The Guns Of Hate
Comments
-
Tlaib is understandable because she is NOT FAR REMOVED from her family's country of origin. You are race baiting. It's a liberal tactic.
-
Mr. Reformed,
"People who the lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones".
Your words above, taken as written, should I be sueing you? Your words from a previous post suggest that I do.
Reformed, do you remember calling me a "racist" November 2018 last year?
Here is the context and my response:
- reformed Posts: 2,296 November 2018
- @C_M_ said:
- » show previous quotes
- Come on, is it realistic to expect them to adhere to the laws of the land? This is why we have hospitals, meds, and prisons. Let's keep it real.
- Let's be real, those things are for AFTER they broke the law. New laws won't change this.
- » show previous quotes
- Oh, please! America and the world are awash with guns. How many people need to be rescued from bears? Again, keep it real!
- People also need to hunt, defend themselves from burglaries, etc.
- » show previous quotes
- Yes, it is. What need is there for the average citizen for an AR-15? Please don't say hunting. It's a weapon of war!!!
- Actually the AR15 is not a weapon of war. In fact, it is much LESS powerful than what is used in war. It is actually a very low powered weapon.
- » show previous quotes
- Why wouldn't America pass "commonsense" gun laws? Proof they don't mean well.
- We already have the common sense gun laws in place. What you and other liberals propose are NOT common sense.
- Where is your sympathy for the dead? Recently, eleven, peace-loving Jews were slaughtered, in the temple on the Sabbath, where was your voice? Do you love guns over Jews? Why do you and others seem to be so in love with instruments of death? Guns were made to kill!!! You know this! The earth is not settled over their graves, you and others are defending the right to purchase, own, collect, and to use any gun, at will. Can we take a moment for the dead? CM
- PS. Wolfgang, don't defend America with her misplaced love with guns over people.
- And again with the race-baiting. You are RACIST.
- Quote
- CM Posts: 3,013 November 2018 Flag
- @reformed said:
- And again with the race-baiting. You are RACIST.
- I will wait for Wolfgang's response. Thanks.
- What I will not leave for later is you saying...
- @reformed said: You are RACIST.
- I am aghast! I'm most disappointed to read this from you. However, you seem to love being the first to call people names. This is wrong! I have never in my life been called a "RACIST."
- You can disagree with me on a number of points, but don't go there. Do you enjoy hurting people and calling them names? I couldn't be racist if I wanted too. Why would you say this, first of all? Secondly, how are you able to draw such a conclusion? I don't believe any one of the users of CD has ever been called such name. This is a serious charge and needs to be considered withdrawing, against me. You're alone, in this new-low of name calling.
- Besides, what is a "racist", as you define it? However you do, I am saddened. CM
Mr. Reformed, Do you take those words back? Are you truly reformed or a creature of habit? Let stay focused on the topic that Guns were made to kill, especially in the hands of mentally-ill "White males". They seem to be the ones doing most of the mass shooting in your beloved USA. In my view, CD's resident "Master debator", Bill, can give you the statistical data for proof, if you don't take my words for it. CM
-
I stand by my comments. Not sure why you are talking about a glass house. Doesn't apply here.
Guns are not the problem. FACT,
-
@reformed posted:
Tlaib is understandable because she is NOT FAR REMOVED from her family's country of origin. You are race baiting. It's a liberal tactic.
I'm not "race baiting." I'm asking for explanations, which from you have been VERY difficult to receive. For example, we STILL don't know why you believed Rep Tlaib was born in Palestine.
You call such a belief "understandable" because she is "NOT FAR REMOVED from her family's country of origin." The problem with that explanation is that someone who is "NOT FAR removed" from his or her family's country of origin IS STILL REMOVED from her family's country of origin. That means, if when you decided she was born in Palestine you knew she was "removed," just "not far," from her family's country of origin, you also knew she wasn't born in her family's country (presumably Palestine?) So exactly where did you think she WAS born?
And if when you decided she was born in Palestine you DIDN'T know she was "removed," just "not far," from her family's country of origin, then that fact could have played no role in your decision... which, of course, begs the question yet again: On what basis DID you believe Rep. Tlaib was born in Palestine>?
Could you PLEASE offer a clear, direct, non-evasive response to my question? At some point and for some length of time you decided to believe Rep. Tlaib was born in Palestine. When you made that decision - at the time you made that decision - on what basis did you make it? What information did you have that persuaded you to believe she had been born in Palestine?
And of course, your latest post makes no mention of the other two American-born Congresswomen of color whom the president wrongly asserted were not born in America. Your only explanation to-date is that the president "just lumped into the group of the idiot squad." I'll remind you that racists tend to be really good at lumping people into groups they don't belong in. You DO agree with that observation about racists, don't you?
Finally, I simply must ask for your reaction to the president's latest flagrant lie. Today from behind his oval office desk he brandished an obviously-doctored hurricane forecast map, one that purported to prove his claim from over the weekend that Dorian was going to hit Alabama. He then magnified his lie by orders of magnitude when he said initial forecasts about the storm's path predicted a "95%" chance of Dorian hitting Alabama. No, they didn't.
- The president lied about the path of the storm over the weekend, forcing the National Weather Service to correct him by tweet.
- The president lied about the path of storm today via a forecast map that SOMEONE in the White House altered.
- The president lied about the path again today when he claimed forecasters once declared a 95% chance of the storm's striking Alabama.
- And the president likely lied yet again today when he claimed not to know (or apparently care) how the forecast map he held up for the nation's review had clearly been altered.
Is there ANY number of lies Donald Trump could tell that would lead you to rescind your support of him? Is it really not a bridge too far when the president of the United States lies about the path of potentially devastating hurricanes threatening his country?
-
Could you PLEASE offer a clear, direct, non-evasive response to my question? At some point and for some length of time you decided to believe Rep. Tlaib was born in Palestine. When you made that decision - at the time you made that decision - on what basis did you make it? What information did you have that persuaded you to believe she had been born in Palestine
Since when is "race" and "counrtry of birth" somehow defining factors of each other? are all "dark skinned" folks of a certain race and/or born in a certain country? what about all "lighter skinned" people? are all children born in one country of the same race ??
Seems to me that it would be rather silly to use race as something to base one's country of birth .... or to use country of birth as base for race.
-
Guns were made to kill. They are too many guns, too many sick people, too few rules to monitor purchase and carry and too many cowardly American politicians. All guns can kill any race of people. Let’s stay focused. America is not far from her history. Wake up America! You are killing your own! CM
-
This is not difficult. Honestly I thought she was from Palestine too because all I had heard about her was that her family lived there still. How is that not an understandable mistake? Has nothing to do with race. And yes, you ARE race baiting. Typical liberal tactic.
-
Ok this is flat out false. Too few rules to monitor purchases? A reporter tried to buy a gun to prove how easy it was and, guess what, SHE FAILED THE BACKGROUND CHECK! https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/08/22/the-its-easier-to-buy-a-gun-than-cold-medicine-crowd-just-got-slapped-with-reality-n2552072
Guns are not the problem. Gun control doesn't work, just look at Chicago.
-
@reformed posted:
This is not difficult. Honestly I thought she was from Palestine too because all I had heard about her was that her family lived there still. How is that not an understandable mistake?
May I assume, given all we've heard in recent days about Mike Pence's family coming from Ireland [namely, according to Wikipedia, his grandfather, Richard Michael Cawley, emigrated from County Sligo, Ireland, through Ellis Island, as did his uncle and great aunt, while his maternal great grandparents were from Doonbeg, County Clare.] that you've at least had the thought that Mike Pence might have been born in Ireland? After all, so many of his family members came from there!
The only thing I knew about Rep. Tlaib was that she was a duly elected member of the United States House, and my assumption has always been that members of Congress are born in the United States. Yes, Rep. Omar is an exception to my assumption, but she's one of a small percentage of said members who were not born in the U.S. (currently, 11 of 535 members of Congress - 2.1% - are naturalized American citizens) Hence, it never occurred to me to even consider the possibility that she was born anywhere but the U.S.
An understandable mistake? I don't know what mistakes are "understandable" coming from you, but for me that would not be an understandable error. Why? Because given how unusual it would be for me to believe a member of Congress was not born in the U.S. I would expect - demand - myself to research the question before reaching a conclusion. Had the president researched the matter before issuing his tweet, he might have avoided the embarrassment of wrongly labeling as foreign-born three American-born Congresswomen of color. But it's pretty evident to me that the president didn't really care about the truth of those representatives' birthplaces. Or more darkly, he cared only about what was true for him about their birthplaces: that for him, they WERE born in other countries.
Has nothing to do with race. And yes, you ARE race baiting. Typical liberal tactic.
No. I'm not race baiting, but a back and forth consisting of competing claims of "Yes, you are" and "No, I'm not," does not a substantive (or even interesting) exchange make, so let's move on.
Racism in ALL of its forms is evil and sinful. We agree on that much, yes? And ANY political leader - those whose views mirror our own, as well as those who views diverge from ours - who engages in racist speech and/or action deserves and should receive condemnation from the Body of Christ and the followers of Jesus therein. We agree on that, too, yes?
And we also agree that racists ARE good at lumping people into groups they don't belong in, yes?
Finally, I still seek your response to my questions about the president's latest lies (re: the doctored hurricane forecast map) Is there ANY number of lies Donald Trump could tell that would lead you to rescind your support of him? Is it really not a bridge too far when the president of the United States lies about the path of potentially devastating hurricanes threatening his country?
-
Doctored hurricane forecast map? First, I have no idea what you are talking about. Second, do you really want to talk about doctored meteorology? Let's talk about the big lie of global warming.
Second, Seems like you are calling me a racist now because I also thought Tlaib was from another country. All I know is I heard she was going to visit her grandmother in Palestine, I hear her views and culture and wrongly assumed she was an immigrant. YES that is an UNDERSTANDABLE mistake. Not racist.
-
@reformed posted:
Doctored hurricane forecast map? First, I have no idea what you are talking about.
The doctored map has been a prominent story for the last 24 hours. Here's an image of the president presenting the Sharpie-amended forecast map in the Oval Office yesterday. He or someone in the White House added the black line so as to buttress his claim on Sunday that Hurricane Dorian could hit Alabama. [Interestingly, it's a crime to edit an official forecast map, but since this doctoring was done when the map was no longer relevant, no one will be charged.]
And in case you don't know, at the time the president tweeted about the threat to Alabama on Sunday, official forecasts of the storm's path had long-since moved it well east of the state... to the point that the Alabama National Weather service felt compelled to correct the president with their own tweet...
Second, do you really want to talk about doctored meteorology? Let's talk about the big lie of global warming.
You're simply wrong about climate change - sadly, in this case, deadly wrong. It's not I who say you're wrong. It's the science. The issue is no longer debatable.
As Pete Buttigieg said in a climate change town hall last night, you, the president, and other climate change deniers simply need to get out of the way so the rest of us can do something about this existential threat to our planet and our way or life.
Seems like you are calling me a racist now because I also thought Tlaib was from another country. All I know is I heard she was going to visit her grandmother in Palestine, I hear her views and culture and wrongly assumed she was an immigrant. YES that is an UNDERSTANDABLE mistake. Not racist.
I don't claim that you're a racist.
You now say you assumed from her "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. That's striking to me. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?
-
The fact that you think climate change is settled science is very telling. Stupid really. It's not settled science. It's not deadly. It's a hoax.
-
You're simply wrong about climate change - sadly, in this case, deadly wrong. It's not I who say you're wrong. It's the science. The issue is no longer debatable.
As Pete Buttigieg said in a climate change town hall last night, you, the president, and other climate change deniers simply need to get out of the way so the rest of us can do something about this existential threat to our planet and our way or life.
Is "science" now the god of truth?
Also, seems like science community is quite divided about the human made lcimate chnage ideas propagated by certain sources ... the matter is highly debatable (and not only for scientists, but also for non science folk trying to stay within simple reason and what makes sense.
Seems like the "Thuna" (pope Greta of the climate change ideology religion) fish has reached the USA ... I encourage adherents to such religion to at least be honest with themselves and immediately start doing what that religion propagates and forsake such sins as using certain means of transportation in order to save the cimate etc etc ...
-
@reformed posted:
The fact that you think climate change is settled science is very telling. Stupid really. It's not settled science. It's not deadly. It's a hoax.
You're welcome to the views of your choice, of course. In most cases in these forums, my response to views different from mine is "I/We disagree." In the case of climate change, however, my response is different: You're wrong. ... Not "stupid." Just wrong. As I indicated in my last post, the issue is no longer debatable. We no longer have time to convince people who, the evidence demonstrates, cannot or will not be persuaded.
It's akin to sitting in your car, packed for a trip, waiting for two friends to show. You've called them, texted them, sent them images of your hotel reservations, but still they haven't arrived. At some point you have to stop waiting; you have to leave without them. In my view, that's where we are now when it comes to climate change deniers. We've show you charts and graphs, we've brought you the witness of thousands of noted scientists and the conclusions of international scholarly panels, including the Trump administration's own "U.S. Climate Change Report," but you won't or can't be convinced. Well, the convincing time is over. It's time for the rest of us to move on.
And I'm still waiting for your response to the question with which I closed my last response to you: You say you assumed from Rep. Tlaib's "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?
@Wolfgang posted:
Is "science" now the god of truth?
I don't know what a "god of truth" is, but the discoveries of science are almost always the best assessment we have of how the natural processes of the world operate.
Also, seems like science community is quite divided about the human made lcimate chnage ideas propagated by certain sources ... the matter is highly debatable (and not only for scientists, but also for non science folk trying to stay within simple reason and what makes sense.
Again I must break out my "you're wrong" response, Wolfgang. It is simply not true that the "science community is quite divided." But I invite you to prove me wrong. Provide me a link to a peer-reviewed (i.e. scientifically reputable) study that demonstrates that the scientific community is "quite divided." OF COURSE you can point to specific scientists who doubt climate change. But your claim is not that there are scientists here and there who dispute climate change. Your claim is that the community is "quite divided," a description that suggests the existence of a significant percentage of the scientific community that dispute the reality of climate change. Provide a link to a peer-reviewed study that proves your point. (If you want to save yourself some time, I'll tell you that such a study doesn't exist, because there is NO such division in the scientific community.)
If for you "simple reason and what makes sense" lead you to doubt the existence of climate change, you need to complicate your "reason" and experiment with a few things that don't make sense.
For example, what do "simple reason and what makes sense" tell you to make of the following graph of global land and ocean temperature changes over the last 140 years, especially the basic trajectory of the trend line from 1910 to the present?
-
It is VERY debatable. There is no evidence of man-made climate change without flubbing numbers and re-interpreting data or just flat out ignoring realities around you (such as growing ice coverage and cooler global temps). It's the biggest lie and hoax to date. It's a conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories. It isn't real. I am not wrong. Science agrees with me. For every report that you have that "proves" your claim there are reports to disprove your claim and contradict you. So it is very much debatable and not fact.
-
@reformed posted:
It is VERY debatable. There is no evidence of man-made climate change without flubbing numbers and re-interpreting data or just flat out ignoring realities around you (such as growing ice coverage and cooler global temps). It's the biggest lie and hoax to date. It's a conspiracy theory to beat all conspiracy theories. It isn't real. I am not wrong. Science agrees with me. For every report that you have that "proves" your claim there are reports to disprove your claim and contradict you. So it is very much debatable and not fact.
As I reported in my previous post, you're welcome to the views of your choice on the issue of climate change, but in my view, the time for debating the matter has ended. On this matter - on the matter of climate change - you're wrong. About each of the many unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions of fact in the paragraph quoted above, you're wrong.
And I'm STILL waiting for your response to the question with which I closed an earlier response to you: You say you assumed from Rep. Tlaib's "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants? [You made the declaration about the role in your assumption about her birthplace of the representative's "views and culture." Why aren't you willing to stand behind it?]
-
I'm not answering the Tlaib question because it is pointless question.
I'm not wrong on climate change. The science does not prove it. Science proves climate change just as much as it proves God didn't create the universe in 6 literal days.
-
@reformed posted:
I'm not answering the Tlaib question because it is pointless question.
It's not a pointless question at all. YOU'RE the one who claimed to have assumed Rep. Tlaib's foreign birthplace from her "views and culture." What views and culture would lead you to assume an American birthplace is an inquiry that flows naturally from YOUR assumption about the congresswoman.
But for what it's worth, it doesn't surprise me at all that you're not willing to address the question.
-
I did not say it was only her views and culture. But view such as her utter hatred of Israel and her CLOSE family that is still in Israel.
-
@reformed posted:
I did not say it was only her views and culture. But view such as her utter hatred of Israel and her CLOSE family that is still in Israel.
In point of fact, you identified three specific factors in your assumption about the representative's birthplace: her desire to visit her grandmother and her "views and culture."
I'll simply point out that Rep. Tlaib's desire to visit her grandmother rose to public view in mid-August. The president wrongly asserted that she and two other American-born Congresswomen of color were not born in America in mid-July, a month earlier. So if you drew your mistaken conclusion about her birthplace at the same time the president drew his, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandmother.
As for her "utter hatred" of Israel, that's clearly a view to which you're welcome. I must note, however, she is not the only American-born citizen of the United States who holds similar views - though many of those American-born citizens, including Rep. Tlaib herself, would likely reject your characterization of their views as "utter hatred." And I'm guessing you would not assume foreign birthplaces for any Caucasian members of that group of American-born citizens who share the Congresswoman's views.
Which basically leaves you with her "CLOSE family that is still in Israel." In mid-July, at the time the president reached his false conclusion about the congresswoman's birthplace, I couldn't have told you ANYTHING about her family without some online research, research which undoubtedly would ALSO have told me that though she has family still in Israel, she herself was born in the U.S. more than 40 years ago. So I have to tell you that it's strange to me that the sources of information you relied on to learn about her "CLOSE family still in Israel" didn't also tell you of her Michigan birth.
-
You asked me about my view of her at this point and now you are trying to daisy chain things together. Typical liberal games. You are all about trying to deceive, twist, lie, and whatever else to try and make the opposition say something wrong. I'm done playing your BS games.
-
@reformed posted:
You asked me about my view of her at this point and now you are trying to daisy chain things together. Typical liberal games. You are all about trying to deceive, twist, lie, and whatever else to try and make the opposition say something wrong. I'm done playing your BS games.
I did NOT ask you about your view of the congresswoman "at this point," and hence am NOT "trying to daisy chain things together."
What DID I ask you? A review of our exchange's recent history: (all emphases added)
- In THIS POST, you wrote, "Seems like you are calling me a racist now because I also thought Tlaib was from another country. All I know is I heard she was going to visit her grandmother in Palestine, I hear her views and culture and wrongly assumed she was an immigrant. YES that is an UNDERSTANDABLE mistake. Not racist." ---- You "heard" and therefore "assumed" and "thought" - all past tense - she was from another country. Clearly our exchange has NOT been about your view of her "at this point," but rather the factors that contributed to your initial assumption about the representative's birthplace.
- In response to your post, in THIS POST I asked, "You now say you assumed from her "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. That's striking to me. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?" --- While the question I asked was not in past tense, neither was it about the congresswoman; it was about your manner of making assumptions about people's birthplaces, a question, I need to point out, you have yet to address.
- I then re-posed the question to you in THIS POST: "You say you assumed from Rep. Tlaib's "views and culture" that she was an immigrant. What "views" and "cultures" are expressed by the people you assume AREN'T immigrants?" --- Again, my question to you was not about the congresswoman, but about your manner of making assumptions about people's birthplaces.
- Then in THIS POST, you amended your original response about the factors in your assumption of the congresswoman's birthplace: "I did not say it was only her views and culture. But view such as her utter hatred of Israel and her CLOSE family that is still in Israel."
- In response, I then posted my most recent contribution to this thread, a post that was indeed about your assumption of the representative's birthplace. Samples from said post (again note the past tense): 1) "So if you drew your mistaken conclusion about her birthplace at the same time the president drew his, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandmother." 2) "So I have to tell you that it's strange to me that the sources of information you relied on to learn about her "CLOSE family still in Israel" didn't also tell you of her Michigan birth.
I haven't asked you about your "view of [the congresswoman] at this point." The question I asked you in our most recent exchange was not about the representative at all! But since you chose not to address that question, I joined you on the issue you seemed willing to address, the grounds of your initial assumption about her birthplace. NONE of that was about your "view... at this point." ALL of that was about your view at the time your made your assumption.
You assign to my actions the devious intention to "deceive, twist, lie, and whatever else to try and make the opposition say something wrong." That sounds serious to me. Please identify ANYTHING from my posts in our exchange that deceived, twisted, lied, or whatevered to "make" you say something "wrong." (And while you're at it, please tell me into which category does your untrue assertion that I asked you about your "view of her at this point" fall? When you made that false statement, did you deceive, or twist, or lie, or whatever?)
-
You are trying to tie my mistake of her nationality timeline to the President's. That's dishonest. Why are you linking the two?
-
@reformed posted:
You are trying to tie my mistake of her nationality timeline to the President's. That's dishonest. Why are you linking the two?
When you revisit my applicable previous post, you'll note that I did NOT "tie [your] mistake of her nationality timeline to the President's." Here's the key paragraph from that applicable post: (emphasis added)
"I'll simply point out that Rep. Tlaib's desire to visit her grandmother rose to public view in mid-August. The president wrongly asserted that she and two other American-born Congresswomen of color were not born in America in mid-July, a month earlier. So if you drew your mistaken conclusion about her birthplace at the same time the president drew his, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandmother."
I didn't assert that the timeline of your mistake WAS the same as the president's. I asserted my doubt that you knew about the representative's desire to visit her grandmother IF the timeline of your mistake was the same as the president's.
Perhaps you waited til mid-August - a month after the controversy of the president's tweet about the congresswomen of color's birthplace - to decide Rep. Tlaib was "born in Palestine." That sounds odd to me, frankly, but if that was your timeline, so be it. My original assertion remains unchanged: IF you decided at the same time the president did, I doubt you knew about her desire to visit her grandma.
All that said, it remains unchallenged by your response that your claim that I had asked for your view of the representative "at this time" was incorrect. So I ask you again: In making that untrue statement, did you - to use your categories - "deceive," "twist," "lie," or "whatever"? Or perhaps, given the content of your latest post, you were simply "dishonest" when you made that incorrect statement?
-
Honestly I did not even know who the whole squad was until I started hearing about Tlaib's dishonest spectacle about her Israel trip. I knew about AOC and Omar. I still don't even really know (or care) who the fourth is. They are all stupid brats who don't have an ounce of sense.
-
@reformed posted:
Honestly I did not even know who the whole squad was until I started hearing about Tlaib's dishonest spectacle about her Israel trip. I knew about AOC and Omar. I still don't even really know (or care) who the fourth is. They are all stupid brats who don't have an ounce of sense.
Neither whether the four congresswomen of color are "stupid brats" nor the amount of "sense" they employ has been at issue in our exchange in this thread. Our focus has been on the false assertion of the president of the United States that the three American-born representatives among the four were foreign-born. The president (and you, for that matter) might believe all senseless "stupid brats" are born overseas, but that's not been an issue in our exchange.
And may I take your most recent post as your defacto acknowledgement that your previous claim that I had "tie[d] [your] mistake of [the representative's] nationality timeline to the president's" was in fact not true?
-
No, you were definitely tying the timelines together.
-
You know @Bill_Coley it is interesting. I went back and read what the President wrote. He never mentioned Tlaib, AOC, or the other in his tweet. For that matter he didn't even directly mention Omar. So you are just bickering about nothing. It's not racist.
-
By now you know I don't allow unsubstantiated assertions of fact to go unchallenged.
Your assertion was that I was "trying to tie [your] mistake of her nationality timeline to the President's [mistake of her nationality timeline]." The clear meaning of that assertion is that I tried to say you made your mistake at about the same time the president made his. Please quote from my post(s) in order to prove I made such a claim.
You know @Bill_Coley it is interesting. I went back and read what the President wrote. He never mentioned Tlaib, AOC, or the other in his tweet. For that matter he didn't even directly mention Omar. So you are just bickering about nothing. It's not racist.
I actually expected this rationalization much earlier in our exchange.
Here, yet again, is the president's July 14 tweet:
If not to the members of "The Squad," to which members of Congress did the president refer when he tweeted about "'Progress' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe"?
-
I refuse to speculate. But it is clearly not a racist tweet. Liberals created the false fake news narrative.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)