A Legacy of Division

No, because the right is, generally speaking, not as racist as the left.

Which side supported DEI (which, among other things, judges people on race) again?

Glad to see the Doctor was in to dispel the Democrat delusion with facts...👍

I deal with logic and facts, simple as that. If the leftards want me on their side, they should try and convince me with actual proof, facts, and logic. Though, considering "feelings > facts" is basically their motto, that's never gonna happen.

I could see that from your memes. :)

How many times have we ever seen the word 'logic' and 'liberal' together while 'common sense' and 'conservative' is even a tag on a site as liberal as imgflip?🤔😉

The only times the words "logic" and "liberal" are together in the same sentence is when you put a word like "not" in there.

Yeah well reason is the beginning of thought and emotion is the expression of thought. . .and Leftists drive in reverse while going the wrong way on a one way street.

And not only that, they'd scream at anyone going the right way down that one-way street that they're going the wrong way.

You think liberals are more racist than conservatives. Can you prove that with logic and facts?

DEI is inherently racist. Libs support it, Reps condemn it. There's your proof right there.

How is it racist? Your opinions are unimportant

DEI initiatives factor in, among other things of the like, the race of whoever you want to hire. Say, your boss wants to make sure the people you hire are 14% black, and you've only got 5% of black people due to local demographic. Due to DEI initiatives, you NEED to overhire the black folk over any other folk, regardless of how skilled they are. Someone that got hired by DEI isn't the best candidate, they're the best candidate of whatever group of people the higher ups want more. Textbook racism, right there.

That's not racism and that's probably not how it works

That is how it works flat out, and how the hell is choosing to hire someone based on the colour of their skin NOT racist?

Huh, so Biden's a terrorist president now? Well, guess that makes sense, considering he's basically facilitated a foreign invasion, and actively said (during either his brighter moments or before the dementia really took hold) to attack conservatives.

You think Biden gave a speech at charlie kirk's funeral? You really are delusional

I knew the dude was talking about Trump, but his description applies much more to the vegetable that ran the US between Trump's terms.

Though, you're right in that Biden didn't give a speech. His brain's so full of holes at this point (which I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, but it's simply a fact) that I'd be surprised if he could beat a nine year old in chess.

You think trump can beat anyone at chess?

Considering that, unlike Biden, his brain's not filled with holes (and he's at least smart enough not to cheer for terrorism, unlike a lot of people on the left), I'd say he's got a better shot than you do.

Do you think somebody should be denied a job because they are black? That's what DEI works to prevent

Want an appointment? A lobotomy might be good for someone with enough brain damage to think Kamala's presidential material.

Kamala Harris:
College education, political experience, Senator, prosecuting attorney, Vice President

trump:
reality TV show star, runs a beauty pageant to spy on teenage girls, close ties to child sex traffickers, convicted felon, rapist, made many sexual comments about his own daughter, lair, narcissist, sued many times for fraud

That says it all

Well, considering you use whatever gospel CNN spouts, it's clear that I cannot trust your judgement.

Who said anything about cnn? Stop being lazy and come up with a real objection for once

Well, considering you throw baseless accusations around Trump being a rapist (remember, there's no evidence outside of a "he said, she said" thing, so legally you're committing an act of slander, even if we're living in that crazy alternate reality that you think we are), you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

It's definitely not baseless, he has had many accusations over many years, including his own words about groping women without their consent. And no, you're wrong. I'm not committing slander because he's a public figure so I can say stuff like that about him, but I couldn't say the same thing about a private Citizen or else that would actually be slander

Slander is, by definition, "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation". Doesn't say anything about how famous the guy is. And considering the only "proof" against the guy that hasn't been debunked comes from witness statements, I simply can't believe these things. If there was ACTUAL proof, it'd be a different story, but that's simply not there.

Well, that's just factually wrong. Trump explicitly went against DEI programs because of the simple fact they're discriminatory. a6tbin.jpg (click to show)

Did you get that from CNN? In case you're too smooth brained to know, CNN is wildly known as the Fox of the left outside of your echo chamber. So, not exactly the "most trusted name in news" there.

. . .yeesh, what did Adolf von Henselt and Trump ever do to you?

Well, she is responsible most of
his success. So maybe you have a point there
(but keep your hat on)

Actually, he'd amass even more voters!

No

Because he STARTED his first term by race-agitating -- requiring the world's first Beer Summit in order to dig himself out of that public relations hole -- and then he continued race-agitating for the rest of his time as president.

No, really, how?

I didn't ask you to repeat something that we both know you can't substantiate, hence why you haven't substantiated it - nor anyone else, I'm asking how. Not baloney if, how?