Ann Coulter to Vivek - I wouldn't have voted for you because you ain't White - Politics Discussion

[–] Information-Police (4185) 11 days ago

Coulter smoothly shifted from "you can't be president because your ethnic background makes you unable to value American principles (the most important aspect being a love of guns) to ethnic and racial diversity shouldn't be used as a factor in hiring because somebody's ethnic background doesn't determine what their their values are.

reply

[–] UncleRuckis (2562) 11 days ago

Ann Coulter may be a hateful shrew, but gotta give her credit for not being a typical right wing coward and standing behind dog whistles and subtext. Wear that racism on your sleeve!

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

Good for Ann. Baby steps for sure, I'll wait until she says the same thing to Barack Obama or Chuck Shumer, but it's good that pockets of on-the-fence whites, trained their entire lives to dislike their own people, just heard someone publicly say, "It's OK to be white".

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

So saying "I won't vote for you because you're not white" is equivalent to saying "It's OK to be white"?

And that if you are willing to vote for non-whites, it means you hate your own race?

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. How penetratingly astute of you to figure that all out.

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

I don't know whether or not this is sarcasm or not. Assuming it is, what is "Good for Ann" about saying that she rules out voting for non-white people?

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

I think that's fairly obvious. Go cogitate on it for a few days and maybe it will come to you too.

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

So I'll just conclude that you're actually just a piece of shit racist then.

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

I'm sure you will. Since that's what you were going to conclude anyway, you could have saved yourself the attempt at the passive-aggressive interrogation that's your stock in trade. It's quite tiresome.

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

Claiming "good for you" to someone who says they refuse to vote for a political candidate for the colour of the skin is pretty basic racist apologia, fuckface.

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

Temper, temper. Do you kiss your mom with that mouth?

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

I'm not going to take lectures on behaviour from what I can see, a white nationalist authoritarian who also wants to use the state to target LGBT people but is too cowardly to actually say what they mean after making implications.

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

Oh jeepers, you're not going to take it? So that means you're going to...wait, what are you going to do?

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

It's rhetorical. The point I see no reason to defer to you or take seriously any moralistic-leaning positions from you on anything when you're a raging authoritarian with a world view more in line with Iranian Mullahs than any western worldview.

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

You've made that abundantly clear. Do you have any further points to make or are you going to pull jilted girlfriend act and keep posting until you get the final word?

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

I will continue to ask what you find admirable about the idea of not voting for someone purely for the colour of their skin, and your implication that being willing do so somehow constitutes some form of race betrayal. Would you find it admirable if a black person said they only vote for black people? I wouldn't - for the same reasons I don't find this admirable.

I know you're a cowardly little bitch who runs away at the first site of scrutiny, but I don't care.

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

You say you wouldn't find it admirable, yet for countless blacks that's exactly the criteria they use at the ballot box. And I sure haven't seen any evidence of you getting your panties in a twist over that. Ann said she didn't want to be ruled by Indians in her country, a historically white country. I remember when Indians didn't want to be ruled by whites in their country. Again, I'm having trouble recalling your outrage over that fact.

Your dazzling virtue appears to have left you half-blind.

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 11 days ago

>You say you wouldn't find it admirable, yet for countless blacks that's exactly the criteria they use at the ballot box..

And that's wrong too. Although I suspect you're speculating a lot here. I know there are racist black groups and undoubtedly racist black people, to be sure. So?

> And I sure haven't seen any evidence of you getting your panties in a twist over that.

Show me a black person who said it, and I will condemn them. If they're on this forum, i'll call them racist.

>Ann said she didn't want to be ruled by Indians in her country, a historically white country.

Sorry, an elected representative being Indian means you're being "ruled by Indians" does it? Was the USA "ruled by blacks" when Obama was president?

>I remember when Indians didn't want to be ruled by whites in their country. Again, I'm having trouble recalling your outrage over that fact.

Are you expecting me to be outraged over things that happened hundreds of years ago? Are those tribes in the room with us now? Also, forced displacement and territorial annexation is not the same thing as running as political candidate in a democratic state.

I am willing to vote for anyone of any race, if I agree with them. Does that make me a traitor?

reply

[–] Melton (2531) 10 days ago

Absolutely superbly handled, maixiu.

you could have saved yourself the attempt at the passive-aggressive interrogation that's your stock in trade. It's quite tiresome.

You saw right through that POS 👏🏻

He went screaming to the mods to have several of my posts deleted, yet here he is blasting you for being ‘authoritarian’. Hypocritical commie fuck.

There’s a thread devoted to exposing Skavau’s dirty rhetorical tricks and hidden agenda. You already know his game but if it’s of interest to you…

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/662e66e066a72d7514b0e4f4/Anyone-else-encountered-the-user-Skavau

Skavau, humiliate yourself now by demonstrating exactly the passive-aggressive interrogation that maixiu called you out for. Go…

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 9 days ago

How was this "superbly handled"? It seems like, according to you, anyone who has any dispute with me, no matter what the dispute is automatically "supremely handles" it.

What arguments did he make that somehow justified his defence to refusing to vote someone purely on the grounds of their race?

Or are you implying that you are also a racist piece of shit?

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 9 days ago

Why would I vote for someone using race as the deciding factor? Because I want to. That's the only explanation owed your type.

Who are you that I have to justify my personal preferences in order to gain your approbation?

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 9 days ago

>Why would I vote for someone using race as the deciding factor? Because I want to. That's the only explanation owed your type.

So it's textbook racism.

And you don't have to justify shit, but people will regard you as a racist. That's all.

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 9 days ago

>Skavau, humiliate yourself now by demonstrating exactly the passive-aggressive interrogation that maixiu called you out for. Go…

You clearly don't know what passive aggressive means. In all of this I've been aggressive, quite obviously.

reply

[–] Melton (2531) 9 days ago

I've been aggressive, quite obviously.

Only insofar as a crying baby is ‘aggressive’ 🤣

reply

[–] Skavau (9918) 9 days ago

>He went screaming to the mods to have several of my posts deleted, yet here he is blasting you for being ‘authoritarian’. Hypocritical commie fuck.

Also are you actually comparing, again, the concept of internet moderation on private forums with that of wanting to use the state to persecute specific groups?

Like, in your mind, those two things are the same?

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16330) 11 days ago

"...Good for Ann. Baby steps for sure, I'll wait until she says the same thing to Barack Obama or Chuck Shumer, but it's good that pockets of on-the-fence whites, trained their entire lives to dislike their own people, just heard someone publicly say, "It's OK to be white".

...I'm not even mad necessarily at this point. Thank you for your candor.

reply

[–] maixiu (720) 11 days ago

Who was supposed to give a toss if you were mad?

reply

[–] chilidoggg (13231) 11 days ago

“There is a core national identity that is the identity of the WASP”

Marjorie Taylor Greene was Catholic until she learned that priests were molesting children... in 2023...

reply

[–] SandyR (7474) 11 days ago

What a bitch.

reply

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16330) 11 days ago

I believe it.

reply

[–] WandererFromYs (1742) 11 days ago

I think she’s wrong here. I think people
Can still share those core wasp values that the country was built on, even if they are not all of those things themself. If you close your eyes and just listen to him, he definitely embodies those values. He is an American, he’s from Ohio.

The Liberal reactions that I’ve seen are pretty ignorant though. There are a lot of people calling out Vivek for not calling her out. But he did. He debated her points, rather calling her names, and they had a discussion. You only change minds with logical and reasoning you are going to make someone change their mind by name calling.

reply

[–] Rorikon (16523) 10 days ago

Had to look up WASP. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP). So that's what they were referring to.

reply

[–] Corbell (8818) 10 days ago

AND plenty of people have been here for generations and have completely forgotten those values.

reply