Don Mercado

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@MrJohnJnr "Voice of unity" sure loves trying to divide people

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@C_3C_3 By this logic, everyone should be afraid of white men

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@fedexparcels 1) about expertise, not women specifically
2) a woman's inheritance is hers, a man is obligated to spend on family, including the women in his life
3) Applies both ways (men are obligated to fulfill their wives desires as well)
4) No
5) Men's version looks different, but is there

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@VladTheInflator You people really have no shame. Using the real pain of the women who were harmed (not 250,000 but even 1 is too many) and using it to spread your own hate.
It's absolutely pathetic.
If you cared, you'd be calling out all the rape gangs regardless of race (mostly white brits)

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@RayIsaacJohnson @xagreat Your failure to comprehend simple English and basic logic is not my problem.

Muting you now, since your delusion is not worth my time.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@NancyMace Which part

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@RobSchneider There are hundreds of Christian signs on billboards, and you freak out over one Muslim one.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@mrddmia He points out that the number is obvious bullshit, and has repeatedly said any rape is not acceptable.

But you don't want to acknowledge the truth of it. You just want to be filled with hate. You want to exploit the very real suffering for your own ends.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@docrussjackson Epstein, still no arrests.
Church scandals, regularly covered up
White grooming gangs in the UK, no coverage
Non-white victims of white grooming gangs, kicked out of the discussion

[🇧🇩 @lfcmaniac_11]

0.03% of muslims in the uk are sex offenders, 0.02% are white people, sex offenders are just everywhere and it's unfortunate, doesnt mean you go blame an entire religion when sharia quite literally punishes rape with death??

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@nick_matau @mehdirhasan It's methods and conclusions are riddled with biases and logical fallacies.

It was a tool to weaponize actual harm done to women while also ignoring other groups of victims and perps, in order to target specific groups of people.

This ultimately does nothing to help women.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@Smthingedgy This isn't a left vs right issue. This is a matter of justice and societal overreach. The facts, as presented, show the kid is clearly guilty and should face repercussions for that (justice). However, it shouldn't be enough to ruin his life (overreach). Both things can be true.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@RayIsaacJohnson @xagreat The KKK has lynched how many Black men while using the bible to justify their beliefs and actions? Am I to assume that Christianity approves?
Kach and Kahane Chai has slaughtered people using the Tanakh and Talmud as justification. Am I to assume Judaism approves?

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@kushika_twt Your understanding of hell is simply wrong. Satan does not rule hell, he is the primary occupant. He burns more than any other.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@dvigilrpg No one is saying any amount of rape is ok. They are pointing out how horribly flawed the study is. They are pointing out how it ignores non-white victims, and white victimizers. It's a flawed study that hurts the victims by switching the focus away from them and onto politics.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@kangminlee the number itself is based on so many false assumptions that no one with a brain is taking it seriously.

Instead of making up a false number and ignoring non-white victims, they should have focused on what can be reasonably verified and worked with that.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@CHICKENPOTBELLY @insanedms Legally speaking, you are entitled to the PTO. 6 months is more than reasonable, and the denial, that far in advance, is opening the company to a lawsuit.

This is a dumb manager, and one case where HR is most likely to actually back the employee, just to avoid a lawsuit.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@ksorbs By all means, call out corrupt politicians, but don't pretend to care about the grooming gangs. If you did, you'd be calling out ALL of them, and not just ones from a specific group.

[Dr Rahmeh Aladwan @doctor_rahmeh]

When subverted, pro-'israel' British politicians say:

• Ban 'Sharia councils'— they mean ban all religious councils. Or all community boards.

• Ban the burqa— they mean ban all facial coverings. Or all visible symbols of identity.

• Ban public Muslim prayer— they mean ban all public prayers. Or all mass public assemblies.

This is classic managed opposition. It funnels manufactured public outrage into establishment-friendly channels, leaving the real structures of power untouched– and even strengthened.

Western liberal progressives may view it as advancing their secular goals. Right-wing conservatives or civnats may support it because it targets Muslims.

What it actually does is demonise and restrict the biggest threats to (and targets of) zionism and the police state.

It is a direct attack on Muslims/Islam.
But the real target is broader.

Banning religious councils? Attack on freedom of association. Not just religion. Trade unions, indigenous/native heritage trusts, patriotic clubs.

Banning face coverings? Attack on civil liberties. The right to public anonymity. Facial recognition is the real issue. Total state surveillance.

Banning public prayer? An attack on the entire public. Religious freedom. Assembly. Expression. If a group cannot gather to pray, a group cannot gather to protest.

Zionism is religious supremacy. It cannot tolerate universalist belief systems that directly challenge it (e.g. Christianity/Islam). And it cannot tolerate the domestic right to dissent, protest, or expose it.

They count on the public to support attacks on Muslims. But they cannot pass laws that restrict one religious group. The actual attack is on everyone. The ultimate casualty is our collective freedom.

[Don Mercado @MiercaDoDo]

@MarcusGustavus So, rather than even trying to refute the completely reasonable observation on the bias the of the study, and the very many flaws in it, you just decide to make baseless claims?
Because you don't have any sort of agenda, right?