100% correct.

Because there was nothing wrong with the tweet. All he said was that St. Patty’s day is a wonderful time for Black guys to meet White women. He didn’t imply consent wasn’t involved. He didn’t imply that the women were too drunk to make a rational decisions.

Agree with you there. It doesn’t really matter if the guy who calls you a “cunt” is a member of an official misogynist group or he’s a lone wolf. He’s just as dangerous either way.

So, do we only respond to hate graffiti if we can trace the graffiti to a known hate group? Because in 99.9% of cases, hate graffiti is made by lone individuals, not organizations.

Maybe, but isn’t that the case with 99% of graffiti? Meaning, do you take swastikas and burning crosses seriously only if you can trace the perpetrator to a known hate group? And I ask the question rhetorically because I really don’t know the answer.

For many years, we on the left tried to change the language people used. We didn’t say “colored people,” but “people of color.” We didn’t say “homosexual,” but “gay.” We didn’t say, “Oriental,” but “Asian,” etc. etc. etc.

Actually, Nate Silver gave Trump a 33% chance of winning. Which means, of course, that if you throw a 3 sided die three times, Trump wins on one of the tosses. Those were still incredible odds for Trump.