The Political Cartoon/Image/Meme Thread

  • Thread starter Danoff
  • 12,760 comments
  • 598,510 views
there’s reason to investigate.

I never said otherwise. What I have been saying is that just because some people have co-opted the sign it doesn’t mean everyone is doing it with the same intent. It should be investigated like everything else, with innocence being the starting point, not the other way around.
 
I never said otherwise. What I have been saying is that just because some people have co-opted the sign it doesn’t mean everyone is doing it with the same intent. It should be investigated like everything else, with innocence being the starting point, not the other way around.
I was arguing against those who were saying it's not white supremacy, it shouldn't be investigated and shouldn't even be reported.

You were one of the posters who was arguing with me.
 
I was arguing against those who were saying it's not white supremacy, it shouldn't be investigated and shouldn't even be reported.

You were one of the posters who was arguing with me.

Once again, you never said any of that. It's not my fault if you aren't being clear enough. I can only go off of what you post.
 
Once again, you never said any of that. It's not my fault if you aren't being clear enough. I can only go off of what you post.
You certainly can:

From your own link: "By 2019, at least some white supremacists seem to have abandoned the ironic or satiric intent behind the original trolling campaign and used the symbol as a sincere expression of white supremacy, such as when Australian white supremacist Brenton Tarrant flashed the symbol during a March 2019 courtroom appearance soon after his arrest for murdering 50 people in a shooting spree at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand."

NO INVESTIGATION NECESSARY :dunce:
Sad that you deliberately left that out when quoting your own source and then you continued to argue with me. That's pretty clear.
 
You certainly can:

Sad that you deliberately left that out when quoting your own source and then you continued to argue with me. That's pretty clear.

The all caps and dunce-cap emoji seemingly indicate you were being sarcastic. If you weren’t I apologize, but once again, I can only go off of what you post.

Your refusal to answer the question I asked repeatedly about the examples being false equivalents also works against you.
 
EObZwGZWkAEtA2v.jpg
 
What does race have anything to do with that...

The insinuation is that there would be a full-scale police brutality situation, and many arrests, and lots of scared people, if black people demonstrated in this manner. Whereas white people can do it without causing a panic.
 
The insinuation is that there would be a full-scale police brutality situation, and many arrests, and lots of scared people, if black people demonstrated in this manner. Whereas white people can do it without causing a panic.
The protest wasn't strictly white, there were white and black people present
 
Nailed it. It does undercut Bernie's message a little though.
I dont think so. His message has always been socialism for the people, stoic individualism for the corporation. Something like that anyway. I dont think he's undercutting his message by pointing out the hypocrisy of corporate CEOs and the ilk who say crap like that while getting handed thousands, millions and even billions in taxpayer money.
 
I dont think so. His message has always been socialism for the people, stoic individualism for the corporation. Something like that anyway. I dont think he's undercutting his message by pointing out the hypocrisy of corporate CEOs and the ilk who say crap like that while getting handed thousands, millions and even billions in taxpayer money.

Generally speaking, sending JP Morgan public funds is very poorly received. He's tacitly admitting socialism=bad with that post. You're trying to bring a level of nuance here that I'm simply not.
 
Generally speaking, sending JP Morgan public funds is very poorly received. He's tacitly admitting socialism=bad with that post. You're trying to bring a level of nuance here that I'm simply not.
I dont think I am. I think you may be reading to much into it. I dont see anywhere where the poster (I honestly dont think Sanders runs his own social media) says socialism bad. I see where they are calling out Dimon for taking corporate socialism but slamming public socialism.
 
I dont think I am. I think you may be reading to much into it. I dont see anywhere where the poster (I honestly dont think Sanders runs his own social media) says socialism bad. I see where they are calling out Dimon for taking corporate socialism but slamming public socialism.

Yea you have to bring to it the notion that the JP Morgan bailout is bad. I'm saying that it is generally understood that this is brought. So like, a tweet that would have counter-acted this would have said something like "It worked when your bank needed a bailout". But "$416 Billion bailout from American Taxpayers" adopts the general negative impression of the bailout, and doesn't attempt to bolster the notion that socialism is a good or needed thing.

In other words, it makes Dimon look bad, but it doesn't make socialism look good.
 
Yea you have to bring to it the notion that the JP Morgan bailout is bad. I'm saying that it is generally understood that this is brought. So like, a tweet that would have counter-acted this would have said something like "It worked when your bank needed a bailout". But "$416 Billion bailout from American Taxpayers" adopts the general negative impression of the bailout, and doesn't attempt to bolster the notion that socialism is a good or needed thing.

In other words, it makes Dimon look bad, but it doesn't make socialism look good.
And you said I was getting nuanced...
 
Aw comeon. Nobody likes the JP Morgan thing. The fact that it's socialism makes socialism look bad. There's not really any nuance here.
Im not arguing against that. I just am not pulling the same info from the post that you are is all.
 
Back