The Alt-Right Playbook: The Death of a Euphemism

Say, for the sake of argument, you’re a liberal journalist in the year of 2016 of the common era. Your beat is covering the Republican Primaries. A lot of people are vying for the presidential nomination, And so it falls to you to attend and write up their debates. Part of your job is deciphering “conservative euphemisms.” When the subject of “illegal immigration” comes up, for instance, You’ll have to explain to your audience that, the idea of “protecting American jobs from undocumented workers,” is Republican Doubletalk for “hating mexicans.” No one is tightening security at the US-Canada border, No one is pulling over white Europeans to check their visas. And undocumented workers contribute a massive amount to the economy, while tax-payers don’t have to cover social security, unemployment, or Medicare for them. “protecting jobs” has always been used to paper over racism. So you’re sitting there watching the debate, these factoids at the ready, when one of the candidates says he wants to tighten the borders, because… “Mexico is sending us rapists and thieves.” I’m sorry. What? What just happened? That is not a thing Republicans are supposed to say out loud! It’s… …against the rules! You can’t just cop to believing Mexicans are degenerates after decades of calling border security a “jobs issue”. Also, immigrants, legal or otherwise, aren’t soldiers. Since when are they sent by anyone? By the time you pull yourself out of that thought spiral the debate has shifted. Now they’re talking about the war on terror. So you somewhat warily prepare to contextualise another set of euphemisms. This is a subject almost always used to mask Islamophobia. Whenever an act of domestic terror is committed by someone of Palestinian descent, politicians try to link it to ISIS or Al-Qaeda. Where if the bomber or shooter is a white Christian, the terrorist is referred to as a “lone wolf”, not part of any pattern, despite there being significantly more white Christian “lone wolves” than Palestinian terrorists. This “war on terror” never seems to expand beyond regions with oil deposits. But then that same candidate pipes up and says, if elected, for the sake of security, he wants to create a Muslim registry, and what the hell is going on?! Politicians just don’t talk like this! Conventional wisdom is that this kind of language will flare up the extremists in your party while alienating your base. And appealing to both at the same time is why we invented euphemisms. And sure enough, in the following months, you have far-right pundits talking about a Muslim ban on national television, waxing nostalgic about the Japanese internment camps of the 1940s like they weren’t a national disgrace. You’ve got that same candidate casting aspersions on the judge investigating him for fraud because the judge is Mexican-American. You’re sitting there with your pen ready to write an article about the alienation of the moderate Republican base, but that moment never seems to come. The guy seemingly tanking his candidacy by appealing to extremists is the one who finally secures the nomination. You realize with some shock that in each of these cases you are witnessing the death of a euphemism. The death of a euphemism is a rare celestial event. Politicians only let a euphemism die when they don’t need it anymore. This does not imply good things for Mexicans or Muslims. The circumstances under which a euphemism may die are often spelled out in the circumstances under which it is born. So, if we want to discuss it, we’ll have to start at the beginning. Let’s talk about euphemistic racism in the Republican Party. In the year 1964 there was a man. We’ll call him Barry… Uh… Silver… …milk. Silvermilk was the Republican nominee for president and, for various reasons, he was almost certainly going to lose the election. The Democrats were the incumbent party — they’d pretty much controlled Congress since the 40s — and the country was still in mourning after the devastating assassination of a Democratic president. The United States wasn’t looking to change parties. About the only thing Silvermilk had going for him was that the Democrats had just signed into law the Civil Rights Act, expanding the voting rights of black citizens and desegregating a lot of American life. And a lot of white voters were pissed about it. In those days, you couldn’t really claim Republicans or Democrats were “good on race.” And black people, when they were allowed to vote at all, were much more evenly split between parties than they are today. However, a Democrat pushing through the Civil Rights Act had, intentionally or otherwise, made race a partisan issue. The upshot, Silvermilk realized, was that disgruntled white people might be willing to abandon the Democratic Party if given the right incentive. In ’64, Republicans didn’t have much of a coalition — not since Democratic tax policies had dragged America out of the Great Depression. (And incidentally created the greatest period of economic growth and prosperity in the history of the industrialized world, but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.) If Silvermilk could siphon white voters out of the Democratic Party, he might bring a strength to Republicans that they hadn’t seen in decades. But, to do that, he’d have to run his campaign on a pro-segregation platform. Now, white racists have a complicated relationship to their own racism. They seemingly want the impossible: they want segregation without appearing to be segregationists, racist policy without the social repercussions. Possibly, they don’t even want to admit their racism to themselves. So Silvermilk would need a framing that allowed the blithely racist, the overtly racist, and the non racist to unite under a single banner. For this purpose, Silvermilk landed on the long enduring euphemism, “states’ rights.” Now, obviously, the “states’ rights” argument didn’t originate in 1964. It’s very old, and in fact used to be more of a Democrat thing. We’re talking about the specific invocation of states’ rights as a defense of inequality. Silvermilk argued that desegregation, though certainly a nice idea, shouldn’t be enacted at the federal level, because no matter how acute the plight of black Americans, the decision to desegregate should be left to the states. Of course, anyone embracing this rhetoric knew full well that many states would never in this lifetime desegregate unless forced to But you see: that’s not the aim, merely the side effect In this framing, no one is officially pro-segregation. They’re simply anti-desegregation This brokered a compromise between the reactionaries and the centrists in the United States It allowed moderate Republicans some deniability about what direction their party was headed, and it allowed the Silvermilk campaign to secure the votes of white racists without having to publicly embrace them. Now in spite of all of this Silvermilk, as predicted, lost the election in a landslide, but it would be wrong to take that as a rejection of what he tried This was the beginning of the modern Republican Party This is where the deep south, formerly a lock for the Democrats, first voted for the party of Lincoln. This is where white flight from the Democratic Party began and why today we see white people, particularly white men, are the only demographic that consistently votes Republican Silvermilk’s rhetoric was foundational to bringing Republicans back to power in the 80s Finally breaking the Democrat’s hold over the House of Representatives. Some will argue that Silvermilk did sincerely believe in states rights and that rebuilding the Republican Party by appealing to white racists was not his intent. And if you believe that perhaps I can interest you in a very promising real estate venture in Florida. But regardless of what you believe about his intentions, that is how states rights has been used: As a cudgel in service of bigotry States rights was invoked and is still invoked to defend anti-miscegenation laws, anti-abortion laws, same-sex marriage bans, trans bathroom bills, spousal rape, you name it! Every time there are gains for social minorities, the Republicans shore up the votes of bigots who find these gains offensive It’s hard for the left to argue with the states rights argument because it’s not designed to make sense Republicans will say we should leave an issue like same-sex marriage up to the states But only after a federal ban on same-sex marriage proves infeasible. Up until that moment, they are in favor of government overreach. So states rights has never been a consistent philosophy But then why should it be? It’s a euphemism. Its sole purpose is bringing an extreme ideology into mainstream politics. About the only blessing of a political euphemism is that the belief that can’t be spoken is a belief that is to some extent contained. The states rights argument makes bigotry more pervasive, but keeps it somewhat less draconian than the bigots might prefer If you have to smuggle your marriage ban into a states rights argument, you’re painted into a corner should your state choose to legalize it. Then if you want to keep the homophobic vote secure, you’ve got to find and popularize a different euphemism. Managing an alliance between moderates and reactionaries, especially when you can’t acknowledge that one half of that alliance even exists, is a hard needle to thread And depending on who’s in charge of the party at a given time, the alliance can be tenuous The far right is often viewed by their own party as the mad woman in the Attic. We feed her, but we don’t talk about her. Republican campaigners are somewhat known for going out and getting far-right folks registered to vote and then talking shit about them when they’re out of earshot I suspect they enjoy standing next to extremists because it makes them look moderate by comparison Though we should be clear, if you need to stand next to someone whose bumper sticker says “If I had known this I would have picked my own cotton” to not look racist? Your house is not in order. And the far-right knows this. Say what you want about them, they’re not all fools. Their party often doesn’t respect them because it doesn’t have to. Who the hell else are they gonna vote for? They are the necessary evil. But if what a person wants — what they actually want — IS segregation, IS a nationwide ban on same-sex marriage, IS the mass deportation of Mexicans, IS the closing of borders to all Muslim nations, This euphemistic “states rights”, “job security”, “war on terror” half-measure bullshit isn’t going to cut it forever When you court the vote of bigots, sooner or later, it’s put up or shut up. I don’t say this to generate sympathy for them. None of these are desires worth having and no nation calling itself a democracy should ever represent them Not even as watered down euphemisms. But to bring us back to the recent past. I say this because in 2016, it had been a long time since these people felt that any party had truly represented them and this is why a candidate who doesn’t say “protecting jobs” he says “Mexicans are rapists” who doesn’t say “war on terror” he says “Muslim registry” appeals to them He says in so many words the Islamophobes, the racists, the sexists, the segregationists: They are my base. I will not appeal to moderates and treat them as the necessary evil I will speak to them directly without euphemism because honestly, I don’t know how euphemisms work. These are my people And they are the ones the Republican party should embrace with open arms. This is supposed to be political suicide. And in the months that follow it looks like maybe it will be. All the other journalists are writing this up as a fluke and an embarrassment. Him securing the nomination has doomed the Republican Party. The moderates will never elect him. Not only will he fail, he will lay bare the ugly truth about his entire party. He lags in the polls. Republican lawmakers disavow him. The Republican National Committee revokes their endorsement. Statisticians say not only will he lose in the swing states, But some of the Republican strongholds might vote Democrat for the first time in 40 years. They suspect he could drag Republicans in the House and Senate down with him. Democratic control of all three branches of government. His loss will be as sweeping as Silvermilk’s in ’64 and the ensuing Republican realignment will be as dramatic But when the day comes That’s not the headline you have to write. How do you make sense of this? You’re a political writer, you’re supposed to tell people what this means. How do you even begin? Well, it means party loyalty is one of the strongest things in politics today. Come election day, people who disavowed him were making phone calls on his behalf. It means the Republican Party has drifted to the right far enough that these so-called moderates are more closely aligned with white nationalists than they are to the moderate left. It means, in all likelihood, The bigots are the base now, and the moderates the hangers-on. Politicians can be as racist as they want because who the hell else are Republicans gonna vote for? That’s not the realignment you were expecting. Now there’s no saying how long this state of affairs will last — One election doesn’t mean the center-right and the far right know how to build a coalition. Maybe a year or two from now and this guy’s passed a little legislation, the moderates will have buyer’s remorse, The extremists will feel their guy was more blunt talk than he was action. Everything will be worse and no one will be happy. But that’s not much comfort because it tells you almost nothing about how the next election will go. At this point, anything could happen. A euphemism dies when it no longer works to disguise things that can’t be said, Or when culture at large decides things that can’t be said are now sayable. In the last couple videos, we’ve talked about how the far-right mainstreams a, for instance, racist idea by convincing people it’s not racist. What we’re seeing here is the end game of that process. Once the public embraces them as people, elects their politicians, and implements their policies, They begin, bit-by-bit, to drop the pretense. Because if they want to close the borders once and for all, it’s in their best interest to stop pretending border control is about “protecting jobs” A sad truth about humans is they will often accept almost any justification to keep doing whatever they’re already doing. If someone has spent years favoring border security — they’ve voted for it, their taxes have paid for it, Maybe they’ve even called ICE on someone, and one day you tell them “Keep doing what you’re doing, But by the way, it’s not about jobs anymore. Now, it’s about keeping Mexicans out.” A lot of them will roll with it. We like to think action follows belief And sometimes it does But at least as often it’s the reverse And that’s a dangerous thing when given the choice to do something different, or do the same thing only more. To the far right, a euphemism is like a calf Something to be brought into this world or inherited, removed from its original context, raised to adolescence, and then slaughtered when the time is right. Historically, the first sign that things are about to get a lot worse for minorities is when the racism stops being euphemistic. In a sense, the far-right and the liberal journalists share a purpose The journalists’ goal is to expose the truth behind the euphemism in the hopes that people will abandon bigotry once it’s been made explicit The far-right does the same Hoping they won’t

  1. 2:08 Among the many rules he has broken, Trump has also admitted on his vlog that the goals of the wars in oil-rich countries is to get oil.

  2. Let's be honest, it's them or us. If you've not realised it yet, you're living a dream. Watching my people being replaced within my own little country city is something so dreadful and so sad I cannot describe.

  3. These videos take liberal arguments and treat them like objective fact when in actuality the data is nuanced. The border argument for example. "No one is calling for Canada border security." Because Canada is a wealthy developed country so no one is sneaking across the border at nearly the same rate. That's just common sense. Now the "Mexicans" that Americans hate aren't even Mexicans, they're Hondurans and Guatemalans sneaking across the border. They by definition aren't seeking asylum because by the time they get from their country to Mexico, they've already escaped the gang violence they were fleeing. So why don't we call on Mexico, a Catholic, Spanish speaking country, to integrate more of these Spanish speaking catholic refugees, rather than the United States? It's Mexico's fault that hundreds of Central American immigrants die every year in the Southwest desert coming to America. We need a strong border and we need to demand Mexico take more responsibility of these asylum seekers.

  4. The Republicans are honestly kinda fucked for 2020, huh. Most of Trump's moderate base and even some of the extremists have realized he's an ineffective leader and general loser and the weaker Dems in office have recently been voted out, so we have a shot to do something. Hopefully we can get the support of the centrists and oppose them head on, instead of the "We go High, you go low" approach.

  5. Added to the states rights thing…if your point is to encourage liberties of smaller areas, why do so on a state level? Why not on a county level? Of course, the answer is that any state has liberal bastions and you want to overrule them. The state's just the largest level you can control at that point. Many parts of states like Virginia tried to desegregate in the 50s, but were taken down by the state government.

  6. I'd love a video about trolling, general and specific. Now not only anonymous people talking shit is called trolling. Theres Genious harmless, even heroic versions like the guy answering "OK" and nothing else to a scammer. And then kids who may or may not believe in it but regardless need a fast boot to the face for their nazi salutes. Seems America not only forgot that you shouldn't believe liars but also can't transfer the logic from the boy who cried wolf. Or they can. But pretend they can't. Because maybe every single person defending such "trolls" is just a neonazi

  7. Usually your videos start of with amazing analysis but trip over a few assumptions on the halfway mark.

    Not this video. This time its just assumptions all the way.

  8. This explains why i see many conservatives claim that Trump "Says what i am thinking." They are, by their own admission, racist bigoted xenophobes that believe in authoritarian measures to dictate their world views under the guise of democracy. Thanks for the insight.

  9. With how you have gone about framing the Republicans, the right, and anyone that in your mind can fit those labels, I am interested to see a video on how you frame and what you say are the beliefs and tactics of the left and those on the left.

  10. I find it hilarious how you just completely ignore how terribly the democrats side of this election went. Who were people supposed to vote for? Hilary Clinton LMFAO.

  11. I find you to be possibly the best Liberal commentator on YouTube. I lean right, but only barely. And one of those ways is in support of "unfair scrutiny" of people from primarily Islamic nations. Why search little old black or white granny for a bomb when We can use statistics to our advantage? Because it feels bad to that's why. It feels unfair even though (and even though all Arabs aren't terrorists….most terrorista (Islamic extremists at least) are Arabs. Israel doesn't mess around with this kind of pretend security acting like some people aren't more likely to have a bomb, no, they save time and search the Arabs.

  12. Since I know this comment will be misinterpreted, let me first state that Trump is a racist, sexist moron, that I want more open borders, that I do not support any Muslim bans or other Republican Islamaphobic bullshit, that I'm pro-choice and pro-universal healthcare, and that I consider myself a center-left voter. That being said….

    The fact that some people use "states rights" as a euphemism doesn't mean that all uses of "States Rights" are euphemisms. Concentration of power is a dangerous thing (eg: kings). A lot of our government was set up to avoid concentrations of power: 3 co-equal branches, limitations on what government could do, and yes, States Rights. There are lots of trade-offs for doing it this way. For example, the Senate is notoriously slow to make policy — much slower than, say, a dictator might be. But the Senate is also far less likely to randomly enact a slaughtering of people. I and many others believe this trade-off is worth the inefficiency.

    States Rights breaks up power and distributes it for the same purpose. The downside is that it's easier for some states to do shitty things. The upside is that it's harder for the entire country to do a shitty thing. The arguments against it are often crafted as "A States right to do what?!", followed by a list of all sorts of terrible things politicians have ever done or tried to do. And yeah, those are bad, but the alternative is not roses and flowers — it's giving that same power to the federal level. More summarized:

    *Comparing the WORST State policies to the BEST Federal policies is an invalid argument against States Rights*.

    You're not deciding between "a ban on gay marriage in Alabama" and "permission for gay marriage everywhere" — that was frankly good luck. You're deciding between "Do I want Trump making policy at the State level or at the Country level?" If those are your only choices, you can see why some people favor States Rights and the decentralization of power. It limits the damage a bad actor can do.

    So yes, there are some people who like power to be distributed because they fear what concentrated power can do. Circle-jerking around some pretend moral high ground does not address that argument.

  13. Ah YouTube. Selective conformity of information, both sides think they are correct as a concrete. It's not facts vs feelings. It's feeling vs feelings.
    You can't win it. It's the manifestation of a childish spirit.
    "Don't tell me what to, you're not my father".
    You can't speak no more new words. Everything that had to be said has been said.
    It's like a distant dream, it's appealing because it's a dream. No one likes reality.

  14. I feel that one thing you overlook is that not only alt-right Republicans voted for Trump. My parents are fairly moderate Republicans, and they voted for Trump simply because he was a Republican. Personally my biggest issue with American democracy at the moment is the 2 party system.

  15. jeeeus we get it, you're all still throwing a tantrum because you think you guys lost the election, and yet no one's given any of you a participation trophy to add to your piles. get over it

  16. Waaaaaaaaaaaait a second,You are protecting undocumented working,basically modern day slavery,just to say "illigal immigration good?

    From the person who made the "angry jack" and "The card says moops" i expected a little less hypocrisy

  17. Politicians may try and be discreet or indirect but a great con man who kows how to work a crowd does. This wannabe dictator, installed by the russians and supported by Nazis, white supremacist and evangelical bible cultist openly calls for bigotry, hatred, and fascism. State's rights for the fascist simply means their rights over everyone else's ideal and values. I no longer refer to trump and his supporters as the alt right as it is just an euphemism for being a Nazi racist bigot.

  18. What a boring video. Yet another leftist that makes no real attempt to understand anybody that doesn't agree with him. To some uninformed liberal knuckledragger I'm sure this seems real intelligent though.

  19. Islam is a bad ideology.
    Christianity is a bad ideology.
    All religion is bad when left unchecked and allowed to govern states. I don't know why we let Christianity or Islam off the hook. They are both pretty equally bad. But most domestic terrorists aren't christian extremests or Muslim extremests, they are crazy white teens with guns. Why the hell are we letting these three things go?

  20. You had the opportunity to say "milked-down euphemisms" instead of "watered-down euphemisms" and I need to know of that haunts you.

  21. Canadians and europeans wouldn't illegally immigrate to the US since our countries have a better standard of living. Also importing cheap labour that undercuts the minimum wage DOES negatively harm lower income american workers, period. Do you have any idea how the economy functions? Why are you doing the bidding of and supporting what is essentially neoliberalism?

  22. It was Hillary Fkn Clinton that allowed Trump to win. A far right lunatic was elected a President, because the Democrats lost, not because the far right won.

    Try not electing a totally corrupt corporatist & warmongering Democratic nominee in the next election, to go up against a right wing xenophobic lunatic?
    That might just work?

  23. Hillary really didn't help things out by tying moderate Republicans to Trump saying all were deplorables. Which would basically say if you are going to act racists, be racists. Excluding those of us who left and when for Gary Johnson, who everyone dismissed because he didn't keep on where the war fronts are, like most Americans. And Hillary working with the DNC doing shady work on Bernie, there were a lot of Not Hillary, who weren't even Republican that went for Trump. It also doesn't help, that while Trump does blast obviously wrong things, he does back peddle it some. Tries for reframe, often post the comment he made, allowing moderates to say the media is taking things out of context, because they didn't also pull a line 3 sentences past that gave "clarification." Take that as you will, because those quotes are there, so it depends what you think about Trump, is he a racist who slides in just enough to keep moderates, or is he an idiot who misspeak with generalizations and stereotypes, because he wants to be edgy, anti-PC, and stir up the media and liberals.
    Overall good video on euphemism, not necessarily revealing on the election, but informative.

  24. You gotta take into account how awful Hillary was as the Dem nom. She did not motivate the dem base to vote. Bernie would've won.

  25. 11:43 Don't worry Political Writer Circa Two Thousands and Sixteen, the Democrat Establishment is here to save the day for Trump! They're going to put up the most unelectable candidate in history!

  26. I’m just gonna slip in here and say that I’m a third generation Mexican immigrant (Grandfather immigrated) and I support Trump. I now wait in anticipation to see what replies I get.

  27. Trumps border control is more of a business decision than a racist decision. Of course in the end it's the racists that fuel his influence (along with his wealth), but in the end Trump is a business man. I doubt he actually cares about any of this politics stuff. Everything he says is to provoke attention and conflict, that's what fuels capitalism in the end.

    We make money off of violence and oppression. As long as we live in a capitalist economy, right wingers will always have the strong hold. After all, we're living in their world, playing their game.

  28. Yet all charts point to Republicans not moving at all, it is the Democrats who have moved so far Left they think everything right of them is a Nazi xD

  29. It is not a euphemism for racism, they are litteraly soldiers, the militia is called MS13, terrorism talk is not about islamophobia unless you mean Islam for once and not Muslims in which case yes, Islam is horrible, a Muslim registry of people from abroad would be good since they are already registered since they are foreigners and their ideology tells them, and most of them believe they MUST BY GODS STRONG WILL be extremists violent totalitarians. We are 2:29 into the video, is there even any point in continuing? This video was bad. Real bad.

  30. I can't even say how many times this vid has made me weep. I am a combat vet and patriot and I cannot for the life of me get this thorugh my own peoples heads. And nothing makes me feel more impotent than that.

  31. Mexico is sending us rapists and thieves though, and murderers to boot, also Canada doesn't regularly publish pamphlets on how to hop the border in an attempt to kick the can of rebellion down the road because of their corrupt cartel controlled LEFTIST government.

  32. Illegal immigration is objectively harmful to the country. I am half colombian and a son of a first generation immigrant.

  33. When did a federal ban on same sex marriage ever gain any traction from
    either party? The defense of marriage act was left the decision up to individual states and 36 of them decided to allow same sex marriage way before the Supreme Court decision said they all had to.

    Your example of people not arguing for states’ rights in good faith shows the exact opposite. You on the other hand, are a master at bad faith arguments and twisting arguments to make people assume the absolute worst in each other.

  34. Nuh-uh. Nope. Come 2016, I couldn't vote, since I'm not American, but I privately supported Trump. Why? Because Innuendo Studios cuts out literally half of the picture here – Hillary Clinton.
    The right-wing aren't the only ones peddling euphemisms and political obscurity. People were tired of it – all of it, from both sides. And yet, Hillary didn't relent, didn't pull the conversation in her direction, didn't respond to Trump in any serious manner – he blindsided her. He made her appear dishonest. Because, really, there's nothing more honest than to blatantly air out that you're a bigot, a racist and a sexist.

    And honesty, especially after Obama's term (when the government acted as if everything was sunshine and rainbows, even though the situation in the Middle East somehow WORSENED while the Gitmo question still remained in limbo, Obamacare (especially the disastrous website launch) was a failure, and two cases of police murdering black dudes echoed throughout the nation), was in high demand by the populace – they were starved after everyone seemingly either ignored all the problems the country had, or were willing to tear the country down pushing their own radical agendas.

    I write this in 2019. I'm doubtful Trump will be elected a second time, since, for all his grandiose promises the previous election, nothing really seemed to change in the past 3 years. We'll see. But, regardless, I, for one, am glad that the euphemism is finally dead. You can't run away from your problems forever.

  35. actually the greatest period of growth and prosperity was under Mao 700 million people were lifted out of poverty

  36. How do you make sense of this? Well… It was racist clown against warmonger mc bigmoney from the kingdom of every lobby ever. If i was politically uninformed i see reasons to take the wildcard and as an informed voter i would have at least felt deep and crippling disgust with myself while thowing the ballet in the box for hillary.
    Luckily i am german and have only to decide between different kinds of corrupt.

  37. Minute 14:00 is about – Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

    Book by Christopher Browning – and this should scare everybody about where the Republican Party is headed.

  38. Damn.. good video. There’s so much hypnotic euphemistic bullshit to sort through I have almost no faith that this can be relayed to a lot of right wing voters because most of us just don’t have the skill to articulate it. That’s disappointing. However I think once people can a taste of the Bern finally in office over the course of a term a lot of those people will change their minds.

  39. You are absolutely dead wrong on Barry Goldwater by the way……..I invite you to actually study real history, not ruminate on your biases and projections.

  40. idk why you never mentioned the term dogwhistle in a video about dogwhistles but either way this a good video. it's concerning that other proto-fascist governments around the world are now testing the waters after seeing how well it went with trump

  41. 0:38 uhhhh no that's just them twisting republican's words to mean whatever they want…..and you putting spin on that spin to justify it

  42. 6:14 see you're just deciding what his words mean for him…..and you aren't smart enough or mature enough to do that

  43. Personally, I don't like euphemisms. They confuse me, and honestly make it difficult to see what is actually going on in the minds of people who I'm going to be voting for. It is very difficult to find every nuance in everything some politicians, especially when missing something could make you unintentionally seem like a racist or some other type of radical. Even when people point out that what I said is a euphemism and that it means something else, I am unsure if they are telling me a different euphemism or half-truth. I appreciate Donald Trump's honesty with his goals, even if I don't agree with them. It makes it much easier for me to disagree with him and generally think he's an idiot.

  44. I like your videos and the presentation but the fact you always make the alt right extremists 4chan logo shirt people is kinda…. weird. Why? 4chan and even /pol/ does not represent alt right racism. It has it's own internal politics, no firm leadership for either side and a mix of liberals and conservatives. You might as well just put a german flag on the shirt you want to represent the nazis if that's the logic we're gonna go by here. They're anarchy on the internet in what amounts to a web forum.

    I know it's kind of a petty visual thing but it does irk me and take me out of your videos and down to the comments like I'm under fire when all I've ever done is post .swfs on /f/ – I don't like being associated with alt right, nazis or even conservatives and would appreciate it if you didn't just lump as all into the same camp.

  45. thank you
    my dad used to be a rockefeller republican. When I asked him when he finally went democrat was the second term of bush. The platform of them was "fiscal responsiblity" and it made it rain on pork barrel projects. This is a larger symbol of the growing shift in the republican party from conservative fiscal responsibility and ability, and now its glitz and glamor with a fucking incompetent buffoon in the big house, sorry white house, but we have to remember, 45 is the symptom, not the disease.

  46. I find it depressing that the family guy index for skin color/terrorism is still accurate
    Like serious wtf its 2019 why is it still accurate?

  47. The 10th amendment of the constitution exists you know. Now you can argue that slavery, civil rights, segregation, etc. became federal issues through the passage of the 14th amendment and other earlier legislation like the Missouri compromise and 9th amendment but states do have a right to choose their own policies when it is not something delegated to the federal government.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *