You put hateful in quotes but I do want to point out that this is the tweet from the thing you linked:
> Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*** hotels full of the bastards for all I care …. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it
The context also needs to be noted. This was part of the social media storm that whipped up a wave of right-wing, racist hatred and violence in the wake of the Southport riots. No such waves of violence have sprung out of trans activism.
There is no "far right" or people being "whipped up". Disorder is a consequence of failed government policy.
E.g. from 2023: "Northern seaside town now a 'powder keg' over asylum seeker tensions"
"The tension in Skegness has grown after hundreds of migrants from the Middle East, Africa and Albania were crammed into former tourist hotels on the seafront."
"Cars have been vandalised, shop windows broken, mattresses set alight and scuffles reported between migrants and security staff. Officials say 229 asylum seekers are staying in up to seven hotels on and around the town’s promenade, but locals say the figure is more like 700."
> There is no "far right" or people being "whipped up".
The wikipedia page about the riots has 127 mentions of "far-right" [0]. From the very start there were links between the protestors and organisations like the EDL. The online misinformation was spread by far-right influencers such Tommy Robinson, Katie Hopkins, and Andrew Tate, as well as a host of global right-wing accounts. The organisation Alliance4Europe which campaigns against online misinformation found that "non-domestic far-right groups played a significant role in inflaming tensions following the Southport murders" [1].
Far-right, unfortunately, is something of a trigger word suggesting Wikipedia is about to become unreliable in its coverage. As far as I can tell any suggestion that immigration levels should be low is likely to be a far-right position which means it is a very large tent. A tent that includes some undesirables and a lot of quite normal people.
There is an odd situation where apparently countries can simultaneously adopt anti-growth policies while having an infinite surplus of real resources to handle more migrants and anyone who believes otherwise is de-facto attempting to restart the Jew ovens whether they personally deny it or not. Where a more charitable view would be if a country maintains high immigration into a situation where real resources don't grow that is quite possibly leading towards a genocide. People aren't all smiles and sunshine when times get tough; it is more sensible to engineer society towards prosperity.
Not so; Keir Starmer is talking about cracking down on immigration and is certainly not far-right. You veer into the far-right when you dehumanise immigrants and use terms like "cockroaches", "Muslim invasion", or "great replacement".
Keir Starmer is pushing [0] pretty standard far-right conspiracy theories about how the government was running an open-borders experiment, by design, in contravention of stated policies.
> ...and is certainly not far-right.
He's quacking like a duck. Talking about open borders is fair game for being identified as a dog whistler for people who believe in the great replacement theory - particularly when it is framed as duplicitous and intentional. I'd agree that it isn't, but once Wikipedia starts breaking out "far right" that is the sort of standard that can be applied.
Yeah I have to eat my words. Keir Starmer is a terrible example given how much he's banging on about "open border policies" and "small boats". A few tens of thousands - often of the most needy refugees - come in small boats. It's a capitulation to the far right and I reckon it's going to blow back in Labours face much as some of Blair's policies did.
I mean, look, my position is that "far right" is a meaningful concept even if it's somewhat nebulous at the edges. And as far as I can tell, Wikipedia is well justified in its mention of far right influence on the riots. And the Wikipedia page defining the concept of far right is pretty cohesive and compelling. I don't think that simply wanting low immigration makes someone far right. But immigration control is a massive point for the far right because it's a low hanging fruit. It's easy to scapegoat immigration as the principle cause of crises in housing, cost of living, and the NHS. Lots of people are tempted to point fingers at the "other" in times of insecurity.
PS Does a policy/narrative stop being far right as it becomes more popular? Maybe in an "Overton window" sense, but obviously not at a global and historical level. Mussolini becoming popular in Italy did not mean he was no longer a far right fascist.
Was the misinformation even material? The perpetrator of the Southport stabbings was the child of recent African immigrants, so I don't see how the true facts of the case would have calmed any right-wing unrest.
The furore was whipped up on the basis of the perpetrator being Muslim, illegal, and an immigrant. In my opinion it fed off the residual unresolved tensions of grooming gang cases. But of course the actual perpetrator was none of these three things.
> on the basis of the perpetrator being Muslim, illegal, and an immigrant.
Let's not kid ourselves - it was on the basis of the perpetrator being non-white/non-ethnically-British. There's no shortage of the protesters being accused of racism, but now we're supposed to pretend it was about religion or following the law? That's called trying to have your cake and eat it to.
You reckon the riots would still happen if the story was that the perpetrator was - let's say - an aboriginal Australian or a pygmy from New Guinea? Highly doubtful. The narrative had to align with what the far right have been spinning up for the last decade or so.
Yes. But specifically I'm referring to how a group of far-right social media accounts exploited that tragedy to whip up a violent frenzy of riots, starting with Southport.
That certainly doesn't meet the threshold for a credible threat.
It's a despicable thing to say, and it seems like even she realized that when she calmed down and deleted it. But what's the basis for treating it as a crime?
From OP's post, it wasn't treated as a crime. I would absolutely expect a background check to reveal statements like that, that people voluntarily, publicly post.
No, that was a separate detail in OP's post. According to the second link, the woman who tweeted that received a 31-month sentence, as the post says: "the wrong social media post can carry a lengthy jail sentence".
It wasn’t prosecuted as a death threat, so it’s not really relevant whether or not the threat was credible. The relevant offense is inciting racial hatred.
Ok, so it is very much political. Similar principles are being used right now to punish supporters of Palestine under the guise of preventing anti-Semitism.
Brief expressions of anger after a mass killing don't justify imprisoning someone.
Edit: the enforcement is political, I mean. Basically, not all hate speech is treated equal, it depends on who the speech is about, and what concerns the government. In the US it was terrorism after 9/11 and opposition to Israel now. It sounds like in the UK right now it is anti-immigrant sentiment. At least in the US we have a strong First Amendment to protect us from the government policing our speech.
The tweet was posted elsewhere in this thread. It doesn’t express any political view. It just says hateful stuff.
To your edit: If you’re making the comparison to anti-TERF “hate speech”, then it’s not treated equally because the law itself doesn’t treat racism on a par with anti-TERF sentiment. You can disagree with that, but it doesn’t show unequal policing of the law as-is.
I'm not sharing the message because it brings me joy to have it shown to more people. I think it's a pretty reprehensible thing to say. I'm sure people say worse into their personal diary or even among friends and that is not criminalized. I might possibly even consider the defense of "oh nobody really reads my posts anyway and I deleted it quickly".
But I absolutely will not stand for trying to claim that the post was scare-quotes "hateful". It was hateful, full stop. This is not polite discourse that was unfairly marked as hate because of some political slant. It was clearly hate, even if wasn't seen by anyone, even if it got deleted.
Hate is a normal thing in human societies. Freedom of speech also encompasses expressing hatred and negative feelings. What you can do to mitigate it is to solve the problems that create hate. In the case of the UK, addressing the mass-rapes of British girls, among other things.
Sending people to prison for social media posts is a typical totalitarian move, similar to what you find in China, North Korea or Russia. None of the underlying issues are solved by intimidating your population, who, at some point, will just start to leave quietly.
Lots of countries outlaw hate speech. I know that Americans tend to think that this is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, but much of the rest of the world disagrees. And America in its present state isn't a great advertisment for its own particular model of public discourse and political freedom.
Obviously, you can also be jailed in the US for social media posts that break the law. Here is one example:
It's tasteless to bring up rape cases that are irrelevant here. The tweet we're talking about was posted in the wake of the Southport stabbings. Nobody can seriously suggest that historical failures to investigate rape cases in Pakistani communities can be related to an outburst decades later about burning down hotels housing asylum seekers.
Unfortunately we are at the stage in the UK now where people do receive visits from the police to (and I use the exact language of the police here) "Check their thinking". This is a consequence of attempting to police speech which previously fell below the level of criminal activity, but now may have been elevated to a crime via volumes of new hate crime laws. Indeed society has now decayed here to such an extent that we have "non crime hate incidents" which still fall below the criminal threshold but warrant an investigation by the police.
> If the message in question had a limited reach, then it should not lead to a conviction.
her husband shares a prominent political position. Her reach and views way larger than her twitter following. By association alone she has authoritative voice.
If Melania Trump was tweeting about racist things, how quickly she deletes the tweet would not be the main issue to give a prominent example
just a reminder that anti protest laws now allow people to be send to prision for speech. But I guess as long as hippie looking they/them who are pro palestine at uni go to jail instead of racist white people then the US does not have Orwellian laws.
Please never actually read the book or else you might need to stop using it as a adjective because doublethink is what you are actively doing right now
Given how "hippie looking they/them" wanted to silence their political opponents in the past administration, it's kind of ironic how life comes back at you, fast?
Also, kudos for the classist part assuming that I have never read a book.
> wanted to silence their political opponents in the past administration
Literally when? Bezos bought a newspaper, Elon bought Twitter, Trump was on TV daily (and not being prosecuted by the DOJ), Ben Shapiro was again the most promoted video network in facebook, RFK was spreading misinformation left and right and is now telling the worls that autistic people can never pay taxes while Elon pays his salary.
Like name 1 person who was silenced? it is literally impossible to not hear the constant, incessant, child like whinning. you can have the senate, congress, the supreme court and the presidency and still act like victims. Crash the economy and its always someone elses fault.
Accountability is perhaps a value you should cherish more than silence, cant have that can we
I mean, we are coming out of a decade of cancel culture on campuses[0]. Elon Musk was clearly radicalized by it, which led him to buy Twitter.
Jordan Peterson's fame was partly due to him standing up in front of the obligation to use various pronouns at work, with the threat of getting fired.[1]
> we are coming out of a decade of cancel culture on campuses
You should read your own article. A drunk dude kissed a girl without asking, and his friends thought that was kinda shit an uninvited him to a christmas party. That is the cancel culture that is "silencing" people?
Nigel Farage is on TV day in and day out lying about things but one white dude from Oxford uni got univited to a christmas dinner...
> Elon Musk was clearly radicalized by it,
No he wasn't. There are plenty of theories about Elon Musk descent but none of them stem from any real pushback against cancel culture. His image began being tarnished with him calling a dude who saved some kids a pe do over not using his submarine. When he bought Twitter he made the point he wasn't gonna change much etc, 3 months after purchasing it he said he was not interested in politics and would not donate to any candidate, then he donated 400 million to Donald Trump's campaign.
Whether you wanna go down the route that his daughter being trans affected him, his friendship with epstein and Maxwell, his open ketamine use, or his ties to Russia (such as allowing Russia to use starlink, or cutting Ukraine off in parts of the conflict) its hard to know when and were he went from "i love the lgbt, green energy and im iron man" to "im gonna retweet neo nazis talking about replacement theory". But it has nothing to do with cancel culture.
> Jordan Peterson's fame was partly due to him standing up in front of the obligation to use various pronouns at work, with the threat of getting fired.[1]
That is not true. The law in Canada did not even say that. He was famous because post Obama the number of conservative causes was dwindiling and a number of think tanks found trans issues to be a perfect powder keg (they use similar reasoning Nazi's did when they burned trans research in the 30s). Its small, polirising, nuanced and most people have never seen or interacted with trans people or issues. It has a great ability to mold the talking points without any input from the actual people being discussed (its the same issue they love Fetuses and pregnant women, you can say anything without the fetus ever contradicting you).
In this push of think tanks he was used as a standard bearer, and given way more attention and money than any of his points ever deserved. The anti feminist videos on youtube, and a man on a suit disucissing against overly emotional 18 year olds became an entire genre of bad faith arguments (on both sides of the aisle, there are now plenty of "owning trump voters" content).
He then wrote a book about doing your bed, some insanely inacurate attempts at jungian psychology to impress 15 year olds and the money to push his videos on youtube did the rest.
The reality of a figure like Peterson is that he is a very flawed, and intellectually limited individual. His work on semiotics is super interesting but outside of his niche field he is clearly out of depth. His own personal failings, despite humanising him, make for a tragic figure when you realise many young men who are lost look up to him.
I have 0 issue with someone promoting some version of neo stoicism and how being a man should be, but when you get addicted to benzos and fly to russia to give yourself permanent brain damage because you are too much of a wuss to survive the withdrawl symptons then you should drop your philosphy because it clearly does not work.
I read the article, it goes in depth to explain cancel culture in campus, its origins, has various testimonies. Cancelling and censorship is a classic of anglo puritanism, which you represent well in this discussion.
Same for Peterson, you can argue as you want, the article says that he would be fined for not calling someone with their invented pronouns. And yes, that's how he got famous since it gave him media coverage. I'm not discussing his intellectual merits here, but freedom of speech. I don't think that you have the ability to separate topics, so it's kind of pointless.
Trans issues are a very good case of why we need freedom of speech, and why threatening to kill people who do not agree with you is rather bad? It deals with underaged people at a time they are vulnerable, the evidence regarding the treatments is rather weak and it was ultra marginal before media gave it a large positive coverage.
And yes, a father saying that his daughter shouldn't have to share showers or toilets with biological men is totally reasonable in his freedom of speech to say it.
> it goes in depth to explain cancel culture in campu
which is why it opens up with its most harrowing tale, to really grip the readers attention. The black tie christmas invites of upper middle class chemical undergrads
> the article says that he would be fined for not calling someone with their invented pronouns.
the law however did not. It was adding gender expression to the list of protected categories. Which their neighbours in america had since 1964. No one in america in 1965 was being fined for not using made up pronouns, they just werent fired for being openly gay.
Bill C-16 has a wikipedia page and its super easy to read, the fact that Jordan peterson was bad at reading, is no excuse for you to follow suit.
> I'm not discussing his intellectual merits here,
would make for a short discussion
> It deals with underaged people at a time they are vulnerable,
Its funny you birng up anglo puritanism and then throw a random "will someone think of the children" plea.
99% of trans issues have nothing to do with minors, gender dysphoria can start in puberty but most pathological symptoms tend to become needing of intervention in early twenties mid twenties.
access to work, home, education, healthcare and public spaces are most of the concerns of trans people. A population who have shown absolutely no historical pattern of problematic behaviour, whose research shows repeatedly that they are normal humans and whose ostracising has led to countless problems both for them and people around them.
Its not that different from the left handed hate from years ago. And tying kids hands behind their back and forcing them to be right handed caused stuttering, suicides and long term education problems. not sure how denying that trans people exist is not gonna end up just as badly.
> the evidence regarding the treatments is rather weak
in what universe? Lets start with some stats, 96% of people do not regret transitioning which is the highest acceptance rate of any medical treatment (people who had transplants of live saving organs regret at 6-8% for example)
transitioning has shown to reduce suicide rates by 300% of people who suffer from gender dysphoria. reduced depression on similar rates.
Happiness surverys show overall increase in life satisfaction post transition for people suffering from gender dysphoria.
Like what "evidence" are we missing, when the treatments have been known for a century and the results are conclusive on every single country that offers them?
> it was ultra marginal before media gave it a large positive coverage.
You have it backwards. it is still ultra marginal and the media who started covering it was not positive, it was a orchestrated think tank choice to go after trans rights. It began in 2013 when overall american opinion on gay rights flipped, suddenly going after gay marriage was a vote loser instead of winner so they pivoted to trans rights. Groups like Atlas, or the heritage foundation have open papers on it. Same with other terms like DEI or Critical Race Theory they are all openly created narratives by think tanks with predicated interests that extend far beyond the thing being attacked.
> And yes, a father saying that his daughter shouldn't have to share showers or toilets with biological men is totally reasonable in his freedom of speech to say it.
And I would love to see the explanation of what "biological male" means, cause I think 99% of people stopped reading biology in 4th grade and perhaps do not understand how complicated shit is.
Should we have someone in the door of showers and bathrooms doing check ups on which bits people have before they shower? Would a father be happier with her kid having her bits inspected "for her safety", cause that has happened. Bathroom laws in america meant that the police get called (usually on uglier women, or butch lesbian, poc women, hairy women, taller women) and they need to "prove" they can enter that bathroom.
also transmen exist, would a father be happy with someone who looks 100% like a man walking into the shower because of his assigned sex at birth?
Its almost like "totally reasonable" gets complicated fast, and you just let a dude walk into the loo and your daughter have her knickers inspected all to protect her from something that isnt happening. Great job dad
Even if it was lower, I'm not sure that it's the right treatment. Of course, cutting arms will solve most finger infections, but it isn't likely to be the best way to treat it.
By the way, UK supreme court defined what is a biological sex: the one you had when you were born. Sounds fascist, right?
And yes, if there are spaces for girls only, it's for a reason, and one of them is to keep perverts away. But I guess that the rights of those girls do not count, either.
Surgery is not a common part of transitioning. Transitioning treatment, which is what I said, is usually a process where the most common plans include hormone replacement therapy, puberty blockers and therapy and lifestyle changes.
If you want actual data on it there was a recent meta study "Suicide-Related outcomes following gender-affirming treatment: A review" by Danial Jackson.
They analysed 23 studies and almost all mention and quantify reduced suicidiliaty, from less ideation, to less attempts, to less overall suicides compared to control groups.
> Even if it was lower, I'm not sure that it's the right treatment
you might not but every doctor association has, and they agree it is.
> Of course, cutting arms will solve most finger infections, but it isn't likely to be the best way to treat it.
cool analogy, but taking reversible pills and going to therapy is not the same as chopping anything off
> UK supreme court defined what is a biological sex: the one you had when you were born.
yeah thats cool and all, except sex assigned at birth is wrong in 1/2000 cases. So 34,000 people in the UK had their sex changed by a doctor after the one they were born due to either error, intersex conditions or nonconclusive genital development.
Btw genital inspection is one 3 ways to "biologically" determine someones sex, the other two are chromosomal make up (XX, XY or intersex) and the third is Phenotipic developemnt (long hair and boobs or beard and bald). The judge does not explain which one he means, but none of those 3 categories are Binary they are all Binomial. I know its not important for the judge, but it is important for biology, so its perhaps important that he would know anything past Grade 6 biology before putting it on a ruling...
> if there are spaces for girls only, it's for a reason, and one of them is to keep perverts away.
and how does this work exactly? Like actually going through the implementation of it. You need to prove you belong in an all womens space, so someone inspects your bits to make sure you belong? Like a little girl wants to go to the loo, but she must first go through the V inspector to make sure she can pee sitting down?
Is this the pervert protected future you imagine?
Transmen going to women only spaces is also gonna be a shitshow regardless of what their birth certificate says
If this guy walked into any women's bathroom they would call the police
There are almost 0 cases of transpeople being perverts, 99% of them just wanna live their life and just exist. If they go to women spaces is probably to escape from the same problems that women go to those spaces for.
Or do you think this girl is safe in a mens bathroom?
I read the study, the author is much less affirmative than you and spends a lot of time explaining that the data is really subpar:
"A dearth of high-quality studies that evaluate outcomes in suicide following gender-affirming treatment poses severe limitations on the extent of claims made during the informed consent process for gender-affirming treatment. An abundance of claims that are not backed by evidence does not represent quality empirical evidence but rather guidelines endorsed by various medical organizations."
Another way of saying that what doctor associations is groupthink rather than evidence-based medicine. Also, you use a classic motte-and-bailey tactic here, to limit treatments to hormonal ones, excluding surgical. Of course, some hormonal treatment symptoms are not reversible.
Regarding young girls, we didn't have problems before. So I don't see why you're looking for a special "method" for this. And whatever the status of trans people, a pervert could well say that he is one to enter in safe spaces for women. We see this already well in sports, and with the obvious, and sometimes dangerous problems associated.
> Another way of saying that what doctor associations is groupthink rather than evidence-based medicine.
Way to read that in the worst way possible. Their biggest issue was how disparate the data was. I shared that one because it had the largest sample of papers, but there are plenty of other meta studies, and individual studies with the same conclusions
The website "What does scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition" by Cornell university did a review of 55 papers, found 0 that said it caused harm and 93% that said they improved life for trans people.
For an individual paper with good peer review and sample you can read Mental Health outcomes in Transgender and Non binary youth receving gender affirming care by Dana Tondoff, where they found that there was a 73% decrese in suicidicality and 60% decrease in depression.
Like its not group think when no one has done any research showing it does not work and plenty have shown it does
> Also, you use a classic motte-and-bailey tactic here, to limit treatments to hormonal ones, excluding surgical.
its not a tactic, it is literally the most common prescribed treatment for gender dysphoria. its like discussing cancer, teh most common treatments are surgery and chemotherapy. Some people get radiotherapy and they have much worse outcomes, because they were in a worse spot to begin with, not because radiotherapy does not work...
> Regarding young girls, we didn't have problems before.
but according to you all these spaces were created to safe them from perverts. So no problems, other than the rampant perverts?
> So I don't see why you're looking for a special "method" for this.
because you wanna enforce gender discrimination spaces based on genetials. So someone gotta check you got the right ones, or else a pervert could go in. So to "protect" your daughter you now have a way more invasive system than just letting people pee
> And whatever the status of trans people, a pervert could well say that he is one to enter in safe spaces for women
So the problem is not transpeople but perverts pretending to be trans people. So we should punish transpeople to protect girls from the perverts pretending to be trans people. Should we not just deal with the perverts and leave the transpeople alone?
> . We see this already well in sports, and with the obvious, and sometimes dangerous problems associated.
there have been 0 issues with transpeople in sports. The IOC has allowed trans women in the olympics since 2004, they have won 0 medals.
if transitioning was an overt advantage, if transwomen would 100% beat regular women then every medal would be won by a transowman. However its literally never happened.
The only cases of transpeople in sports that get discussed are Lia Thomas, a university swimmer (who won 1 race) and who is like 1 minute behind the best times of Katie Ledecky which is a cis swimmer. And thats about it.
The only scientific review of trans people in sports was done in the US army and they found no significant advantage in strength after 1 year in HRT and only 15% in cardio but the sports assoc always recommend 2 years on HRT and Athletes are 40-70% faster than regular women so transwomen would still be 30-50% slower than them. transitioning also makes you lose 60% of your muscle mass, the controlled test means they suually have lower levels than regular women and the "denser" muscles tend to get tired quicker due to worse oxygenation.
Transwomen in sports is a non issue, and the more it gets repeated the more it proves that the people who are against trans people simply have not thought about for longer than "oh a man shouldnt compete against women" and never again.
An average girl is 5'6, and average man is 5'9 so transwomen should dominate in basketball. Except the average WNBA player is 6'2.
Transwomen will never win in sports because athletes are the end of the tail distribution and transowomen are randomly sampled. A selected sample will always beat a random sample if the distributions are close.
if I have a dice with 5 numbers and I can throw it 100 times and pick the 3 highest, and you have a die that goes up to 6 but you only throw it once, I basically always gonna beat you.
Wow. Thanks for inspiring me to ask. Why haven't they covered this in South Park yet? It would make such a great episode.
Summary:
Jordan Peterson, after becoming a media figure, struggled severely with benzodiazepine (benzo) addiction (drugs like clonazepam, often prescribed for anxiety). In 2019-2020, his health sharply declined:
He had a severe physical and psychological dependency on benzodiazepines.
He reportedly developed "akathisia" — an intensely painful restlessness often associated with withdrawal or side effects.
After several unsuccessful treatments in North America, Peterson was taken to Russia by his family, where he underwent a medically induced coma and controversial detox procedures to try to end his benzo dependency.
Why Russia?
At the time, his family said that the treatment options available in the West were either not effective, too dangerous, or unavailable. Some reports indicated that the Russian clinic used unorthodox treatments — things that might not be approved or widely practiced in Canada or the U.S. The whole episode was seen by many critics and even supporters as deeply tragic and unsettling, especially for someone whose public message was based on personal responsibility, resilience, and stoic perseverance.
Outcome:
Peterson survived, but his recovery was long and painful. Later interviews (including one with his daughter, Mikhaila Peterson) showed him visibly frail. His cognitive sharpness, many observed, seemed noticeably impacted for some time afterward.
Jordan Peterson suffers year of 'absolute hell' and needs emergency treatment for drug addiction that forced him to withdraw from public life, daughter says:
Melania Trump literally did spread racist lies on national TV. And when confronted with evidence that directly contradicted her racist lies that she could not refute, she justified her racist lies with her racist "feelings".
Melania Trump Supported Her Husband's Racist Birtherism Claims on TV:
>People need to stop talking about "freeing Melania."
>An old clip resurfaced on the internet over the weekend of Melania Trump supporting her husband Donald Trump's claims that former president Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S.
>On April 20, 2011, Melania appeared on the Joy Behar Show and backed up her husband's allegations that Obama wasn't born in the state of Hawaii like live birth records suggest.
>"It’s not only Donald who wants to see [Obama's birth certificate], it’s American people who voted for him and who didn’t vote for him. They want to see that," she argued. Behar then made the point that the birth certificate had already been on display and all over the internet. "We feel it’s different than birth certificate," Melania responded.
>Joy asks Melania Trump if Donald is really going to run for president or if it's a publicity stunt & why he's obsessed with President Obama's birth certificate.
> Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f*** hotels full of the bastards for all I care …. I feel physically sick knowing what these families will now have to endure. If that makes me racist so be it