Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread

[jon_mx 7,229]

13 minutes ago, The Commish said:

You mean like making up garbage about people to fit them into a particular narrative instead of paying attention to who people actually support, views they hold etc?  Yeah, this place has been known to be pretty resistant to that sort of thing.

 

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

[Glass Joe 522]

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

You get called a whiner cause it seems you’re constantly #####ing about the “cesspool” this place is.

[The Commish 9,836]

49 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

It's tough to take seriously the "do as I say, not as I do" shtick adult to adult.  You'd probably have an easier go of it if you weren't one who freely does the things you complain about ot others doing  

[The Commish 9,836]

10 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Aren’t AOC’s policy views very similar to Bernie Sanders?  

This is what I thought.  Apparently we are wrong?  I should probably go read up on her given she's my hero and all.

[parasaurolophus 4,418]

9 hours ago, timschochet said:

IMO it’s absolutely an attack on her religion. Just like with Obama, the conservative playbook is to hint that she’s not really a Christian because she doesn’t care about when Christians get killed, only when Muslims get killed. For years conservatives continually implied that Obama was a Christian in name only, and now they’re pulling the same crap with her. It’s pretty despicable. 

I completely disagree. I think you are reading very deep into it and conflating two very different situations. As jon posted from the newsweek article...

"Pastor Darrell Scott said the reason Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had not tweeted about the Sri Lanka bombings was because she could not use them “as a weapon against the Trump administration.”"

I think they are trying to paint her as somebody who only cares about tragedies when she can use them politically to attack woe is me trump. 

Trump only cares about Trump. So what is more logical. Him and his team making it about him or making a deeper argument about her faith? 

Painting her as non christian doesnt score him points since he isnt running against her. Being a victim of another unfounded attack from the meanie liberals does. 

The irony here is that now the trump admin is doing exactly what they are accusing her of. Using tragedy to score political points. 

[timschochet 23,935]

21 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I completely disagree. I think you are reading very deep into it and conflating two very different situations. As jon posted from the newsweek article...

"Pastor Darrell Scott said the reason Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had not tweeted about the Sri Lanka bombings was because she could not use them “as a weapon against the Trump administration.”"

I think they are trying to paint her as somebody who only cares about tragedies when she can use them politically to attack woe is me trump. 

Trump only cares about Trump. So what is more logical. Him and his team making it about him or making a deeper argument about her faith? 

Painting her as non christian doesnt score him points since he isnt running against her. Being a victim of another unfounded attack from the meanie liberals does. 

The irony here is that now the trump admin is doing exactly what they are accusing her of. Using tragedy to score political points. 

It’s really not that deep an argument IMO. “Leftists aren’t real Christians”, “Leftists aren’t real patriots”, “Leftists only care about minorities and Muslims; they have nothing to say when white Christians get attacked”- these are themes that conservatives have either hinted about or argued outright for years. 

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,906]

27 minutes ago, timschochet said:

It’s really not that deep an argument IMO. “Leftists aren’t real Christians”, “Leftists aren’t real patriots”, “Leftists only care about minorities and Muslims; they have nothing to say when white Christians get attacked”- these are themes that conservatives have either hinted about or argued outright for years. 

Perhaps this is an outgrowth of leftist arguments that one needs to place themselves in the shoes of the other guy.  To expand the conscience of the right leftist frequently ask how they would feel if X happened where traditional powers are reversed.  That exercise in empathy and in learning is conflated to mean that leftist are always of those sympathies, and then, unfortunately that they have no other sympathies.  This is, of course, foolish, but people are foolish. 

[jon_mx 7,229]

10 hours ago, timschochet said:

IMO it’s absolutely an attack on her religion. Just like with Obama, the conservative playbook is to hint that she’s not really a Christian because she doesn’t care about when Christians get killed, only when Muslims get killed. For years conservatives continually implied that Obama was a Christian in name only, and now they’re pulling the same crap with her. It’s pretty despicable. 

Your arguement is despicable.   You can't resist making the strawman.  

[timschochet 23,935]

Just now, jon_mx said:

Your arguement is despicable.   You can't resist making the strawman.  

You think my argument is despicable? Am I to ignore the 8 years of attacks on Obama based on the notion that his Christianity was faked? 

[timschochet 23,935]

11 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Perhaps this is an outgrowth of leftist arguments that one needs to place themselves in the shoes of the other guy.  To expand the conscience of the right leftist frequently ask how they would feel if X happened where traditional powers are reversed.  That exercise in empathy and in learning is conflated to mean that leftist are always of those sympathies, and then, unfortunately that they have no other sympathies.  This is, of course, foolish, but people are foolish. 

You’re absolutely right: for years liberals and leftists have argued, mostly unfairly, that conservatives are racist, conservatives are bigots, conservatives only care about the wealthy, etc etc. 

It doesn’t help matters that conservatives have managed to choose a leader that embodies all of these stereotypes. 

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Certainly glad someone seems to care about having their views misrepresented.   I get called a whiner for that.  

Hey Jon, just curious on this, you still taking questions? 

[jon_mx 7,229]

2 hours ago, Glass Joe said:

You are putting a spin on her history - yes she was given a push by a PAC that was looking for new faces. But the implication that she was simply a face, and had no political beliefs or involvement is incorrect. She certainly comes with a viewpoint, she’s not divorced from the ideas she espouses.

While idealism often isn’t realistic, aren’t dreamers a good thing in general, pushing envelopes, pushing us to think differently? I think you need them. My question for you - is why have you jumped in on the hate-fest? You spend emotional energy on her, when the monster in charge is doing far worse than she is capable of.

No spin at all. Suggesting they just gave her a little push is laughable.  Fact:  They had a massive recruiting campaign with over 11,000 applicants.   Fact:. Her brother applied for her.  Fact:. They made her adopt their full agenda.  Fact:. They staffed up her campaign.  Fact:. They did the fund raising for her.  Fact:. They got her tons of free promotion on progressive media.  Her job was to show up.  Granted she probably in tune with much of their agenda, but if ever there was a puppet candidate, she would win the prize.  

[timschochet 23,935]

1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

No spin at all.

 

 

if ever there was a puppet candidate, 

These two parts of your post caught my eye. They seem to be at odds. 

[jon_mx 7,229]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Hey Jon, just curious on this, you still taking questions? 

She is a better person than Trump.  What was your point.  

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

No spin at all. Suggesting they just gave her a little push is laughable.  Fact:  They had a massive recruiting campaign with over 11,000 applicants.   Fact:. Her brother applied for her.  Fact:. They made her adopt their full agenda.  Fact:. They staffed up her campaign.  Fact:. They did the fund raising for her.  Fact:. They got her tons of free promotion on progressive media.  Her job was to show up.  Granted she probably in tune with much of their agenda, but if ever there was a puppet candidate, she would win the prize.  

I must be missing something. This sounds like local politics here. I hate it personally as a rule but this is the way it works. And really usually HOR district races are  just local pols getting promoted up. That wasn't Cortez but someone like her winning a city or state race district wide would not be unheard of. It's funny what conservatives focus on these days. I don't understand why the focus isn't on the demographics in the district changing. As good as her ads were and as charismatic as she was I think that was the biggest factor in her running, getting support and winning.

Edited April 29 by SaintsInDome2006

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

6 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

She is a better person than Trump.  What was your point.  

I'm just asking you what you meant. Do you mind responding? It's just a polite request for you to unpack it. You obviously don't have to.

- eta - To be clear I mean the earlier statement, "She is very reluctant to ever imply anything bad about people of color or POC as she likes to say.   But she has no issue with saying the most condemning things about white nationals and painting with a broad brush." - Not the other stuff with the Trump comp.

- eta2 - What did you mean by "white nationals" especially? Thanks.

Edited April 29 by SaintsInDome2006

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,906]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re absolutely right: for years liberals and leftists have argued, mostly unfairly, that conservatives are racist, conservatives are bigots, conservatives only care about the wealthy, etc etc. 

It doesn’t help matters that conservatives have managed to choose a leader that embodies all of these stereotypes. 

I would be more comfortable in saying the Republicans have chosen such a leader as I do not believe that conservatives, not true conservatives, have.  That is, of course an argument which has flown.  The language drifts, and the idea of conservatism has drifted quite a bit.  It started when Reagan courted Falwell and his evangelicals, and there is no stopping it now, I suppose. 

 

Frankly I am uncertain how I would label Trump's base.  I have heard Nativist offered, Isolationist, xenophobes.  I guess no one word label ever fully captures any political stance or movement.  Maybe it comes down to just that, stance or movement. Some stand fast and some are capable or movement, intellectually I mean.

[timschochet 23,935]

Just now, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I would be more comfortable in saying the Republicans have chosen such a leader as I do not believe that conservatives, not true conservatives, have.  That is, of course an argument which has flown.  The language drifts, and the idea of conservatism has drifted quite a bit.  It started when Reagan courted Falwell and his evangelicals, and there is no stopping it now, I suppose. 

 

Frankly I am uncertain how I would label Trump's base.  I have heard Nativist offered, Isolationist, xenophobes.  I guess no one word label ever fully captures any political stance or movement.  Maybe it comes down to just that, stance or movement. Some stand fast and some are capable or movement, intellectually I mean.

I agree with you on this too. But after months of several people here angrily taking me to task for asserting that they are not true conservatives, I’ve given up. If they want the moniker that badly, let them have it. 

[jon_mx 7,229]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

These two parts of your post caught my eye. They seem to be at odds. 

Not really.  I caveated it with if.  The left always accused Reagan and W of being puppets, but they were their own men.  Reagan especially crafted his own message and agenda.   AOC was propped up more than any candidate in history that I am aware of.  

[jon_mx 7,229]

11 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I'm just asking you what you meant. Do you mind responding? It's just a polite request for you to unpack it. You obviously don't have to.

- eta - To be clear I mean the earlier statement, "She is very reluctant to ever imply anything bad about people of color or POC as she likes to say.   But she has no issue with saying the most condemning things about white nationals and painting with a broad brush." - Not the other stuff with the Trump comp.

- eta2 - What did you mean by "white nationals" especially? Thanks.

It was just a typo...nationalists. 

[jon_mx 7,229]

14 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I must be missing something. This sounds like local politics here. I hate it personally as a rule but this is the way it works. And really usually HOR district races are  just local pols getting promoted up. That wasn't Cortez but someone like her winning a city or state race district wide would not be unheard of. It's funny what conservatives focus on these days. I don't understand why the focus isn't on the demographics in the district changing. As good as her ads were and as charismatic as she was I think that was the biggest factor in her running, getting support and winning.

I have never seen a candidate who was as spoon feed as AOC.  I have a hard time believing that is typical .

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

It was just a typo...nationalists. 

Actually nm, I think I read your post wrong. I thought you were saying Cortez is somehow unfair to white nationalists or was painting people as white nationalists unfairly. I guess your point is she is willing to talk about white nationalism but not extremist islamism.

Edited April 29 by SaintsInDome2006

[jon_mx 7,229]

3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks, do you mind just unpacking some more? Do you think she has been unfair towards white nationalists, or do you think she is calling people white nationalists who aren't?

She grossly exaggerates the threat posed by nationalists and emphizes the white part, while she completely ignores the dangers posed by radical islamics and I doubt she would never even utter the phrase.  

[timschochet 23,935]

55 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

She grossly exaggerates the threat posed by nationalists 

Does she? 

Gotta tell you this morning I find them particularly threatening.

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I have never seen a candidate who was as spoon feed as AOC.  I have a hard time believing that is typical .

I don’t think political groups supporting a candidate D/R is unusual. If you want a comp for someone so lacking in prior experience I’d think the tea party candidates from 2010 & 2012 would have examples. I don’t feel like exploring that because of the work involved but I remember some really raw candidates jumping in (and Dems roundly used that against the GOP).

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

I’m not entirely sure why someone of Cortez’s skills and education was working as a bartender. I’ve got a friend with a Masters and he bartends but he’s also a professor at a local community college, and that’s more a statement on our educational system in LA.

Edited April 29 by SaintsInDome2006

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,906]

1 minute ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I don’t think political groups supporting a candidate D/R is unusual. If you want a comp for someone so lacking in prior experience I’d think the tea party candidates from 2010 & 2012 would have examples. I don’t feel like exploring that because of the work involved but I remember some really raw candidates jumping in (and Dems roundly used that against the GOP).

The house has always been raucous, unruly, and exceedingly partisan, as it was designed to be.

 

Where it not for the house I do not believe we would have seen the various movements towards term limitations.  None of us want to limit the terms of our own folks, but the raucous, partisan nature of Electeds from other Districts, well they are tough to stomach, so we seek to limit them.  The house is suppose to present a wide variety of views, and it does that well, often to my consternation, but my consternation is a feature, not a bug.

[killface 1,604]

In my opinion she is eating her critics for breakfast...she is going to gain a ton of followers

[jon_mx 7,229]

3 hours ago, killface said:

In my opinion she is eating her critics for breakfast...she is going to gain a ton of followers

I have no doubt that is how you see it.   The reality is the Justice Democrat movement is elevating the in-fighting on the left with the all or nothing mentality and is making the entire Democrat party look like loons to the moderate voters.   She may get lots of followers but the Justice Democrats are a big loser in setting  back their agenda.   

[whoknew 6,542]

4 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I’m not entirely sure why someone of Cortez’s skills and education was working as a bartender. I’ve got a friend with a Masters and he bartends but he’s also a professor at a local community college, and that’s more a statement on our educational system in LA.

 

Eventually I realized, this is my life.

[whoknew 6,542]

4 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

The house has always been raucous, unruly, and exceedingly partisan, as it was designed to be.

 

Where it not for the house I do not believe we would have seen the various movements towards term limitations.  None of us want to limit the terms of our own folks, but the raucous, partisan nature of Electeds from other Districts, well they are tough to stomach, so we seek to limit them.  The house is suppose to present a wide variety of views, and it does that well, often to my consternation, but my consternation is a feature, not a bug.

 

I would gladly term limit out Ted Cruz, John Cornyn, and Chip Roy.

I mean, really, its kind of a miracle any of them were elected in the first place.

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

3 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

Eventually I realized, this is my life.

Good stuff, thanks.

[Glass Joe 522]

4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

I have no doubt that is how you see it.   The reality is the Justice Democrat movement is elevating the in-fighting on the left with the all or nothing mentality and is making the entire Democrat party look like loons to the moderate voters.   She may get lots of followers but the Justice Democrats are a big loser in setting  back their agenda.   

What do you mean by ”justice democrats”? Did you come up with this on your own?

[parasaurolophus 4,418]

31 minutes ago, Glass Joe said:

What do you mean by ”justice democrats”? Did you come up with this on your own?

Its the name of a liberal PAC i believe. 

[John Blutarsky 1,712]

49 minutes ago, Glass Joe said:

What do you mean by ”justice democrats”? Did you come up with this on your own?

https://www.justicedemocrats.com/

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats

Edited April 30 by John Blutarsky

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

12 hours ago, jon_mx said:

She grossly exaggerates the threat posed by nationalists and emphizes the white part, while she completely ignores the dangers posed by radical islamics and I doubt she would never even utter the phrase.  

Looking at this again, this is a weird way to put things. White nationalists are not nationalists who happen to be white.

Edited April 30 by SaintsInDome2006

[jon_mx 7,229]

3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Looking at this again, this is a weird way to put things. White nationalists are not nationalists who happen to be white.

It is to point out the lack of mentioning race or ethnicity by left-leaning politicians or media when the attacker is Muslim or black or when the victim is Christian or white.  

[jon_mx 7,229]

14 hours ago, timschochet said:

Does she? 

Gotta tell you this morning I find them particularly threatening.

Your viewpoint is crafted by what you see reported by the media.  There are over 15,000 homocides in the US, over 2,000 are gang related violence.  It is very rare you hear about those.     What you do hear about in lots if details of the 20-50 murders committed by anyone with any relationshipto a white nationalist group.   They are tragic and in cases where there are multiple victims they should be newsworthy.  But these are still lottery-winning type odds we are talking about and you face dozens of things on a daily basis which are far more threatening than any danger posed from white nationalists.  We are talking about small fractions of a percent of all homicide and even those numbers are kind of dubious as they skewed by several attacks which had little or maybe even nothing to do with it.  

[jon_mx 7,229]

6 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Looking at this again, this is a weird way to put things. White nationalists are not nationalists who happen to be white.

Also, I think nationalists is a bit of a misnomer.  The real issue is white supremacy.  Their are lots of people of all races who are nationalists who believe in things like patriotism, protecting the borders, and just the things which makes America great.   That is not the problem here.  The issue here is hatred of minorities from the white supremacists. There is overlap, but they are not the same. 

[bananafish 6,111]

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Their are lots of people of all races who are nationalists who believe in things like patriotism, protecting the borders, and just the things which makes America great.

If we can indulge in a tangent for a moment, I'm curious as to what you think "the things which makes America great" are. I'm not trying to catch you in some gotcha moment or anything, but I think an elucidation of these attributes might tease out some differences and perhaps shine a light on where reconciliation might be possible. Or, conversely, we might find agreement where conflict was presupposed. 

If we are truly striving to "make America great again", I think it would be helpful to spell out exactly what the goals are. I take you at your word that you are not a Trump fan and assume you probably disagree with what his conception is, but what would a Great America of the 21st century look like to you?

[timschochet 23,935]

5 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Your viewpoint is crafted by what you see reported by the media.  There are over 15,000 homocides in the US, over 2,000 are gang related violence.  It is very rare you hear about those.     What you do hear about in lots if details of the 20-50 murders committed by anyone with any relationshipto a white nationalist group.   They are tragic and in cases where there are multiple victims they should be newsworthy.  But these are still lottery-winning type odds we are talking about and you face dozens of things on a daily basis which are far more threatening than any danger posed from white nationalists.  We are talking about small fractions of a percent of all homicide and even those numbers are kind of dubious as they skewed by several attacks which had little or maybe even nothing to do with it.  

While this is all true, it’s also true of radical Islamic terrorism. Yet that worries me too. I don’t feel like I am in personal danger from either one, but I find both to be threatening to our society - with good reason. 

I find it interesting to read this sort of approach from you, given some of your paranoid reactions  in the past- Ebola (“it’s in the rivers!”) comes immediately to mind. 

[jon_mx 7,229]

1 hour ago, bananafish said:

If we can indulge in a tangent for a moment, I'm curious as to what you think "the things which makes America great" are. I'm not trying to catch you in some gotcha moment or anything, but I think an elucidation of these attributes might tease out some differences and perhaps shine a light on where reconciliation might be possible. Or, conversely, we might find agreement where conflict was presupposed. 

If we are truly striving to "make America great again", I think it would be helpful to spell out exactly what the goals are. I take you at your word that you are not a Trump fan and assume you probably disagree with what his conception is, but what would a Great America of the 21st century look like to you?

What makes America great?   We paved the way for and created the model for democracy and individual freedoms.  We fought for their freedom.  We provided the major advances in science and medicine. We provide opportunity for everyone to succeed.   We are great now.  

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,906]

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

What makes America great?   We paved the way for and created the model for democracy and individual freedoms.  We fought for their freedom.  We provided the major advances in science and medicine. We provide opportunity for everyone to succeed.   We are great now.  

We did not create the model for democracy.  We provided some of the advances in medicine though Pasteur, Carrie and Christian Bernard would dispute that we were the most impactful.  We provided opportunity for many, but not everyone though I think we do better on this now. We are not great now, not in my mind.  We are lost and squabbling, in my mind, destructively so.  Still, it is nice that you have a positive outlook.   

Edited April 30 by Ditkaless Wonders

[timschochet 23,935]

2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

 WE are not great now, not in my mind.  We are lost and squabbling, in my mind, destructively so.  

I blame this on Tom Brady and the New England Patriots. Most mediocre dynasty in the history of sports.

[Ditkaless Wonders 14,906]

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I blame this on Tom Brady and the New England Patriots. Most mediocre dynasty in the history of sports.

I agree.  I know some rank Tom Brady only behind Jesus Christ in their list of world's greatest Americans, but not me.  I see the truth.  I know pure evil when I see it.

Edited April 30 by Ditkaless Wonders

[SaintsInDome2006 40,499]

4 hours ago, jon_mx said:

Also, I think nationalists is a bit of a misnomer.  The real issue is white supremacy.  Their are lots of people of all races who are nationalists who believe in things like patriotism, protecting the borders, and just the things which makes America great.   That is not the problem here.  The issue here is hatred of minorities from the white supremacists. There is overlap, but they are not the same. 

White nationalism adds the axiom that to be American or patriotic means being of a certain ethnicity or religion, or that to be great America must adhere to a certain religion or conform to a certain ethnic culture. White supremacy is about racial superiority, calling for racial or religious separation, and legal definitions recognizing that.

I say this again agreeing with your prior point about Cortez possibly ignoring islamic terrorism as a national security issue, perhaps out of PC concerns, I don't know.  But as applied there is such a thing as white nationalism, there is a difference between nationalism and white nationalism and white supremacy, and no one who considers themselves a nationalist should be offended by attacks on white nationalism. I can tell you though that it is a short leap from nationalism to white nationalism and some groups and proselytizers work on that. I haven't followed Cortez but if she has said critical things about white nationalism it's not anything that mainstream Americans should have a problem with, it's something they should find common cause with. 

 

Edited April 30 by SaintsInDome2006

[Da Guru 5,101]

42 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

White nationalism adds the axiom that to be American or patriotic means being of a certain ethnicity or religion, or that to be great America must adhere to a certain religion or conform to a certain ethnic culture. White supremacy is about racial superiority, calling for racial or religious separation, and legal definitions recognizing that.

I say this again agreeing with your prior point about Cortez possibly ignoring islamic terrorism as a national security issue, perhaps out of PC concerns, I don't know.  But as applied there is such a thing as white nationalism, there is a difference between nationalism and white nationalism and white supremacy, and no one who considers themselves a nationalist should be offended by attacks on white nationalism. I can tell you though that it is a short leap from nationalism to white nationalism and some groups and proselytizers work on that. I haven't followed Cortez but if she has said critical things about white nationalism it's not anything that mainstream Americans should have a problem with, it's something they should find common cause with. 

 

In my whole life, in every area work, play, friends, family, acquaintances, I have never heard anyone use the term "white nationalism" in any conversation. Never heard white supremacy either.  Even when I am in large groups of all white people. never.. Only time I have every heard it is on the news or here.

Serious, has anyone heard it used other than in the news or here?

Edited April 30 by Da Guru

[Cowboysfan8 5,801]

9 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

In my whole life, in every area work, play, friends, family, acquaintances, I have never heard anyone use the term "white nationalism" in any conversation. Never heard white supremacy either.  Even when I am in large groups of all white people. never.. Only time I have every heard it is on the news or here.

Serious, has anyone heard it used other than in the news or here?

No.   

[timschochet 23,935]

12 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

In my whole life, in every area work, play, friends, family, acquaintances, I have never heard anyone use the term "white nationalism" in any conversation. Never heard white supremacy either.  Even when I am in large groups of all white people. never.. Only time I have every heard it is on the news or here.

Serious, has anyone heard it used other than in the news or here?

Of course. 

[The Commish 9,836]

12 minutes ago, Da Guru said:

In my whole life, in every area work, play, friends, family, acquaintances, I have never heard anyone use the term "white nationalism" in any conversation. Never heard white supremacy either.  Even when I am in large groups of all white people. never.. Only time I have every heard it is on the news or here.

Serious, has anyone heard it used other than in the news or here?

Consider yourself lucky.  They are frequently discussed topics here in the south