[besson3c]

I'm trying to ignore all the stupid campaign stuff as best I can, but I've always been amused by this rhetoric of a politician "uniting the country".

Let's dissect this a little bit...

For one, what does this mean? We clearly have wildly different definitions of what this entails. On one hand we have an approach that is with peaceful rhetoric that tries to assure us of the commonality between people. Obama is good at this sort of talk, but many would say that it is not backed up with effective policy with teeth to it. This seems to be one side, however you might want to dispute this characterization.

The other side, the Trump approach, is a more "us vs. them" approach - a "you are with us or not" sort of deal. Obviously this hasn't worked well with many minority groups given his approval ratings with these demographics, but many would claim that he is a uniting force. Obviously his actions once president cannot be predicted without a crystal ball.

Which approach is uniting? Some people would say the Obama approach, others would say the Trump approach. Either approach, how on earth is this going to unite the country? There are clearly many people that are having none of what Obama offers, and if you are a Mexican or a Muslim it's rather hard to see how most of them are ever going to be comfortable with Trump's method of uniting the country, leaving out all of the staunch left-wing anti-Trump types.

How about this: "uniting the country" is just empty rhetoric. We have politicians that can't even agree upon providing health care to 9/11 first responders, how are we ever going to unite with the more controversial stuff? I guess we'll unite when demographics shift, populations die, or the country crumbles to the point where we are forced to find common ground.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people gobble up the same malarky from politicians ever 4 years. Is this pattern hard to recognize?

[BadKosh]

You'll need to have HONEST AND TRUTHFUL News reporting instead of propaganda, lies and omissions.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ That's it. With trust in the media at an all-time low, it's hard to unify anything.

[Waragainstsleep]

No point having honest and truthful reporting. Firstly, its dull and no-one would watch or read it. Secondly You two would be among the first to deny it was honest or truthful, though plenty of people from all points of the spectrum would be at it too in no time flat.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yeah, blame skeptics for a system being completely corrupt and devoid of integrity, that makes lots of sense.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

No point having honest and truthful reporting. Firstly, its dull and no-one would watch or read it. Secondly You two would be among the first to deny it was honest or truthful, though plenty of people from all points of the spectrum would be at it too in no time flat.

^^ This attitude is why we cannot have nice things (i.e. unite).

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm trying to ignore all the stupid campaign stuff as best I can, but I've always been amused by this rhetoric of a politician "uniting the country".

Let's dissect this a little bit...

For one, what does this mean? We clearly have wildly different definitions of what this entails. On one hand we have an approach that is with peaceful rhetoric that tries to assure us of the commonality between people. Obama is good at this sort of talk, but many would say that it is not backed up with effective policy with teeth to it. This seems to be one side, however you might want to dispute this characterization.

The other side, the Trump approach, is a more "us vs. them" approach - a "you are with us or not" sort of deal. Obviously this hasn't worked well with many minority groups given his approval ratings with these demographics, but many would claim that he is a uniting force. Obviously his actions once president cannot be predicted without a crystal ball.

Which approach is uniting? Some people would say the Obama approach, others would say the Trump approach. Either approach, how on earth is this going to unite the country? There are clearly many people that are having none of what Obama offers, and if you are a Mexican or a Muslim it's rather hard to see how most of them are ever going to be comfortable with Trump's method of uniting the country, leaving out all of the staunch left-wing anti-Trump types.

How about this: "uniting the country" is just empty rhetoric. We have politicians that can't even agree upon providing health care to 9/11 first responders, how are we ever going to unite with the more controversial stuff? I guess we'll unite when demographics shift, populations die, or the country crumbles to the point where we are forced to find common ground.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people gobble up the same malarky from politicians ever 4 years. Is this pattern hard to recognize?

Also, the democrats are just as guilty of the "us vs them" rhetoric. It's just a different us, and the "them" is aimed at religious beliefs, being successful & diversions from preferred ways of thinking as opposed to classical discriminatory factors.

"Us vs them" is an evolutionary attribute humans evolved to survive back in the day. It's not going away anytime soon. Unifying the country would only be possible if it involvde a large enough group to constitute "them" so that we could get together and become an "us". Not gonna happen with the media the way it is today, though there is hope for the future if we can find a way to rally behind something other than the reality TV show US politics has become.

A candidate claiming they'll "unify the country" is the same as an infomercial claiming how amazing it's product is: i.e. shameless advertising. Somehow, a large amount of people fall for it every time.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

^^ This attitude is why we cannot have nice things (i.e. unite).

I think it has more to do with people who are completely incapable of impartial objectivity.

Honest and truthful won't tell you what you already think or want to hear. It will tell you things like 'Trump is a disaster" and "Clinton isn't as bad as you're all making out". And you'll disagree with it in a heartbeat.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think it has more to do with people who are completely incapable of impartial objectivity.

You definitely should be an expert on the subject.

Honest and truthful won't tell you what you already think or want to hear. It will tell you things like 'Trump is a disaster" and "Clinton isn't as bad as you're all making out". And you'll disagree with it in a heartbeat.

Ah, so your opinion is what constitutes reality these days? it's only honest and truthful if Waragainstsleep agrees with it. You should reread your first sentence then take a good hard look in the mirror.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You definitely should be an expert on the subject.


Ah, so your opinion is what constitutes reality these days? it's only honest and truthful if Waragainstsleep agrees with it. You should reread your first sentence then take a good hard look in the mirror.

You're just proving my point.

If I was as biased as you I'd be calling Hillary a saint or the best thing to happen to America for a century or some such nonsense, and Trump the devil incarnate. Basically the reverse of what most Republicans say about these two.

Hillary is a politician. I expect them to be corrupt (Its built into your system FFS) and I expect them to lie. Your guys have spent years and millions trying to get her locked up and even the FBI who are mostly on your side don't have the appetite for it. I suspect its their own three decade hate campaign which has spoiled this party for them.
Meanwhile Trump fuels hate, threatens war and violence and division and racism all in the name of his ego. The best case scenario is that he will find ways to profit from being in charge that Hillary could only (allegedly) dream of. Will he start WW3? Probably not. Will he make the current racial tensions better? Doesn't seem likely. Will he be good at dealing respectfully with foreign leaders? Nope. Will he make you a laughing stock worse than GWB? Yes.
Hes unqualified and demonstrably disastrous as a global politician. My opinion is backed up with facts. Hence its way more objective than yours.

Trump and Clinton might be simultaneously the best and worst possible example. A few years back the BBC was charged with being more fair and balanced, so they every time they reported on astronomical phenomenon, they would 'balance' interviewing an astronomer by interviewing an astrologer. This is essentially what you are asking for, because you think that honest and truthful means legitimising any popular opinion. It doesn't. Republicans are spectacularly wrong about almost everything they can be wrong about. Much of it being demonstrable. And still they persist with being wrong. Because its popular. But it isn't honest or truthful.
You genuinely wouldn't recognise honesty, truth objectivity or impartiality if you saw it. Sorry.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

No point having honest and truthful reporting. Firstly, its dull and no-one would watch or read it. Secondly You two would be among the first to deny it was honest or truthful, though plenty of people from all points of the spectrum would be at it too in no time flat.

That has got to be to stupidest thing I've read in years!

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think it has more to do with people who are completely incapable of impartial objectivity.

Honest and truthful won't tell you what you already think or want to hear. It will tell you things like 'Trump is a disaster" and "Clinton isn't as bad as you're all making out". And you'll disagree with it in a heartbeat.

B.S.!!! Your examples are OPINIONS, NOT facts. Clearly you just don't get it. This is why you and besson get laughed at for such silly thoughtless comments.

[andi*pandi]

As are yours, BadKosh. I think you just proved WarAgainstSleep's point.

Politicians refer to uniting the country because a) they are appealing to middle of the road voters, b) they know that it's impossible to achieve anything without crossing party lines, and c) it makes them look open-minded and reasonable. Whether they really are or not, well,

The last time I recall a ton of "unite the country" rhetoric, was after 9/11, when dems were encouraged to stop criticizing the president, get on board with the War on Terrorism, because we've got to stand together, etc.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

My opinion

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

B.S.!!! Your examples are OPINIONS, NOT facts.

10/10 reading comprehension. A+

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

As are yours, BadKosh. I think you just proved WarAgainstSleep's point.

Politicians refer to uniting the country because a) they are appealing to middle of the road voters, b) they know that it's impossible to achieve anything without crossing party lines, and c) it makes them look open-minded and reasonable. Whether they really are or not, well,

The last time I recall a ton of "unite the country" rhetoric, was after 9/11, when dems were encouraged to stop criticizing the president, get on board with the War on Terrorism, because we've got to stand together, etc.

So...you didn't actually read what I was responding to.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

As are yours, BadKosh. I think you just proved WarAgainstSleep's point.

Waragainstsleep's point that anyone that doesn't agree with his worldview (which in his mind is the only truth) is an idiot?

Politicians refer to uniting the country because a) they are appealing to middle of the road voters, b) they know that it's impossible to achieve anything without crossing party lines, and c) it makes them look open-minded and reasonable. Whether they really are or not, well,

They all say it. They all "are not".

The last time I recall a ton of "unite the country" rhetoric, was after 9/11, when dems were encouraged to stop criticizing the president, get on board with the War on Terrorism, because we've got to stand together, etc.

Makes sense you were asleep in 2008 & 2012. Alongside his "most transparent government ever!"" (ha!) promises, uniting the country was one of his biggest campaign promises. 0 for 2.

Obama Says He Can Unite U.S. 'More Effectively' Than Clinton
Obama to reporter: I will unite America! | Human Events

[andi*pandi]

^Now you say it, 2008 does ring a bell. Point taken!

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And you'll disagree with it in a heartbeat.

Badkosh, did you not knee-jerk disagree in a nanosecond?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

^Now you say it, it does ring a bell. Point taken!


Badkosh, did you not knee-jerk disagree in a nanosecond?

Disagree with a position that essentially amounts to:
"My position is the only position that is honest and truthful, and if you disagree you're wrong."

In other news, Snow-i disagrees with recent statements that "birds cannot fly" and "eating shards of glass makes you younger".

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Waragainstsleep's point that anyone that doesn't agree with his worldview (which in his mind is the only truth) is an idiot?

I didn't say they were idiots, I said they were less objective and less impartial. And less capable of being either.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Disagree with a position that essentially amounts to:
"My position is the only position that is honest and truthful, and if you disagree you're wrong."

In other news, Snow-i disagrees with recent statements that "birds cannot fly" and "eating shards of glass makes you younger".

Its more like "Disagree with the obvious truth and you're wrong." Or if it sounds better, "Disagree with a reasonably fair statement for no reason other than pre-conceived partisan bias and you're wrong."

Its more like you're disagreeing with "Birds can fly' and re-wording "Eating broken glass will shred your mouth to bloody ribbons" as "Eating broken glass may cause soreness and discomfort."


What you may or may not realise, is that by being so blindly biased that you can no longer recognise truth or reasonable compromise, you lower an important bar. You prevent reasonable compromises from ever being able to be struck. It started out as purely a tactical move, because by crying out making ridiculous claims and demands, when your opponent meets you halfway, they end up pretty much where you really wanted them all along. This is something the left has been afraid to say, and powerless to adequately combat. It was a clever move when everyone was in on it, but the GOP have inadvertently created a base made up of unreasonable, blind, selfish asshole morons who do nothing but make ludicrous claims and demands and refuse to compromise at any cost. It has gotten worse and worse and worse which is why you all believe things like 'more guns = less gun deaths', 'The Earth is 5000 years old' or 'Donald Trump can make America great again'.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its more like "Disagree with the obvious truth and you're wrong." Or if it sounds better, "Disagree with a reasonably fair statement for no reason other than pre-conceived partisan bias and you're wrong."

Except that your opinion is not truth. It's your opinion, nothing more. It's incredibly narcissistic to think otherwise.

Its more like you're disagreeing with "Birds can fly' and re-wording "Eating broken glass will shred your mouth to bloody ribbons" as "Eating broken glass may cause soreness and discomfort."

Ah, so now you gotta reword my words to fit your "truth"?

What you may or may not realise, is that by being so blindly biased that you can no longer recognise truth or reasonable compromise, you lower an important bar.

You are not the arbiter of "reasonable compromise". If you were, it would be no compromise at all. The most apparent truth in this thread is that you're incredibly narcissistic, and unable to even contemplate another perspective.

You prevent reasonable compromises from ever being able to be struck. It started out as purely a tactical move, because by crying out making ridiculous claims and demands, when your opponent meets you halfway, they end up pretty much where you really wanted them all along. This is something the left has been afraid to say, and powerless to adequately combat. It was a clever move when everyone was in on it, but the GOP have inadvertently created a base made up of unreasonable, blind, selfish asshole morons who do nothing but make ludicrous claims and demands and refuse to compromise at any cost. It has gotten worse and worse and worse which is why you all believe things like 'more guns = less gun deaths', 'The Earth is 5000 years old' or 'Donald Trump can make America great again'.

Again, your way of thinking is not the only way, nor the right way. You've expressed your opinions, and I can appreciate that. What I can't get on boad with is your complete and utter failure to recognize other perspectives that differ from yours. This is called egocentrism, and you display it to a T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Egocentrism is the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to untangle subjective schemas from objective reality; an inability to understand or assume any perspective other than their own.

[Doc HM]

Surely "United the country" is just standard political noise making. No politician is ever going to say "I'm going to look after my voters and throw anyone who voted for idiot party no2 to the wolves"

I plan to renationalise the rail network" is policy
"I plan to unite the country" is there's a TV camera pointing at me and i need to make my lips move

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Except that your opinion is not truth. It's your opinion, nothing more. It's incredibly narcissistic to think otherwise.

You call it narcissism, I call it having confidence in the rational conclusions I draw. I could say its just as narcissistic to assert than any opinion is as valid as any other simply because someone is willing to hold it. Not all opinions are created equal however and this is why I don't take medical advice from the person serving my fries in McDonalds.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Ah, so now you gotta reword my words to fit your "truth"?

Why shouldn't I? You chose them to fit yours.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You are not the arbiter of "reasonable compromise". If you were, it would be no compromise at all. The most apparent truth in this thread is that you're incredibly narcissistic, and unable to even contemplate another perspective.

I never appointed myself such, but what I did do was state some reasonable opinions backed up by reasonable logic and then I made predictions that people without such reasonable logic would immediately and irrationally disagree with them which is exactly what happened. Two other reasonable, logical and rational people already pointed out that my detractors were proving my point.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Again, your way of thinking is not the only way, nor the right way. You've expressed your opinions, and I can appreciate that. What I can't get on boad with is your complete and utter failure to recognize other perspectives that differ from yours. This is called egocentrism, and you display it to a T
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentrism

I don't dismiss all other opinions and I don't dismiss any simply because they are not mine or not those of my side of the political spectrum. If you want to make an argument that small government is better than big government, there are good arguments for and against each and it becomes a question of where people draw certain lines. If you want to argue that banning guns the way other developed nations have is impossible or wouldn't save a significant number of American lives in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence of all kinds (not to mention simple, logical thought processes), I can't ascribe the same value to that opinion because it isn't rooted in sense.
I'll make one last attempt to show why. Fast food is popular because people enjoy it, its often cheaper and less effort than healthier alternatives, and its really easy to get it. Walk in, delivery or drive-thru, 24/7 in most big cities. So even though its bad for us, people eat more of it because they have much greater access to it. You don't see so many drive-thru vegan Kale chip restaurants. So it stands to reason, that even if things are unhealthy, if we enjoy them and have greater access to them, they will be made much more frequent use of.

As for me being egotistical, I could always put on a hat that says "Make America Great Again" and then you'll love me anyway right?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You call it narcissism, I call it having confidence in the rational conclusions I draw.

While I think I do well in the rationality department, certainly better than average, I don't do anywhere near well enough to abandon a near constant mistrust of my own conclusions.

[BadKosh]

"Rational" is also an opinion. Thats why "The Titanic struck the ice berg at 11:40 PM" is a fact, and "Trump is a disaster" and "Clinton isn't as bad as you're all making out" are opinions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"Rational" is also an opinion. Thats why "The Titanic struck the ice berg at 11:40 PM" is a fact, and "Trump is a disaster" and "Clinton isn't as bad as you're all making out" are opinions.

It seems like the only opinions that are facts around here are yours?

[BadKosh]

So you don't know shit about history either? Or is it you don't know the difference between opinions and facts?

[Waragainstsleep]

How about Trump is completely politically inexperienced and not really that great a businessman, and therefore is unqualified for POTUS. He's also a racist asshole who appears to want to have sex with his own daughter.

Any of that you don't think is rational?

[subego]

The only thing which really hits the nail on the head is he's an asshole.

What makes him most unqualified to be president is he's a whiny infant with overcompensation issues.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

How about Trump is completely politically inexperienced and not really that great a businessman, and therefore is unqualified for POTUS. He's also a racist asshole who appears to want to have sex with his own daughter.

Any of that you don't think is rational?

Did you have the same opinion of Ross Perot? Perot was also a "businessman with no political experience." Trump could have done the same thing and paid people to gather signatures and get on the ballot the way Perot did in 1992. Perot get enough votes in 1992 that the "Reform Party" was automatically on the 1996 ballot

Originally Posted by subego 

The only thing which really hits the nail on the head is he's an asshole.

What makes him most unqualified to be president is he's a whiny infant with overcompensation issues.

That would also be a apt description of Perot, and include a Napoleon complex.

[subego]

You know, since you mention Ross...

One thing Ross did was he said flat-out "If you're a racist, I don't want your vote".

As I've mentioned before, I don't think Trump is any more racist than any given rich, old, white New Yorker, but if you're racist, seems like he doesn't have a problem taking the vote.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Odd Perot non-sequitur in defense of Trump.

Given how hot you are on your sacraments, why do you (in many previous comments) keep attacking Hillary for staying married to Bill and giving a free pass to Trump who has been divorced twice? I think perhaps the only issue that actually matters to you is abortion- so own that. Don't keep trying to pretend that Trump is a defensible candidate morally on any other issue. I think it's pretty safe to assume he doesn't really care about the abortion issue either and is fairly transparently pandering to the religious right.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

You know, since you mention Ross...

One thing Ross did was he said flat-out "If you're a racist, I don't want your vote".

As I've mentioned before, I don't think Trump is any more racist than any given rich, old, white New Yorker, but if you're racist, seems like he doesn't have a problem taking the vote.

You really could only think that if you haven't been paying attention. Trump has a pretty well documented history of racist behavior and sentiment.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

You really could only think that if you haven't been paying attention. Trump has a pretty well documented history of racist behavior and sentiment.

In 70 years there are a couple anecdotes, a grand total of two ignorant statements from a person who quite literally oozes ignorance, and overreacting to the Central Park Jogger? These make him racist? Everybody's racist by this standard.

The most damning evidence is his executive hiring practice, but I stand by my assertion this is in line with the average, rich, old, white New Yorker (or rich, middle-aged, white, pancake abbed Speaker of the House as the case may be). I don't defend it, but it's not analogous to the type of racism supposedly proven by the aforementioned anecdotes and ignorant statements.

This leaves the lawsuit. From the suit itself, the only direct accusation is made against Trump's father. Roy Cohn, one of the most despicable Americans of the last century had his talons dug in, so one can hardly be surprised the case was conducted in the most vindictive and offensive manner possible. In terms of what can be laid at the feet of Trump, the article provides his public statements. Note the following.

The article says,

Originally Posted by Fortune

Trump... alleged a “nationwide drive” to force landlords to “rent to welfare recipients.”

Here's Trump's quote,

Originally Posted by Donald Trump

...nationwide drive to force owners of moderate and luxury apartments to rent to welfare recipients. [emphasis added]

One leaves a little more to the imagination, no?

I'll ignore the egregious lapse in journalistic ethics aspect of what just transpired, and stay on course.

We have an old, white guy hiring white executives, and maybe kinda blowing a real quiet dog whistle once... 35 years ago.

I remain unconvinced.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Given how hot you are on your sacraments, why do you (in many previous comments) keep attacking Hillary for staying married to Bill and giving a free pass to Trump who has been divorced twice? I think perhaps the only issue that actually matters to you is abortion- so own that. Don't keep trying to pretend that Trump is a defensible candidate morally on any other issue. I think it's pretty safe to assume he doesn't really care about the abortion issue either and is fairly transparently pandering to the religious right.

Hey, I'm employing the thought process of the Late Mario Cuomo: "I'm personally opposed to divorce/border walls, etc , but can't impose my beliefs on someone else." NOT

Actually, I have decide to write in Kodos this November.


Perot is not a non sequitur. When he ran in 1992 he had never held elected office, and still hasn't.
Remember this little item from '92?

Ross Perot on Drugs

Cordon off ghettoes to "vacuum up" guns & drugs

After a tour in south Dallas (a black ghetto riddled with crime and drug problems), Perot told a reporter that the "Jamaican drug dealers go around with firepower something like the Delta team would have. And we send police officers in there." His solution was to cordon off south Dallas for a one-night covert operation and send in hundreds of police to "vacuum it up"--search every dwelling and person on the street and confiscate the drugs and weapons. Perot advocated infrared tracking devices that might pinpoint drug locations in a neighborhood.
He also said that police should "just go in there [high-crime neighborhoods], cordon off the whole area, going block by block, looking for guns and drugs." When asked if that did not present a constitutional problem, Perot retorted, "Look, I'm sure that 95% of the people who live there would support this."
Source: Citizen Perot, by Gerald Posner, p.228 , Jul 2, 1993

So all those people who voted for Perot in '92 and '96 must be racist.

[besson3c]

If you are voting for Kodos why is post after post after post of yours about Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump, including that silly VP question video?

If you are unhappy with the political system it is logical that you'd want to change all of it, not just half of it. It is logical that you would look at all issues where morality is a factor and make a call on the overall picture, rather than just an issue or two, and advocate for the specific issues that are important to you, not giving any candidates a free pass with the issues that are important to you based on their party affiliation.

So again, I ask you what you are trying to accomplish here?

[besson3c]

I'm sorry if it seems like I'm bullying you, Chongo, I'm just not sure I'm ready for and can bare the thought of another season of Joe the Plumber and similar nonsense while this country faces far bigger problems.

[BadKosh]

Bad POLITICIANS, not a bad political system.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by subego 

In 70 years there are a couple anecdotes, a grand total of two ignorant statements from a person who quite literally oozes ignorance, and overreacting to the Central Park Jogger? These make him racist? Everybody's racist by this standard.

Indeed. Hillary is a raging homophobe, by the same metric. Her vigorous backing of DOMA isn't washed away by her apparent 11th hour conversion to gay rights.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Hey, I'm employing the thought process of the Late Mario Cuomo: "I'm personally opposed to divorce/border walls, etc , but can't impose my beliefs on someone else." NOT

Actually, I have decide to write in Kodos this November.

Yet every time you are faced with a criticism of Trump you lash out at Hillary, generally with some laboured false-equivalency. Why can't you just admit that you support Trump?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Perot is not a nonsequitur. When he ran in 1992 he had never held elected office, and still hasn't.

It is a non-sequitur unless there has been some kind of Perot promotion going on that I wasn't aware of. Who cares what Perot said or did? At the time, the majority of the country thought he was a populist wingnut. Trump is several degrees worse and actually has a chance of winning.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

In 70 years there are a couple anecdotes, a grand total of two ignorant statements from a person who quite literally oozes ignorance, and overreacting to the Central Park Jogger? These make him racist? Everybody's racist by this standard.

Not to be inflammatory here, but perhaps you and/or people you associate with are racist by this standard. I and the vast majority of people I respect regardless of age and city of residence are not. I'm sure that's not what you meant, and from what I have taken to be your character from your posts here, I'd bet you're not- but it does seem I hold people to a higher standard than you. Perhaps I am too idealistic in this regard.

Originally Posted by subego 

This leaves the lawsuit. From the suit itself, the only direct accusation is made against Trump's father.

Donald was President of his father's company when the government action was taken. He cannot escape culpability. And he was not an 'Old White Man' then.

Originally Posted by subego 

The mismatched quotes.

I don't see this quite as clear-cut as you do. I don't know why the edited the quote, but I kind of think the full quote was more damning. Both were lies, but the real quote was a bigger lie. The embellishment of 'luxury' added a touch of elitism to the racism.

Originally Posted by subego 

I remain unconvinced.

There is precious little evidence that the man is not a fairly horrible human being. I would need to see a whole lot more to bring him up to your view of him.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Indeed. Hillary is a raging homophobe, by the same metric. Her vigorous backing of DOMA isn't washed away by her apparent 11th hour conversion to gay rights.

We can call equivalent when Trump has his 11th-hour conversion. Until then, he remains unrepentant. That, even if it's just marginally, worse.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Yet every time you are faced with a criticism of Trump you lash out at Hillary, generally with some laboured false-equivalency. Why can't you just admit that you support Trump?

I'll post a pic of my write in.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I'll post a pic of my write in.

And, I assume, until you do, you will continue to do everything you can to ensure Trump gets elected. Try integrity. It doesn't hurt.

[andi*pandi]

Vote for Johnson, if you're going to protest. Vote for Stein. Write in Bernie. Come on now.

Differences between Trump and Perot: As wacky as Perot could seem, he actually was a good businessman? I don't recall him having bankrupcies, decimating Atlantic City, ripping people off... and he surely wasn't as much of a jerk.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Bad POLITICIANS, not a bad political system.

This season's candidates are a corrupt liar that is blantantly in the pockets of the richest people in the country, or a racist, homophobic, bile-spewing man-child. Our political system (meaning the caucuses, primaries, debates, media coverage, and voting system) has allowed them to rise to the top and has guaranteed that one of those two will be our next president.

That's a broken system.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This season's candidates are a corrupt liar that is blantantly in the pockets of the richest people in the country, or a racist, homophobic, bile-spewing man-child. Our political system (meaning the caucuses, primaries, debates, media coverage, and voting system) has allowed them to rise to the top and has guaranteed that one of those two will be our next president.

That's a broken system.

How do the leaked emails showing that Bernie never had a chance factor into the brokenness of the system? It looks like the RNC did a poor job rigging thier nominating process because if they had done a proper job, Jeb! would be the nominee.

[Waragainstsleep]

I was 12 in 92. I remember the name Ross Perot, thats probably all I ever knew about him. Didn't Jesse Jackson used to get on the ballot too back then?

There is a disturbing amount of people who claim they are lifelong democrats that are way more keen to bash Hillary than criticise Trump. It seems the thirty year Hillary hateloop© has done its job very well. Having engaged one or two of these guys, they are completely brainwashed. Its shouldn't be surprising at all that people who actually admit to listening to conservative media would be the same.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

And, I assume, until you do, you will continue to do everything you can to ensure Trump gets elected. Try integrity. It doesn't hurt.

What the... It takes more integrity to vote your conscience rather than for whom you perceive as the lesser evil.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What the... It takes more integrity to vote your conscience rather than for whom you perceive as the lesser evil.

Let's count the ways your statement is wrong.

1. He says he's writing in a cartoon alien- do you genuinely believe he is voting his conscious?
2. My point is that while he claims to not support Trump, he constantly defends him and (often erroneously and irrelevantly) criticises his only genuine competition in the race. It is VERY obvious he supports Trump, and I'm calling him out for his lack of integrity in not admitting it.

Now the controversial one I'm willing to have a discussion about

3. In the US, voting you conscious when your conscious tells you to vote for a third party is, arguably, an abdication of responsibility. I hate that this is true. I wish there were a realistic path for a third party candidate. But until the system is changed, voting third party (or writing someone in) just leaves the hard decisions to someone else. That's not integrity.

All that being said, it shouldn't be a hard decision this time. Hillary is awful, but her awfulness does not approach that of Trump's.