stop (even if it's also led to some becoming more enlightened and considerate about certain social issues). The norms aren't necessarily "just" or even "reasonable". They're just what a large section of society (not even a majority) through a kind of mob mentality happen to believe to be true, and that's inevitably going to inspire trolls to come and pick them apart (especially when those who claim their behavior is "unacceptable" are shown to be powerless as they censure and label others as "unacceptable").

So, yeah, there's this vague "right" that you're talking about. But presumably you want these norms to rest on something more reasonable than "if you break with social conventions, you'll get doxxed on Twitter".
former entrepreneur
2017-08-15, 3:28 PM #3560
Quote:
So, yeah, there's this vague "right" that you're talking about. But presumably you want these norms to rest on something more reasonable than "if you break with social conventions, you'll get doxxed on Twitter".


Which, by the way, is happening on Twitter right now w.r.t. some of the people who attended that torch carrying rally in Virginia: e.g., people are actively trying to get a 20 year old they ID'ed expelled from his university in Nevada. I am really not sure how I feel about this. He's not innocent, but on the other hand his university education really has little to do with the rally.

At least in the old days they used to cover their faces to avoid this kind of thing, but I think Trump is tapping into new depths when it comes to garnering the support of the poorly educated. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!