Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is a 2016 American political documentary film directed by conservative political commentator Dinesh D’Souza and Bruce Schooley. The film critiques the Democratic Party and its history, with D’Souza accusing Hillary Clinton of being a radical leftist. The film is rated PG-13 and has a low IMDb score of 4.8 out of 10. Critics argue that the film is an immature conspiracy theory, with D’Souza being convicted for making a movie that exposed Obama as a lying, cheating monster intent on destroying America.
D’Souza’s abridged history lesson in the movie is a fair and accurate representation of America’s political history, particularly the Democratic party and the truths about Hillary that have leaked to the public’s view. It is rated PG-13 and has a low IMDb score of 4.8 out of 10. The film is a gripping journey into the secret history of the Democratic Party and the contentious rise of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
D’Souza’s film follows up the right-wing documentary hit “Obama’s America” with a piece of ahistorical liberal-bashing that slides from propaganda to paranoia. The film then becomes a history of the Democratic Party, with D’Souza emphasizing the last 50 years of their history. After eight years of Obama, four years or possibly eight years of Hillary Clinton as president would transform America.
Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party is either loved or hated, with many positive and negative views before it.
📹 Hillary’s America: The Secret History… (Pt. 2) | Dinesh D’Souza | POLITICS | Rubin Report
Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Dinesh D’Souza (author and filmmaker) about his new book and film, “Hillary’s America: …
📹 Mysterious Woman Pictured By Hillary Clinton’s Side Sparks Conspiracy Theories
It’s the latest mystery surrounding Hillary Clinton’s shocking collapse. Who is the woman who never left the Democratic …
I don’t get all the people who are constantly upset about Dave not being more argumentative. He’s repeatedly said that he wants people to have the opportunity to listen to various views and decide for themselves, as opposed to just having either an echo chamber or a fight club. Personally, I’ve gotten a better idea of what different guests believed by actually listening to them give their best “pitch.” If they fail to convince me, then I also have a better understanding of why we disagree, and what we disagree on. This is a good thing.
Dinesh understands economics because he grew up under a progressive system in India. It’s one thing to try and introduce progressive economic measures in a country that has already been developed thanks to the embrace of the free market, but to implement them in a developing country turns a budding economy into a snail race to prosperity (as evidenced by the sluggish Indian economy under the Nehru-Ghandi political dynasty/INC political party of the late 60’s to early 80’s).
Dave … The Progressives probably didn’t really leave you in your whole experience with them. Your perception of the Progressives developed. Your realization of their hypocrisy and irrationality (when you don’t really understand the goals) developed. Your paradigms of what makes good sense developed. We all do. Our paradigms seems like reality, and when they shift it’s easy to see the world as shifting. Sometimes our surroundings do, but people in growing almost always do.
We should do our best to judge humans by their intention, gracefully allowing that most people don’t mean harm through their opinions. We should, however, not judge programs by their intention, but rather by their outcome. Programs are not people and do not deserve mercy. If a program has failed it needs to be eliminated.
The Voting Plantation Disappointed that while Dinesh seemed to get the Voting Plantation at a high level, he didn’t really seem to recognize the structural means employed – make a permanent underclass of voters dependent on big government. It’s not just the handouts, but the take aways. “if you’re just giving them enough to survive” More precisely, if the poor face effective marginal tax rates often over 100% (if they earn a dollar, you’ll take away more than a dollar of benefits), you have built a dependency trap. If you work, you make yourself worse off. That’s a structural means of creating permanent dependence. Here is how the welfare state and the inner city of Democratic strongholds are run: 1) Create dependence through a welfare trap, taking away from those who try to rise above their dependence. 2) Destroy the family by removing fathers from the family as part of that welfare trap. 3) Maintain horrible government schools that keep the next generation from learning the skills that deliver economic value, and thereby preventing the economic capability to rise above dependence. 4) Limit law enforcement, creating a largely lawless, unsafe environment where law breaking and violence is normalized, with rampant eventual incarceration. 5) Stoke racial hatred, paranoia, and resentment, inculcating a perception of futility, unfairness, and persecution. Not only does this limit opportunity, but it divides to populace, the better to conquer them. I can’t even think of what to add to the design to make it a more effective voting plantation.
What a lot of people don’t get is that the reason Dave doesn’t go hard on his guests when he disagrees is because he wants guests on in future. If he was confrontational and shooting down everything he thinks is incorrect, it would be a lot harder to get guests on. He’s an interviewer, not a debater.
His comparison to the low class in India to the low class in America is SPOT ON. I grew up outside of the U.S. and I FULLY support that idea. If people in America understood the value of hard work, intact families, the value of knowledge then all they would need is opportunity which America is ABUNDANT in.
I find it so dumb when people say this website is for the evil right-wingers. Seriously the past two weeks before this we had a classic liberal and a progressive. And then some people complain that too many conservatives watch this, which is dumb because people are actually complaining that conservatives are perusal interviews with liberals… I am a libertarian and the bipartisan attitudes of some people who are subbed to Rubin is disgusting. YOU are what this website fights against, the notion that showing all sides is somehow a problem. I think a survey of your audience in political persuasion, religion, age, and location would be warranted and it may shed light on what your audience thinks
I would suspect that Jefferson, being as sympathetic toward slaves as he was, would find it easy to develop a real fondness for Sally Hemming, a respectful fondness. And that was likely reciprocated. People should keep in mind that at that period in history, slavery was a long-standing, worldwide institution, and that for people who found themselves born into slavery or slave ownership, that’s just the way the world was. Within that context, individuals had the choice of being decent slaves and owners or hateful slaves or owners, but not much of a choice to end the whole thing. — The other thing he failed to mention about slavery in general was that it wasn’t an American institution, it was pretty much worldwide, wherever and whenever large civilizations occurred. It goes back as far as human history (and likely into pre-history), and was present all over the world. It was a standard response to conquest, taking conquered people as slaves. (The other standard response to conquest was to kill them all, or kill the men and take the women and children as slaves. What made slavery unnecessary was the Industrial Revolution, which made human labor more efficient. And slavery wasn’t a racial thing, either, through most of its history. It only became racial accidentally, when Europe’s technological edge over the rest of the world made them more efficient conquerors of people from other areas. The slaves in the Americas would have been Native Americans, but their lack of immunity to Old World diseases made them unsuitable.
Big mistake to think that Obama did not make money as President!!! Truman said very clearly that ” if you come into politics poor and leave rich, you are stealing!!!” Take a long hard look at how the Obama’s got “rich”!!! Low selling Books do NOT generate that sort of money that’s for sure!! Is the entire Left and media so bind or are they just plain dishonest??? We see it all the time in Africa.
Whatever you think of Bill Clinton, I think he was kinda of a good President, I mean he was the only President to have a Budget surplus at the end of his term for at least 30 years. Not even Bush or Obama have been able to do it. I mean sure he got a BJ in the Oval but I mean come on, I’m sure other Presidents have probably done it, the job has a lot of pressure.
Dave, I’m all for bringing on people with interesting, well thought out, diverse viewpoints. I’m less okay with you giving a platform to disingenuous cretins like Dinesh and Milo. Or if you’re going to, then at least hold them to account for their bullshit, and make them honest. Not only that, but you’re giving a platform to views that already have platforms – Dinesh gets invited on cable news all the time, to peddle his unhinged flim-flammery. Milo is the internet’s most famous troll, with an army of followers. Christ, you want to have an interesting, thoughtful conservative on, who cares about fighting the “regressive left”? Invite Conor Friedersdorf, writer for The Atlantic. Your show got off to a great start with guys like Sam Harris and Peter Boghossian, who even if you disagree, you at least see that they are honest, credible actors really thinking about issues. Now you’re moving on to people who are provocative, without substance. I applaud your dedication to giving a platform to a wide array of viewpoints – but that doesn’t mean any viewpoint is equally worth listening to, or that all viewpoints are held with actual honesty and conviction. You ever watched one of Dinesh’s Obama movies? I have. They were fucking embarrassing on every level. I hear his new Hillary one is just as stupid. He’s part of the GOP griftopia – making a buck off of credulous rubes.
Rubin is good at bringing out sentences from his guests that people can agree with, which is a good thing focusing on the positive. – Problem is that it makes pathological liars like D’Souza come across as reasonable. Most people holds a large part of reasonable position; or else they couldn’t walk outside the door in the morning. The problems come out when you press them a little on issues. You don’t have to squeeze them like an orange, just do as the doctor does and press gently and see the reaction…
Priority Voting (like they have in Australia) would open a path to third parties. Take this election. If we had a priority voting system. the 40+% of Americans that want a third party would put Johnson or Stein as their first choice and Clinton or Trump as their second choice. Johnson would probably win, and we’d have a Libertarian President. But without a priority voting system, the fear of the “other side” keeps people afraid of “throwing away their vote” on a 3rd party.
If you have a three Party system you risk not having a majority government. But a third party system is a good party system. A third party system intales one party that is in power with the other in the opposition and the third party is the party in waiting but not an official party but a party in the making, a mirror party that if needed can replace the opposition party as the new opposition party but with new ideas that reflects the people of the day. And the old opposition party is now the third party with no voice but can regroup and sit on the sidelines perusal and listening to the two main Parties.
Dinesh doesn’t have it quite right. The Continental Congress voted that the decision for independence (re: rebellion) must be unamimous. The abolition of slavery was a deal breaker for some of the 13 colonies. John Adams and several other representatives who were firmly opposed to slavery were forced to concede or there would be no revolution and no United States of America. Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration was revised accordingly so that all would agree to sign. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was not issued until 3 years after the start of the Civil War under a dubious technicality of martial law. So it was not until Lincoln’s 13th Amendment was fully ratified in 1865 that the abolition of slavery became law. Adams conceded to slavery to unite the colonies, begin a revolution, and create a new nation. Lincoln ended slavery to end a civil war and hold the nation together. There is a symetry in those two milestones in America’s history. The 13th Amendment fulfilled the promisr of Jefferson’s original Declaration. Adams and Jefferson both died on the same day, the 50 year anniversary of Independence Day when Lincoln was already a young man of twenty.
I quite like this discussion with D’Souza on economics and politics. I’ve seen him before on religious debates where he wad against Hitchens and in those he sounds like a dribbling idiot, so it’s nice to see the man has at least a part of his brain intact. Also on a side note, much better than last week’s guest.
This is a very bizarre comments section. Have people not watched Dave’s show before? The reason he is popular and his guests are so diverse is that he lets them present their ideas openly. The content of their ideas have either been enough to hang themselves or make you think. It’s not like the Reilly factor or Real Time with Bill Maher where you know a dissident view is going to get mocked or shouted down before the guest can finish their sentence. BTW I saw at least 2 episodes where Dave even had clear SJWs on and he offered them the same open forum despite his clear disdain for their identity politics.
Thanks Dave for this interview. As someone of Indian background myself, I used to loathe Dinesh D’Souza. I thought he sold out to be white and republican. But this is the first time I saw a candid interview of Dinesh, and I like him. And that may also be I am realizing more that I am a classically Liberal person, and leaning towards being a Libertarian.
We who lived through this era know that D’Sousa is a slick and smart proponent of a bogus version of recent U.S. History. By the 1930’s, the Republican Party had bailed on its support for civil rights and had become the party of big business.The Democratic Party had a Southern Wing which was against civil rights laws and a northern wing which supported both civil rights and the New Deal. These progressive ideas began filtering down into the south and gradually began producing pro civil rights people like Lyndon Johnson. African Americans joined the Democratic Party because that party had a growing pro civil rights plank and a growing number of Democratic progressives. This change caused a backlash of the right wing Democrats (called Dixiecrats), who went over into the Republican Party in droves. These new republicans (like Strom Thurman) had one primary thing in common—a resistance to integration and civil rights. In 1964, Barry Goldwater, a Republican, ran against Lyndon Johnson for the presidency. A key part of Goldwaters position was opposition to civil rights legislation, which he alleged gave too much power to the federal government. In short, by 1964, the Republican Party has become in the North the party of big business and in the South the party of resistance to civil rights. Desousa’s attempt Portray the Republican Party as a continuous supporter of civil rights from the 19th century to the current day is manifestly false. Check out this article: How the Republican Party went from Lincoln to Trump youtu.
a Third Party is not possible due to the fact that you need a majority (greater than 50%) of the electoral college votes to claim the Presidency. Next observation that most don’t know…IF 50.00005% isn’t acquired by one of the candidates(and if it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court…which only happens when its .0001% different) the vote goes to the Senate. And the Senate doesn’t vote based upon public wish, but their own desires. Thus 3 parties wont ever work until their is a Constitutional Amendment.
Dave Rubin’s stock is constantly rising in my eyes. He treats his show like a discussion panel and let’s his guests talk. That’s the problem with all these journalists and their talk shows. They treat as an editorial platform instead of exchanging ideas. The purpose of having a guest is letting them speak and not shouting down.” I don’t have to agree with you but I want to listen so I can learn and/or teach” should be the message.
I have only known about this website for a few months, but from what I understand, Dave encourages the free and open exchange of ideas and dialogue. It seems to me several audience members do not agree with this sentiment. There is a certain level of irony here. What’s that phrase? Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If I’m a regressive, let me explain why. If I’m a KKK member, let me tell you why. If I’m a black nationalist, let me explain why I think that’s best. If I advocate for sharia law in the USA, let me tell you why. Making comments like “The comment section is cancer.” or “He shouldnt be allowed to say X.” doesn’t do much except show that audience member in a negative light. Some people’s favorite buzzword is bigot. Do y’all need reminding of the definition?
this is brilliant, an rubin your point on history is spot on, as von ranke said, do not judge the struggles of the past by the morals of today, i forget her name but there i a black woman who wrote a biography on Jefferson and really focused on sally hemmings and she explains why in their era he did the things he did
First Dinesh says that he isn’t going to make facile comparisons between black urban poverty and plantation slavery, and then proceeds to do exactly what he says he wouldn’t do. “The only difference is the people on the urban plantations keep voting for it.” (5:20) Um, no. Urban black people are not owned as property. They can speak out against their situation or get up and leave anytime they want without fear of being tied up and and whipped. They aren’t prohibited from reading books, going to libraries and museums, going to college, etc. His analogy isn’t just facile, it’s idiotic.
It’s plain clear Dave Rubin is trying to make “regressive lefties” turn back to classical liberalism, but several times I’ve seen him loose track of the conversation his having with the guests. Makes me feel as if he’s caught up with them in the back, pointing out they’re “regressiveness” instead of going forward and focusing more on the topics that concern true liberalism. It’s like an anchor that is holding him back.
Dave, Good point about marginal utility gained by increased effort for african american citizens. For those living in poverty, there is likely a disincentive to work. Its very unnatural to have a decrease in utility as result of increased effort (very rare in the natural world), but that likely is the case for those who currently do not work much ( call it $0 – $15,000) earned / year. Seems simple!!!! Why doesn’t this get talked about more.
The south started becoming republican at the time of FDR. American Progressivism was largely a southern thing with woodrow wilson and hughey long etc. Progressivism naturally emerged in the south for 2 reasons: the south had a long history of the social gospel movement which progressivism seemed to continue on that legacy, and the reconstruction era lead to massive government dependence. After WW2 things started changing and southerners started being more conservative and rejecting New deal policies. JFK chose LBJ as his running mate despite being enemies because he needed to pander to the south which was slipping away from the democrats. Nixons southern strategy had little to do with pandering to racists. it was about pandering to people who attested the hippies and supported vietnam, and law and order. Nixons platform was about law and order.Liberals want to re-interpret history to fit their narrative. The democratic platform did not change in the 1960s, it had the same FDR platform. The republican platform didnt change much either. All that changed in the 60s was which demographic favored the policies of each party
I always thought that the libertarians were about small government and a level of power and independence for every individual, and that liberals wanted a slightly larger yet accountable government that would be run on morals. Is that correct or am I wrong on that idea? Communists have kind of hacked the meaning of it but I will always see it that way.
An interesting companion piece to this movie is the very readable John Ford Rhodes’ 8 volume History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896. Rhodes was a Democrat who did not hesitate to praise Republicans where he thought they were right. Another 8 volume series by 20th century liberal historian Alan Nevins academically supports Rhodes.
Canada’s three parties Liberal, NDP (unionists) and Conservative only work as we haven’t anything like the percentages of people who are extremes of right or left. Wouldn’t work in America. A 4 party system might with Liberals, Unionists, Libertarians and Conservatives but none of the those funding each want to managing that many sets of strings.
What would actually happen with 3 parties? I don’t know how this works in USA, but where I’m from, that wouldn’t pull votes away from one “side”. Instead, you’d need to have a majority to rule, so you would need to create a coalition party to get more than 50% of the voters. In other words, two of the three big parties would likely need to come together.
The third party sounds like a good idea, however, the people who are able to run will be the same. Wealthy and backed by self-interest other people, therefore, there would be no different then what there is right now. Only a handful of Americans can ever run for a political position in this country. The only way I see any change for the better is to drop the $ sign so anyone who is an American Citizen can throw their hat into the ring to campaign using their own funds and limiting the amount that any one person is allowed to use.
This seems to be the main argument used by Republicans. “Well if Republicans became racist, then why did more of them vote for the civil rights act?”. Technically, more of them didn’t at least by percentage. If you split the voting map between democratic and republican, but then once more between northern and southern so you have northern democrats, northern republicans, southern democrats, southern republicans, it becomes really clear that it wasn’t so much a democrat versus republican thing, but a south versus north thing. It shouldn’t be surprising considering the South has always been the racist tumor in our country. Look at these voting records from the civil rights act. Southern Democrats: 8–87 (7–93%) Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%) Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%) Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%) Democrats actually voting higher in favor than republicans did in the north. The point is though, it was more of a north versus south issue, not democrat versus republican. Democrats used to be the more racist party, and the more conservative party, especially socially, because they appealed more to the Southern voters. The South has not changed, but how it is aligned politically has. They used to be democratic territory, now they are republican territory. The Southern Strategy is proof of that. The Modern Republican party is not the party of lincoln, a person who was progressive for the time he lived in. The GOP as it stands is the biggest political clown fest in the modern world.
When hes talking about social security he is basically comparing a pay-as-you-go system to a fully funded system. The pay as you go system is what the united states uses(despite the fact that people talk as if its a fully funded system) and it basically means the young are taxed and the rich get the benefits. There is actually some benefit to this kind of system but the problem is that we simply don’t have the population growth to sustain it. One of the reasons interest rates are kept so low is because in order for the pay as you go system to work the population rate has to be higher than the real interest rate. The flip side which he briefly mentioned in the fully funded system is its basically a government sponsored tax that invests your money. This system, atleast under the assumptions that most people make when studying economics is never beneficial and best case scenario just negatively effect the person. This is because in essence you are forcing someone to save when given their current financial situation it might not be beneficial for them to save.
a Libertarian party would hurt the Democrats cuz Libertarians are voting for Democrats at this point but I am glad he thinks that and said that and puts it out cuz the Democrats if they think it’s going to hurt they will pay for it and split their own party they will pAY the bill for the libertarian party I hope he understands that this will set a trap for the Democrats to lose again
Did Rubin just humanize Dinesh. After seeing him lose debates over religion to Christopher Hitchens and seeing him narrowly be beaten by Cenk and his petty insults, I was convinced that Dinesh couldn’t see reason. Sometimes shows like ‘Crossfire’ show the most entertaining politics, but throwing petty insults doesn’t advance the conversation. Rubin advances this conversation with Dinesh. Yes, they seem to agree somewhat being close on the political spectrum, but some of this is, of course, good reporting from Rubin. Civilized agreement is easy. Uncivilized debates are easy. Avoiding a yelling contest during a more civilized debate benefits everyone. I may have changed my tune slightly on Dinesh, but Trump is beyond redemption…
Good point in contextualization of history and realpolitik. It’s more realistic to be gradual with an institution that started AT LEAST tens of thousands of years ago with agriculture. Sad but true. Plus all humans err. We have to stop judging people of the past. One nitpicky point on Jefferson. The only proof they have is that A Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemmings. It is not conclusive that it was Thomas. He had relatives in the area. This articles points to his younger brother, wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304211804577500870076728362
Dinesh is wrong that the Democratic Party hasn’t fundamentally changed since the nineteenth century. If you read the Democratic Party platform from 1876 and the Republican Party platform from 1876 you’d see that back then the Democratic Party was a far right political party and the Republican Party was actually a more progressive party. One issue back then was Chinese immigration which the Democrats were wholly opposed to on the basis of white supremacy. Democrats back then supported laissez fair policies, decentralization of government, state power over federal power, and fiscal responsibility. They also were strongly opposed to tariffs, the only form of taxation talked about back then. Republicans talked about women’s rights, civil rights, limiting the power of monopolies, centralized banking and a gold standard, and government provided free houses I shit you not. Republicans became more conservative on economic issues after the first red scare in 1917, and this was the reason TR left the party. However, in the 1920s the Democratic Party was still the more Conservative party. You may think that Coolidge was a staunch conservative but have you seen the democrat he ran against in 1924? The democrat, John Davis was to the right of Attila the Hun. John Davis was also opposed to FDRs new deal. FDR fundamentally changed the Democratic Party by betraying almost all of its “values” as president and he redefined the party. After FDR, in the mid-twentieth century the Democratic Party wasn’t just the more fiscally liberal party but also the more socially progressive party and this became truer and truer as the century progressed.
I like listening to Dinesh, he’s clearly a smart guy, but I am still not completely sold on him. For one, I’m admittedly always overly skeptical of sensational documentarians and documentaries no matter how much I agree with them. Also, I think he’s capitalized a bit too much for my comfort on his imprisonment. I do believe it was politically motivated, but I just don’t know. I still get a little alarm going off from Dinesh that says I’m being played a bit. Maybe it’s cuz he’s brown??
I’ve been too India and have seen a lot of poor people there. I will tell you right now Mr. D’Souza, a lot of these poor people you speak of are not “fine” and would not thrive if only given the oppurtunity. Unless you want to hire someone who is not accustomed to wearing a shirt and shoes, and thinks it’s ok to whip out your dick out and piss in the street in front of everyone, I think a lot of the poor people in India have a long way to go before they are “fine” and empoyable. Learning how to use a toilet and using toilet paper paper instead of your hand may also be useful in gaining employment
The top 10 countries in the World by GDP but USA, are governed by Left Politics (Democrats politics in USA), not SOCIALISM. I have been listening Americans talking about socialism, which I doubt they know what they talking about… Because Left Politics IS NOT EQUAL to socialism, as in Venezuela. Almost every country in Europe (Russia included) has implement left politics in general (yes, FREE healthcare, housing, pensions for the poorest, etc., etc…), and we’re doing just fine, in every level. I will conclude that there are very Ignorant Americans, who simply cannot understand the policies of the left.
Dinesh is wrong about the nature of the democratic/republican party. It was not and never was about the parties when it came to racism. It was about the region. The clearest example of this can be seen in this little chart showing the number/percentage of congress from each party voting YES for the civil rights act of 1964. i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/27/1377639850437/bothcivilrights.jpeg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=7986ec9166cb9d0d8caf9f43e4583c61 Pay close attention. The VAST MAJORITY of both republicans AND democrats in the north and non southern states voted yes. And a MAJORITY of both republicans AND democrats who lived in the south/old confederacy were radically opposed to the civil rights act. So was his REALLY about racist democrats? No, it was about a racist neo confederate south. And who do the descendants of the neo confederates vote for today? Republicans. These are the people who defend that TRAITORS flag known as the confederate battle flag and pretend it was just about states rights. Yes, states rights to overrule federal anti lynching laws so they could continue stringing black people up and murdering them with impunity. Whether the southern called themselves democrats or republicans, it was that REGION of people that were rotten to the fucking core. I don’t think most southerners are racist today, but when you hear republicans from the south talk about the righteousness of limited government and states rights, know that that was often the argument brought out to justify acts of local southern evil without the big bad federal government intervening.
Love that fact that Dave is having a true diversity of guests, but this was pretty disappointing. I thought Dave was pushing critical thinking and skepticism. He never questioned a thing Dinesh said. Feminists don’t criticize Bill Clinton? Are you insane? And how does Dinesh know what’s going on between husband and wife? It would be nice if Dave occasionally said, “What evidence do you have to support that opinion?” That’s what I thought the Rubin Report was about.
I guess he got too many complaints from conservatives last time when he had on an apparently super regressive guy (I didn’t see that, I saw a fairly normal liberal from the entertainment industry, who I didn’t agree with on a lot, but you would’ve thought it was PZ Myers from the religious right, or conservative at best, audience that is apparently lurking about).
It’s really easy to look like you have a point when you say true things about Hillary Clinton. He only has solid points on HC and everything else he’s a complete conservative apologist. Lol You can easily tell how much easier it is for him to talk about Clinton because he doesn’t have to chose his words as carefully. Lol
For accuracy and clarity in USA political/governmental/historical discussions, it is often better to use terms like “liberal” and “conservative” rather than party labels such as “Democratic” or “Republican”. It was “conservatives” who were the slaver terrorists. It was “conservatives” who wrote a “terrorist welfare benefit” into the constitution which encouraged slaver terrorism and rewarded the terrorists with excessive national governmental power. (a.k.a. – The Electoral College + the 3/5ths rule.) It was “conservatives” who made a lame attempt at forming a separate country based solely on terrorism. The csa. It was “conservatives” who brought genocide to the American First Nations. It was “conservatives” who formed the kkk and similar terrorist gangs. It was “conservatives” who wrote the terroristic Jim Crow laws. It was “conservatives” who tortured and lynched blacks for “entertainment”. It was/is “conservatives” who honor their “Heritage OF Hate”. It was “conservatives” who became so butt-hurt about losing their welfare benefit they went to war to preserve the “free stuff” awarded to terrorists(slavers), the csa. It was “conservatives” who were so ashamed of their terrorist crimes against humanity they revised their history books and invented “the lost cause” fairy tale to deflect attention away from their terrorism. It was “conservatives” who invented “Manifest Destiny” in a lame attempt to justify their genocide. It was “conservatives” who erected loser trophies and monuments to honor csa terrorists and csa terrorism.
we need to get rid of these stupid party sh*t. you are suppose to decide if something is the right thing to do for america & the people, not going along with something because someone in the party your in decided all the people in that party are going to go along with what they want to do. also if someone is running for president all of them should be in the debates not just the republicans & democrats. let the people hear all of them and decide which person is the one they want to vote for.
He is confusing!. I get that he tries his best to remove himself from popular ideology of left and right but problem is he isn’t that much far from right wing ideology. For example: His take on issue of violence, he says left wants to blame on availability of guns, while right tends to focus on ideology behind such incident. Then proceed to indicate lack of ideology in some low standard region of the country as the reason. This isn’t that much different from his take on right wing views. Another problem is he see’s world through his eyes and refuses to knowledge for what it really is, either he genuinely can’t or purposefully creating this made up narrative. In the very same example about violence, almost 70% agree that back ground check before issuing a gun should be improved, now this means irrespective of left or right there is a huge chunk in either category who do blame easy availability of guns and consider it to be a factor. As you dig deep it even shows that people from both side are open to talk about ideology just in a very different way. Either side either accepts human nature or blame a particular ideology depending on the accused. While former seems rational part from both side, later is result of identity politics. As both side cling on to what they are taught to be good and bad, even if it goes against what they actually perceive as rational. Every Trump voter know he is not stable guy and he is not really clearing the swamp rather adding to it. In the same way every Hillary supporter know what was in the wiki leak is troublesome even if it is proven to be leaked by Russia (which we do not have any proof yet, in fact opposite is true) and makes Hillary least eligible in the lot.
27 percent of American’s with African decent are in poverty, just 1% short of Hispanics. That’s a high figure but you guys make it sound like 75 or 90%. Americans with African descent do not all live in slums and crime-ridden areas with no education or opportunity, but these interviews make it sound like that’s the case.
The trailer for Dinesh’s movie looks comically bad and I dislike maybe 90 percent of his ideas. He has also sounded somewhat of a conspiracy lunatic because he actually thinks Obama’s actions are all based on the ideals of his father, and that he went to prison because Obama wanted him silenced because of his stupid anti-Obama documentaries… but a fair interview nonetheless.
D’souza, you have a slave master mentality. Your explanation is idiotic. India is not a slave nation. Those that traded in humans anywhere are despicable. They built their free southern plantations on the blood and backs of the people they had purchased from slavers. Your comparisons are skewed. I dont know where in India you come from that gives you these opinions. Slaves were kept people with No chance of escape because their labour was FREE. YOU ARE SPEAKING COMPLETE NONSENSE.
Truth: The government was supposed to let Hillary Clinton win for this year’s presidential election but due to her clumsiness and got her email leaked which had disclosed and EXPOSED her connection with Israel to killing innocent Syrian men, women and children for the sake of business opportunities, the American government had no choice but to make Hillary Clinton sick which probably lead to her death. This year’s presidential campaign is the most rigged and predictable ever.