HIgh Schools now banning MAGA hats!!!!

If Clinton or Obama had gotten elected on a platform of crass racism, misogyny, and xenophobia, such that their campaign slogans amounted to fighting words for a big chunk of the population, you'd have seen efforts to keep those distractions out of the school, too.

Looks like rank speculation on your part.

IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF

WOULD WOULD WOULD WOULD WOULD

:rofl2:

Wasn't Obama favored by many voters because of his race?

Didn't many women vote for the Hildebeast because of her gender?
 
A Maga hater hat in school is equivalent to walking around with a chip on your shoulder daring anyone to knock it off. It is daring someone to say something. I can see why schools want to stop those potential confrontations.

So you say. It appears that your reaction to a slogan is the issue, not the slogan.
 
No, I don't agree with Antifa methods either. But I also don't think a school is a place to wear symbols that can easily incite violence.
I notice you didn't really address the video. Are you triggered?

Why should they incite violence? I thought you leftists were opposed to violence. I guess not...
 
Looks like rank speculation on your part.



Wasn't Obama favored by many voters because of his race?

Didn't many women vote for the Hildebeast because of her gender?

The notion that Obama and Clinton were helped by their race and gender, respectively, requires a willful ignorance of American history. In all of American history, exactly one black person ever had a remotely competitive presidential campaign. Before Obama, the closest anyone came was Jesse Jackson's failed nomination fights, and at no point did he gather enough support that people thought he had a serious chance to win the nomination, much less the presidency. Clinton is even more unusual. In all of history no woman ever even did as well as Jesse Jackson in pursuing the presidency, before Clinton. I'm not sure any woman ever even did as well as a third-place finish in a nomination fight, before she shattered that glass ceiling.

Obviously, Obama's race and Clinton's gender were each big net negatives for them. That's not to say that NOBODY voted for them for those reasons.... just that those who did were almost certainly outweighed by those who would have voted for a white man with their same positions and record, who couldn't bring themselves to support them because of race or gender.

One way to look at Obama's results is to benchmark them based on how he did with voters from races that didn't have a member of their own race in the contest: Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc. What you'll find is that those coming from that racially neutral perspective saw Obama as the much stronger candidate -- supporting him over both McCain and Romney by wide margins. So, in that sense, black voters weren't unusual in the fact they also thought Obama was the better option. The unusual group were the whites, who voted for the white candidate each time.... as they have in every single presidential election in American history (and a disproportionate number of all elections). It's hard to fail to see the pattern wherein the whites ALWAYS vote for the white man to be president.
 
The notion that Obama and Clinton were helped by their race and gender, respectively, requires a willful ignorance of American history. In all of American history, exactly one black person ever had a remotely competitive presidential campaign. Before Obama, the closest anyone came was Jesse Jackson's failed nomination fights, and at no point did he gather enough support that people thought he had a serious chance to win the nomination, much less the presidency. Clinton is even more unusual. In all of history no woman ever even did as well as Jesse Jackson in pursuing the presidency, before Clinton. I'm not sure any woman ever even did as well as a third-place finish in a nomination fight, before she shattered that glass ceiling.

Obviously, Obama's race and Clinton's gender were each big net negatives for them. That's not to say that NOBODY voted for them for those reasons.... just that those who did were almost certainly outweighed by those who would have voted for a white man with their same positions and record, who couldn't bring themselves to support them because of race or gender.

One way to look at Obama's results is to benchmark them based on how he did with voters from races that didn't have a member of their own race in the contest: Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc. What you'll find is that those coming from that racially neutral perspective saw Obama as the much stronger candidate -- supporting him over both McCain and Romney by wide margins. So, in that sense, black voters weren't unusual in the fact they also thought Obama was the better option. The unusual group were the whites, who voted for the white candidate each time.... as they have in every single presidential election in American history (and a disproportionate number of all elections). It's hard to fail to see the pattern wherein the whites ALWAYS vote for the white man to be president.

The mindset that you think race and gender didn't play a major role shows your stupidity.

Now, you're a mind reader?
 
Why should they incite violence? I thought you leftists were opposed to violence. I guess not...

They claim to not support it until one of their own does something violent. It's justification and excuse mode at that point.
 
The notion that Obama and Clinton were helped by their race and gender, respectively, requires a willful ignorance of American history. In all of American history, exactly one black person ever had a remotely competitive presidential campaign. Before Obama, the closest anyone came was Jesse Jackson's failed nomination fights, and at no point did he gather enough support that people thought he had a serious chance to win the nomination, much less the presidency. Clinton is even more unusual. In all of history no woman ever even did as well as Jesse Jackson in pursuing the presidency, before Clinton. I'm not sure any woman ever even did as well as a third-place finish in a nomination fight, before she shattered that glass ceiling.

Obviously, Obama's race and Clinton's gender were each big net negatives for them. That's not to say that NOBODY voted for them for those reasons.... just that those who did were almost certainly outweighed by those who would have voted for a white man with their same positions and record, who couldn't bring themselves to support them because of race or gender.

One way to look at Obama's results is to benchmark them based on how he did with voters from races that didn't have a member of their own race in the contest: Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, Arabs, etc. What you'll find is that those coming from that racially neutral perspective saw Obama as the much stronger candidate -- supporting him over both McCain and Romney by wide margins. So, in that sense, black voters weren't unusual in the fact they also thought Obama was the better option. The unusual group were the whites, who voted for the white candidate each time.... as they have in every single presidential election in American history (and a disproportionate number of all elections). It's hard to fail to see the pattern wherein the whites ALWAYS vote for the white man to be president.

I have NEVER known any HS that allowed t-shirts with logos or ballcaps indoors. Its bad manners anyway.
 
The mindset that you think race and gender didn't play a major role shows your stupidity.

Now, you're a mind reader?

You misunderstood. I'm saying the opposite: that race and gender almost certainly played a major role. White people have an absolutely consistent record, from the dawn of the Republic, of ALWAYS voting for a white man for president. It would be foolish to imagine that prejudice didn't have a role in the Obama and Clinton elections.
 
I have NEVER known any HS that allowed t-shirts with logos or ballcaps indoors. Its bad manners anyway.

Because you claim to have never known something doesn't make your statement factual, does it?

Your personal notions of decorum aren't binding on anyone, either, are they?

Your claim of ignorance and individual opinion don't rise to the level of fact.

You have zero credibility.
 
You misunderstood. I'm saying the opposite: that race and gender almost certainly played a major role. White people have an absolutely consistent record, from the dawn of the Republic, of ALWAYS voting for a white man for president. It would be foolish to imagine that prejudice didn't have a role in the Obama and Clinton elections.

Is that so?

Are you claiming that no "white people" voted for Obama, and no males voted for Clinton?

Isn't it a fact that the opposite is true, and that many women voted for a woman - the Hildebeast - and many people of color voted on racial lines for Obama out of a sense of social justice?
 
His reaction is based on the President. It could be any slogan and if Trump was part of it, he'd whine.

I suspect you're correct.

Are there any recorded instances of anyone attacking a person for wearing clothing emblazoned with "Hope and change" or "I'm with her?"
 
Back
Top