Some people just need to learn how oppressed they are, I guess?

So you don’t know what systemic oppression is, nor how to spell it. Got it!

What's a woman? Back at you

An adult female human being. Why do you ask?

What about a dude whi whacks off his junk don't you leftists think that's a woman?

Why do you assume I’m a leftist?

Past performance.

A devotion to facts and logic are rarely the domain of a leftist.

How do you feel about Trump Russia collusion?

Horribly handled by all parties. Why do you ask?

So you believe there was Russian collusion.

What I believe is irrelevant.

What I know is a number of people close to Trump were arrested for it.

No one was convicted so they are innocent.

However some were convicted of process crimes. Which is why you always remain silent.

What I believe is irrelevant.

What I know is a number of people close to Trump were arrested for it.

“No one was convicted so they are innocent.”

False.

Not only were they convicted for process charges, as you admitted after making your false statement they were innocent, when in actuality, many charged were found guilty.

Paul Manafort was convicted for financial crimes (money laundering).

Roger Stone was convicted for perjury and tampering with evidence. Despite the fact the maximum sentencing for Stone was twenty years, the justice department only asked for seven-ten years. Many, including Trump, claimed this to be excessive despite it being the minimum recommendation. The fact that Stone was later pardoned can be argued as blatant corruption on Trump’s part.

Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for lying to the FBI is still a conviction despite not receiving any jail time.

Rick Gates also pleaded guilty for lying to investigators and other conspiracy charges.

There were dozens more convictions outside of Trump’s circle, but that should suffice as my claim rested on the arrests those close to Trump.

To assume their convictions don’t count while misleadingly stating they were innocent is mere opinion.

It is not based on fact nor logic.

Who was convicted of Colluding with Russia?

The people closest to Trump?

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates.

They specifically made contact and conspired with Russian agents and actors. Their cooperation lead to further indictments and sanctions of these Russian agents and actors.

Further, Mueller concluded that the evidence did not find anything conclusive on Trump’s guilt, but that the proceedings did not fully exonerate him either. He stated the Justice Department could not indict a sitting President, implying he had enough evidence to at least hand the investigation off to a congressional committee to begin articles of impeachment. Mueller further alluded that it was the domain of the Congress to remove a sitting President, implying the only way forward was through impeachment. He further claimed Trump could be indicted once he as no longer President.

Ultimately, Democrats decided not to impeach Trump. (At least not for Mueller’s findings.) Likely because they assumed the Republican controlled Senate would ultimately pardon him. Their assumptions were later proven to be correct.

As I said, it was horribly handled by all parties. An opinion sure, but an informed one.

I do know, but thanks for the spellcheck, love. 😘

You know you've made an excellent point when they can't respond to what you've said with anything other than being a grammar cop.

Spelling is different from grammar, but I’ll be sure to point that out the next time I make an excellent point.

Excellent point! Thanks for the correction!

Please explain systemic oppression.

It’s not that I don’t believe you but well… I like to be skeptical.

Systemic Oppresion: when marginalized groups are continuing to experience marginalization, violence, aggressions, or brutality due to a hold of the system by the people who have an upper hand of society.

Am I in the ballpark?

by "system," I mean furtherance of success or other achievements within society.

Very good! Gold star to you!

Now apply it to your meme.

How is the action by this abusive idiot systemic exactly?

Quite simple. According to modern academia and most hardcore leftism/liberalism, something as small as a comment on her hair could be construed as a "microaggression," which is a mere extension of systemic racism and oppression. Therefore, something that took actual violence (in this case, a man at the very least assaulting by possible strangulation), can be seen as a harsher aggression, in which case he assumes power over her because of her "race" (a misnomer as we are all of one race). This can be described as a classic extension of systemic racism and misogyny on any news reel or academic setting, akin to the cop that kneeled on George Floyd.

Except it won't. Because he's a Democrat and she's a Republican.

Thanks for attending my TED Talk.

Good try, but your premise is based on strawman. Their logic is flawed, but not because it is actually flawed, rather you think it is flawed, therefore you fail to see the logic in the argument. Know thyself, said Socrates who sought knowledge and perspective. Know thy enemy, said Sun Tzu who wanted to learn from his enemy's mistakes in order to prevent his own.

Microaggressions are not an extension of systemic racism but a product of them. However, not all passive aggressive comments are motivated by racial, sexist, or other biases. If not all passive aggressive comments are not motivated by biases, then one can assume that not all assault is racially motivated. If one were to assume everyone who has assaulted someone was due to race, you'd find most assault takes place between same-race, even same-sex people rather than people of different race and sex. So, we cannot assume in this incident that because he is white, and she is black, that he assaulted her for this reason. Unless we know what was exchanged or what lead into this, you can assume that race was a motivation just as easily as one can assume sex was a motivation. Or what kind of politics they represent.... until we know, we don't.

Systemic racism is not a classification of individual racist action, but a group of them. When more black people are arrested than white people, or viceversa; that is an example of systemic racism. When more black people are shot by white cops than black cops, that's evidence of systemic racism. When more white people are gunned down by cops than black people... that too can be evidence of systemic racism.

The incident above may be individually be racially motivated but it's not statistically valid as very few white people attack black people, especially strangers.

I actually have that data here...

https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Granted, it's old, but I failed to find a more contemporary data that was as widely encompassing. Still, without a wider pool of incidents, it cannot be determined a systemic racism. Racism? Maybe! But not systemic.

As I said, good try, but no.

An interesting explanation. Which makes the hyperbole of the meme even funnier.

Unlikely.

The problem is you aren't taking into account is why more non whites are being arrested than whites. In the case of black people its mostly that their culture glorifies violence and crime, just like the CIA wanted.

The CIA working at all to portray black culture glorifying violence and crime, is evidence of systemic oppression.

In order for there to be systemic oppression, there must be evidence, but the statistics alone are not enough. They are the symptom. Discriminatory laws, higher sentences on drug-related crime, and leniency on police brutality helps widen the gap in arrests between races and are direct evidence of the oppression.

But it’s still has nothing to do with the OP’s meme that what transpired was evidently systemic oppression in action, which is my point.

They did that in the 80's. Look up Iran Contra. There is no evidence they do it today, but once the shift from married Christian black people went to single mother crime black people that's when the crime statistics exploded.

Higher sentences on drug-related crime compared to what? This leads me to believe there may be a drug problem with this demographic (see CIA comment above).

I agree with you on police brutality, but the past few that have been popularized were following procedure that is used on all demographics.

The only discriminatory law I know if is the Clinton law that made crack have a higher sentence than cocaine.

So a lot of what you are saying don't make sense when examined closely. There is just not any evidence of systemic oppression.

"There are no "Clinton laws."
Presidents don't make laws, they sign them. What Republican-in-disguise Bill did was sign legislation passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate in 1995 that nixed the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommendations to adjust the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which was harsher towards those arrested for possessing crack than those with powdered cocaine. Reagan was president in 1986, and he directed CIA to distribute the cocaine he purchased from Nicaragua in the inner city."

Yes, there are. The president approaches congress and says "I want a law that does this" congress then works on making the law and when its done and passes congress the president signs it. How else did Obama get his healthcare law passed?

There are no "Clinton laws."
Presidents don't make laws, they sign them. What Republican-in-disguise Bill did was sign legislation passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate in 1995 that nixed the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recommendations to adjust the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 which was harsher towards those arrested for possessing crack than those with powdered cocaine. Reagan was president in 1986, and he directed CIA to distribute the cocaine he purchased from Nicaragua in the inner city.