[subego]

Allow me to restate my opinion on both the meme and Trump.

The meme implies the following: red states are poor, therefore Republicans don't improve the economy. I'm arguing the political affiliation of the state in which a poor county resides tells you zero about whether the economy is improved by Republican policy. If the meme asked to be shown how Republican policies help poor counties, I'd take no issue. As I stated above, this is a group who gets hung out to dry.

It didn't ask that though. It asks about "the economy".


Trump has taken two nominally Republican positions the Republicans never fulfill beyond what they can to secure a vote and made them his central platform. For decades, anyone in the party who gave more than lip-service to these positions were ejected for being mouth-breathers.

Trump is going far beyond lip-service. He's made these policies central to his platform, and in my opinion they would improve the situation for poor people, both white and black. Unlike the Republican policies we've gotten to this point.

The problem is they'd eventually smash the economy to pieces. Most Republicans know this, hence them exploiting the voting bloc rather than catering to them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It is quite the scam to have convinced so many Americans that Republican policies serve their best interests.

As I said, short-term, his policies would help poor people. This is unlike the norm.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I do want to note I think the Trump we have now is a different Trump than the one who entered the campaign. He's a rock star now, and is incredibly sensitive to the whims of his groupies.

I'd remind you he made the Curiel comments back in the early primaries. He's been a piece of shit since the get-go.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Sorry, I just don't buy shit like this. It's such a gross oversimplification.

First off, I think the ability for government to improve the economy is fairly limited (Though tanking your states? Much easier). Two, as we've seen for the past 40 years, the gap between rich and poor has been getting worse everywhere. Third, I'd love to know the racial breakdown of those counties. If anything, whites might be collateral damage of racist policies (i.e., welfare queens, etc.)

I'm not positive, but I'm fairly certain that the only time in the 40 years where the wealth gap decreased was the 90s during the dot.com boom. Wage growth at the bottom outpaced that at the the top. Of course, if it takes full employment to shrink that gap, we're never gonna see it return to pre-70s levels.

In my opinion, things aren't going to get any better until people stop being allergic to government programs and a more aggressive social safety net. Free re-education for those who's jobs have been displaced, being the first big one.

I mean, what happens if in 10 years driver automation allows us to drastically reduce truck drivers?


**** 'em?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Sorry, I just don't buy shit like this. It's such a gross oversimplification.

Hence the sarcasm of my post which I mentioned earlier. Trump's so-called "outreach" is also a "gross oversimplification" of why African-Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Obviously not holding press conferences is doing wonders for her polling numbers.

I can't find this anywhere else before so I guess you didn't post proof beforehand. How about that...

Couple o' things here.

1. While RCP aggregates polls, it doesn't aggregate ALL polls like Pollster. This creates inherent bias. However I did compeer the timeframe to Pollster and the difference was negligible (1 pts in either direction)
2. You chose a time frame right after the RNC, where Trump's numbers would naturally rise. It's a flawed time to look at his numbers, much like looking at Hillary's after the DNC.
3. Nothing about that can be attributed to her willingness to do press conferences. That's merely an inference on your part. It would be interesting if someone polled that question, however.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

He's just proving that bullshit is better than silence.

4. In the weeks that have followed Hillary still hasn't done a press conference, but Trump has kept on talking. Meanwhile her numbers are roughly steady while his have tanked close to some of his lows. I think disproves your claim.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'd remind you he made the Curiel comments back in the early primaries. He's been a piece of shit since the get-go.

And the amount of slack I was willing to cut him at that point is more than I'm willing to cut him now.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

And the amount of slack I was willing to cut him at that point is more than I'm willing to cut him now.

There should be no slack for him now. Even then, he was in print with his comments about not liking black accountants and his legal history of racial discrimination in housing. You were too kind.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I usually don't go for equivalency politics, but I feel I've got to mention Trump's "doctor's note", which is genuinely shameful. I'd say whomever wrote it should lose their license, though it seems pretty clear they already don't have one.

Funny you should mention this. I missed this the first time around but the Dr. listed on the letter head is dead. I saw a recent takedown of the entire affair, but I think it was on a left-leaning website so its value may be low.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Funny you should mention this. I missed this the first time around but the Dr. listed on the letter head is dead. I saw a recent takedown of the entire affair, but I think it was on a left-leaning website so its value may be low.

There are two doctors on it. The second, who is the son of the first, is alive and the one who allegedly signed it.

AFAIK, the guy is a gastroenterologist, so at the least we can assume Trump probably has the best bowels of anyone seeking the office.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

There should be no slack for him now. Even then, he was in print with his comments about not liking black accountants and his legal history of racial discrimination in housing. You were too kind.

As I stated up-thread, I don't buy the anecdote, and argued if it's true we should have hundreds more to pick from, which we don't.

My argument up-thread with regards to the housing discrimination is I don't see it as cut and dried. His father's involvement complicates the issue, as does the involvement of Roy Cohn, who frankly makes Trump look bush league in the Abomination Olympics.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I stated up-thread, I don't buy the anecdote, and argued if it's true we should have hundreds more to pick from, which we don't.

My argument up-thread with regards to the housing discrimination is I don't see it as cut and dried. His father's involvement complicates the issue, as does the involvement of Roy Cohn, who frankly makes Trump look bush league in the Abomination Olympics.

This is why apologist comes to mind. You keep dissecting them as if they are one-off events, rather than looking at the totality.

Also The man who raised Trump being racist isn't much of a defense if you think he had any influence in Trumps upbringing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I stated up-thread, I don't buy the anecdote, and argued if it's true we should have hundreds more to pick from, which we don't.

My argument up-thread with regards to the housing discrimination is I don't see it as cut and dried. His father's involvement complicates the issue, as does the involvement of Roy Cohn, who frankly makes Trump look bush league in the Abomination Olympics.

It wasn't an anecdote or an isolated incident, it was big enough so that the Justice Department had to intervene. So why do you pretend it is? And why do you shift blame away from the person who was ultimately responsible to his lawyer. I don't think “his lawyer (with mob ties) is much worse than his client” shifts blame away from Trump.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It wasn't an anecdote or an isolated incident, it was big enough so that the Justice Department had to intervene. So why do you pretend it is? And why do you shift blame away from the person who was ultimately responsible to his lawyer. I don't think “his lawyer (with mob ties) is much worse than his client” shifts blame away from Trump.

The post I was responding to contained mention of an anecdote, and the lawsuit. My anecdote comment related to the anecdote. My lawsuit comment applied to the lawsuit.

This is (at least) the third time something similar has happened in our discussion. I think it's fair for me to ask that at this point, if my arguments are seemingly incomprehensible, a request for clarification should come before the attack.


With regards to the lawsuit, I have no argument (and have said so in this thread) over whether Trump is responsible for the lawsuit. The question is does being responsible make him racist.

As I said when it was originally brought up, AFAIK, the examples of racist directives in the lawsuit came from Trump's father. As in, the guy who raised him and then gave him the multi-million dollar company which got sued.

Someone who argues they would throw the person they owe everything to under the bus (with the prevalent attitudes towards race in 1980 no less), takes the moral high ground only by virtue of making a totally implausible claim.

When it comes to Cohn, I wouldn't piss in his mouth if he was dying of thirst. That Trump was his pal reflects far worse on him than the lawsuit.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This is why apologist comes to mind. You keep dissecting them as if they are one-off events, rather than looking at the totality.

I disagree.

There's a list from up-thread of Trump's [X]ist behavior from before he ran for office.

The list contains:

A few anecdotes
His opinions on the Central Park Jogger incident
A close to 40-year-old lawsuit

I maintain someone who is [X]ist, and is so throughly hated as Trump, would manage to have more evidence pile up after being a public figure for as long as he has.

I don't think one can claim to be looking at the totality if they ignore the lack of evidence from before he ran for office.


To repeat what I said above, the relevance of his father's involvement in the lawsuit is that contrition would have required throwing said father under the bus. Is it incorrect to argue this may have factored into his motivations?

[Chongo]

Clinton makes a call, while Obama stays to play golf with plans to visit Tuesday, nearly a week after Trump
Trump Plays the Role of President in Louisiana | LifeZette

[subego]

I'm impressed with the electrics in those cars.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm impressed with the electrics in those cars.

Thanks. I work for the company that makes the microcontrollers in those BMW's (and most other cars)

[subego]

Job well done!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

This is (at least) the third time something similar has happened in our discussion. I think it's fair for me to ask that at this point, if my arguments are seemingly incomprehensible, a request for clarification should come before the attack.

It wasn't an attack on you, and if you look at the similar reactions of other people to your posts, I'm not the only one “misunderstanding your posts”. When discussing particular issues you give Trump so much benefit of the doubt that you come across like a Trump apologist.

Originally Posted by subego 

With regards to the lawsuit, I have no argument (and have said so in this thread) over whether Trump is responsible for the lawsuit. The question is does being responsible make him racist.

The only reason we're discussing this old case is because you were asking for evidence of racism prior to his presidential run. Legally, the question is simple: according to the Fair Housing Act he is responsible in this case as he was the head of the company.

Originally Posted by The Daily Beast

The Fair Housing Act requires that employers be responsible for the actions of their subordinates.

Morally, I think Trump's responsibility started when he became aware of it. Calling the accusations ridiculous, hiring a lawyer with mob ties, asking for $100 million in damages and letting the racial discrimination persist after the settlement with the DOJ was on Trump (the DOJ filed a motion for supplemental relief 3 years after the settlement) speaks very clearly. Trump has to take responsibility for that — or rather, I think it's legitimate to hold Trump responsible for that.

Ignorance and a lack of education may explain how someone who isn't a racist can say or do racist things. Nobody is perfect. But if it's a pattern — as it is in Trump's case — you cannot claim good intentions.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It wasn't an attack on you

An accusation I'm pretending something is true is most certainly an attack on me.

If refraining from this is too much to ask I have nothing further to say.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

An accusation I'm pretending something is true is most certainly an attack on me.

I'm judging you by what you write, and I try to choose my words carefully. For instance, I wrote that “you come across as a Trump apologist” rather than writing that you are one. The former is a completely accurate statement because it's saying something about my perception of what you write. And I don't think I have accused you of “pretending” to be something, I have just stated what impression your posts leave on me.

[subego]

I take no umbrage with the perception I appear as a Trump apologist. I will defend my position as not such and honestly appreciate the opportunity to do so.

It was mistakenly perceived I claimed the Justice Department lawsuit was an anecdote. The accusation was (and I quote) "why do you pretend it is".

This is accusing me of knowing one thing and pretending it is something else.

It's ****ing calling me a liar.


I have done nothing to deserve this accusation. I refuse to let it stand, and refuse to participate in a discussion where the common courtesy of not calling me a liar is too much to ask.

[OAW]

Social media posts by some of Trump's paid staffers are most illuminating with respect to the type of people he attracts.

Racism and talk of religious war: Trump staff's online posts | Associated Press

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

I take no umbrage with the perception I appear as a Trump apologist. I will defend my position as not such and honestly appreciate the opportunity to do so.

It was mistakenly perceived I claimed the Justice Department lawsuit was an anecdote. The accusation was (and I quote) "why do you pretend it is".

This is accusing me of knowing one thing and pretending it is something else.

It's ****ing calling me a liar.


I have done nothing to deserve this accusation. I refuse to let it stand, and refuse to participate in a discussion where the common courtesy of not calling me a liar is too much to ask.

You're not the only one to have suffered that exact attack when speaking about Trump - and I say that with neither one of us being Pro-Trump at all. I was even a "pretender" in a post that explained why I don't support Trump. It does not seem like there is any room for a perspective outside "Trump is evil incarnate and if you don't hate him the same way we do, you must be pretending."

I'm not sure it's intentional, but it seems that those who're explicitly anti-Trump cannot separate their identities from their political views, leading them to surmise that any discussion point that is not explicitly anti-trump must be decidedly pro-trump, which therefore makes you a "pretender" when trying to view a certain event outside of the approved context. The irony is such ignorant folly sounds like something Trump would say..


Edited to Add: Hopefully Oreo will have the decency to address the accusation - when I confronted Laminar he just disappeared from the thread (likely to show up for another trollish driveby at some point in the future).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

It was mistakenly perceived I claimed the Justice Department lawsuit was an anecdote. The accusation was (and I quote) "why do you pretend it is".

I should have been more careful here, I am sorry.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'm not sure it's intentional, but it seems that those who're explicitly anti-Trump cannot separate their identities from their political views, leading them to surmise that any discussion point that is not explicitly anti-trump must be decidedly pro-trump
...

No, that's not it. I think people are (legitimately) freaked out by Trump's candidacy, and to a lesser degree (because according to polls that is unlikely) by a Trump Presidency. Conservatives who are not clearly positioning themselves as anti-Trump are seen as part of the problem (such as Paul Ryan who is waffling around, supporting and not supporting Trump). Personally, I think that these conservatives who don't position themselves are contributing to the dissolution of the Republican party, and a conservative opposition as a whole, because their focus of not letting Clinton become President is putting party above country. (Just to be clear: I'm not saying that people should vote for Clinton instead, there are two, perhaps three other candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and potentially Evan McMullin). However, voting for them will essentially guarantee that Clinton will become President.)

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Clinton makes a call, while Obama stays to play golf with plans to visit Tuesday, nearly a week after Trump
Trump Plays the Role of President in Louisiana | LifeZette

This dude wants to know where BLM and NBPP are.
https://www.facebook.com/jiggy.black...type=3&theater

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I should have been more careful here, I am sorry.

Accepted, and no worries.

I want to reiterate I do not object to the "apologist" allegation. I invited, and still do invite discussion on it.

I disagree, but it's my job to prove it not to be the case, which I'll shall endeavor to do with the rest of your post as soon as possible.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

- when I confronted Laminar he just disappeared from the thread (likely to show up for another trollish driveby at some point in the future).

You wanted to know why I don't engage? Maybe look at bullshit like this. I had a busy weekend and our conversation got buried in a pile of besson/Chongo garbage. My most sincere apologies for not keeping up.

[OAW]

Interesting revelation ...

After bragging for a year about how cheaply he was running his campaign, Donald Trump is spending more freely now that other people are contributing ― particularly when the beneficiary is himself.

Trump nearly quintupled the monthly rent his presidential campaign pays for its headquarters at Trump Tower to $169,758 in July, when he was raising funds from donors, compared with March, when he was self-funding his campaign, according to a Huffington Post review of Federal Election Commission filings. The rent jumped even though he was paying fewer staff in July than he did in March.

The Trump campaign paid Trump Tower Commercial LLC $35,458 in March ― the same amount it had been paying since last summer ― and had 197 paid employees and consultants. In July, it paid 172 employees and consultants.

“If I was a donor, I’d want answers,” said a prominent Republican National Committee member who supports Trump, asking for anonymity to speak freely. “If they don’t have any more staff, and they’re paying five times more? That’s the kind of stuff I’d read and try to make an (attack) ad out of it.”

In addition to the rent for Trump Tower space in Manhattan, Trump has paid his eponymous golf courses and restaurants more than $260,000 since his campaign and the RNC struck a joint fundraising deal in mid-May, after he essentially locked up the GOP nomination. On May 18, the day the fundraising deal was announced, Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach was paid $29,715; Trump National Golf Club in Jupiter, Florida, was paid $35,845; and Trump Restaurants LLC was paid $125,080, according to FEC records. Such large payments were much rarer when Trump was self-funding.

It’s unclear from the campaign filings the purpose of the golf course and restaurant payments, although both of the Florida golf courses hosted Trump campaign news conferences in March.

The Trump campaign on Tuesday responded that it had expanded into larger quarters. “Also, Mr. Trump makes a personal contribution of $2 million per month to the campaign, obviously a much higher amount than rent,” the statement said.

It did not, however, address the question of why the campaign needed more space when it had a smaller staff.

Donald Trump Jacked Up His Campaign’s Trump Tower Rent Once Somebody Else Was Paying It

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

That rates a two on my outrage meter.

If anything the fact that mr. Self fund is soliciting donations is more to the point buy old news anyway.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That rates a two on my outrage meter.

If anything the fact that mr. Self fund is soliciting donations is more to the point buy old news anyway.

Self-funding a bare bones operation in the primary is one thing. But when it comes to the general as the old saying goes "Shit is about to get real!". I'm not surprised in the slightest that he reneged on that pledge.

OAW

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

You wanted to know why I don't engage? Maybe look at bullshit like this. I had a busy weekend and our conversation got buried in a pile of besson/Chongo garbage. My most sincere apologies for not keeping up.

It's not bullshit when you freely admit you did not respond to my post. I can certainly understand being busy and not responding for a couple days, but you leveled a hefty accusation and then bowed out on the rebuttal - 2 weeks ago at this point. In the future, perhaps if you cannot stick around to defend your insults, you ought to think about leveling them in the first place. The besson/chongo posts do nothing to prevent you from responding to mine, which were addressed specifically to you in response to your accusation.

That being said, I accept your apology and appreciate you taking the time to further the conversation. I will do my best to clarify my position hopefully to your satisfaction so that we can put this nastiness behind us and find some common ground moving forward.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, that's not it. I think people are (legitimately) freaked out by Trump's candidacy, and to a lesser degree (because according to polls that is unlikely) by a Trump Presidency. Conservatives who are not clearly positioning themselves as anti-Trump are seen as part of the problem (such as Paul Ryan who is waffling around, supporting and not supporting Trump).

This is no rationalization for acting like an asshole, and "being freaked out" by a candidate certainly does not give license to forgo valid discussion on the topic of the presidency. People act like its the apocalypse and speak without capacity to discuss the election in an intellectual manner - and that it's somehow justified because Trump. I reject the premise. To be clear, I am not talking about you personally - talking in general about the effects of the election and my observations of conversations based around it.

Personally, I think that these conservatives who don't position themselves are contributing to the dissolution of the Republican party, and a conservative opposition as a whole, because their focus of not letting Clinton become President is putting party above country.

For the record, I, as a republican, do believe that my party needs to reinvent itself and redefine which core values are important to us. i.e. economy, taxes, Foreign policy, individual rights and government bloat. The republican party is so ass backwards on social issues that I believe it cannot any longer claim to be conservative, and conservatism implies upholding the bill of rights equally across the board. They've subverted it too long.

The party will not dissolve - though we could stand to cycle in new blood to the otherwise establishment driven ethos. If there's one saving grace to Trump, it's that he showed these assholes that they are not invincible, and we may yet win back our party once the Trump fiasco is over.

(Just to be clear: I'm not saying that people should vote for Clinton instead, there are two, perhaps three other candidates (Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and potentially Evan McMullin). However, voting for them will essentially guarantee that Clinton will become President.)

Which at this point is somewhat of a foregone conclusion. I hate Hillary with a passion, not for what she says her policy positions are, but for her actions, lies, pay-to-play policy - to me she's the embodiment of the corrupt, oligarchal ruling class - a class the liberals are supposed to be against. She's duped ya'll into believing she has an honest bone in her body and will actually implement any of the promises she's made to you. Hint - she won't, not unless she's getting some backhand deal out of it. She stands for everything that is wrong with this country, and those who vote for her have surrendered the idea that we can have a free & equal society. For what?

I will be voting third party - I implore you to do the same, if but for nothing than to send a message that we will not stand for it.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It's not bullshit when you freely admit you did not respond to my post.

It's bullshit when you start with name calling and insults.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The party will not dissolve - though we could stand to cycle in new blood to the otherwise establishment driven ethos. If there's one saving grace to Trump, it's that he showed these assholes that they are not invincible, and we may yet win back our party once the Trump fiasco is over.

I'm not the first to point out the Democrats seem to be angling to take up the Republican mantle.

Hillary's a Kissinger war hawk and Wall Street's "lil' buddy".

She's also a badass mother****er who takes no prisoners.

Take away the gun stuff, and she sounds like a Republican to me.

Honestly, by all rights she's close to my ideal candidate. If only I didn't hate her guts. She's got big guts.

[The Final Dakar]

Hillary is likely the last of the old guard. She wouldn't be here if not for the presumption of her win and the lack of a strong dem bench.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not the first to point out the Democrats seem to be angling to take up the Republican mantle.

Hillary's a Kissinger war hawk and Wall Street's "lil' buddy".

She's also a badass mother****er who takes no prisoners.

Take away the gun stuff, and she sounds like a Republican to me.

Honestly, by all rights she's close to my ideal candidate. If only I didn't hate her guts. She's got big guts.

I think that's an apt description of hers — and also my main beef with her. Weirdly enough she seems like the last neo con out there who is an active politician in power. That the Democratic Party is aiming at moderate Republican voters makes complete sense: if they were to switch over, it'd take a long time until the Republicans (or whatever replaces the Republican Party in case it fractures) could hope to regain Congress. So far that's an if.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

This is no rationalization for acting like an asshole, and "being freaked out" by a candidate certainly does not give license to forgo valid discussion on the topic of the presidency. People act like its the apocalypse and speak without capacity to discuss the election in an intellectual manner - and that it's somehow justified because Trump. I reject the premise.

Talking about Trump with nuance is very tough — because he doesn't have any. And with his long laundry list of incendiary comments and issues, most of which caught on camera, it's tough to see a need to talk about his latest scandal du jour with the same serious and thorough approach that other, more ordinary candidates may deserve.

I will add, though, that we need more nuance in the discussion, and it is unfortunately quite difficult when the discussion revolves around Trump.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

For the record, I, as a republican, do believe that my party needs to reinvent itself and redefine which core values are important to us. i.e. economy, taxes, Foreign policy, individual rights and government bloat. The republican party is so ass backwards on social issues that I believe it cannot any longer claim to be conservative, and conservatism implies upholding the bill of rights equally across the board. They've subverted it too long.

No matter where you stand on these issues, I think Trump's candidacy marks the beginning of a new political order. I don't necessarily share your optimism that the Republican Party will manage to return from the Donald Trumps and Ted Cruzes of the world, these “anti-establishment” types seem to have hijacked the party and a return back towards the center would be quite hard within the next few years. For the Republicans it is unfortunate that the political careers a lot of really smart conservatives have been “tainted” by their association to the neo conservatives and the Bush II Presidency: can you imagine what would have happened if Colin Powell or Condolezza Rice weren't burdened by their baggage and able to run? Both of these are smart and see things in a nuanced way — but have missed their chances.

However, since voters like you won't suddenly evaporate into thin air, I think this will give the Libertarian Party a chance to become more mainstream. I reckon the more socially liberal attitude towards things like homosexuality and pot, something the younger generation doesn't see as a line of demarkation anymore, would attract a new generation of conservatives. It really depends on how the Republican Party will deal with the likely defeat in the next Presidential election (and also the probably loss of seats in both houses of Congress).

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Which at this point is somewhat of a foregone conclusion. I hate Hillary with a passion, not for what she says her policy positions are, but for her actions, lies, pay-to-play policy - to me she's the embodiment of the corrupt, oligarchal ruling class - a class the liberals are supposed to be against. She's duped ya'll into believing she has an honest bone in her body and will actually implement any of the promises she's made to you.

To an outsider like me, I don't get the immense amount of hate that Hillary Clinton gets. Subego summarized it quite nicely: on many issues, she's actually quite conservative. I am not oblivious to her problems, but I don't get the intense hatred that many people feel. Because everybody knew that she'd likely be the next Democratic candidate for the highest office in the US, she was bashed continuously over what I see as non-issues (such as the 8+ Benghazi investigations) — instead of criticizing her where the real problems lie (e. g. her neo conservative leanings). When non-issues are that inflated systematically, it's hard to talk about the really important things — which usually require nuance.

Even calling her part of the “oligarchy”/political establishment is not that targeted a criticism: most politicians are part of the establishment, and those that are not tend to be questionable and problematic. For someone who would like some fresh blood in the political process, Trump is a cruel joke.

[BadKosh]

The anti gun things and her desire to liberalize the SCOTUS raises too many red flags. Add in her continual LIES about every aspect of her being is very troublesome.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

The anti gun things and her desire to liberalize the SCOTUS raises too many red flags. Add in her continual LIES about every aspect of her being is very troublesome.

Hillary has also said she wants to increase funding to Planned Parenthood and repeal the the Hyde and Helm amendments.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To an outsider like me, I don't get the immense amount of hate that Hillary Clinton gets.

My problem: there's lying, and then there's butt-raping reality.

Lying is saying "I'll do this" and then not doing it, or going "I did this" when you did something else.

Butt-raping reality is "there is no difference between having an AOL account and your own private server".


I can accept the former as the cost of being a political animal. That her team successfully promulgated the latter scares the living shit out of me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The only reason we're discussing this old case is because you were asking for evidence of racism prior to his presidential run. Legally, the question is simple: according to the Fair Housing Act he is responsible in this case as he was the head of the company.

Morally, I think Trump's responsibility started when he became aware of it. Calling the accusations ridiculous, hiring a lawyer with mob ties, asking for $100 million in damages and letting the racial discrimination persist after the settlement with the DOJ was on Trump (the DOJ filed a motion for supplemental relief 3 years after the settlement) speaks very clearly. Trump has to take responsibility for that — or rather, I think it's legitimate to hold Trump responsible for that.

Ignorance and a lack of education may explain how someone who isn't a racist can say or do racist things. Nobody is perfect. But if it's a pattern — as it is in Trump's case — you cannot claim good intentions.

An example of a pattern one can demonstrate with Trump is his unwillingness to admit fault or display contrition.

I assume it's not necessary for me to prove this allegation, but if it was, I could point to hundreds of examples. They would begin with his entry into public life, and I could trace an unbroken line right up until about twenty minutes into the future.

Compare that to the alleged pattern of racism.

This is my central argument. The trail begins with the lawsuit, and then goes ice cold for 30 years. There's certainly a pattern there, but it's the opposite of what he's accused of. If pointing this out makes me an apologist, then I guess I'm stuck with the label because I'm not going to stop until someone zips closed the decades-sized hole in the claim.


If, as I argue, the lawsuit and his behavior as a candidate are the outliers, then there should be some easily discernible motive other than racism.

With the lawsuit, though it has relevance, I'll skip past the motivation never to admit fault or display contrition. As I keep harping on, Trump's father, for which the lawsuit presents direct evidence of causing the problem, gets thrown to the wolves if Trump caves. Is not the motivation to avoid this clear-cut?

With Trump the contender, I would argue his behavior is motivated by an ego that dwarfs Everest. His stadiums full of adoring fans really like the idea of taking jobs away from illegal immigrants, which means so does he.


All that said, it would be hard to deny his rhetoric has become mightily corrosive, and as time passes, an outright dismissal becomes a fairer and fairer response to it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

My problem: there's lying, and then there's butt-raping reality.

Lying is saying "I'll do this" and then not doing it, or going "I did this" when you did something else.

Butt-raping reality is "there is no difference between having an AOL account and your own private server".


I can accept the former as the cost of being a political animal. That her team successfully promulgated the latter scares the living shit out of me.

What exactly is your complaint with this particular lie?

[BadKosh]

Most of Hillarys supporters have no clue how email works or how classified documents get that way. They are mostly clueless and buy any lie she spews. These are people who don't read, but listen (poorly) to what some other person is saying without actually knowing if they are being lied to. Later they repeat it incorrectly to other liberal buddies and before long it doesn't even sound like what the original points were. This is why you get that woman who though Obama was going to pay her mortgage, and the famous ObamaFone lady.

[andi*pandi]

Most of trump's supporters have no clue what irony is or why wearing a "HILLARY IS A BITCH" tshirt contradicts their statement that they and Trump respect women.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Most of Hillarys supporters have no clue how email works or how classified documents get that way. They are mostly clueless and buy any lie she spews. These are people who don't read, but listen (poorly) to what some other person is saying without actually knowing if they are being lied to. Later they repeat it incorrectly to other liberal buddies and before long it doesn't even sound like what the original points were. This is why you get that woman who though Obama was going to pay her mortgage, and the famous ObamaFone lady.

So as a reader and good listener, whats your excuse for parroting virtually every piece of nonsense that does the rounds of the right wing media circus?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Most of trump's supporters have no clue what irony is or why wearing a "HILLARY IS A BITCH" tshirt contradicts their statement that they and Trump respect women.

Meanwhile Hillary supporters show thier tolerance by sporting shirts like this.

 

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

My problem: there's lying, and then there's butt-raping reality.

Lying is saying "I'll do this" and then not doing it, or going "I did this" when you did something else.

Butt-raping reality is "there is no difference between having an AOL account and your own private server".

Now you're doing what you accuse some anti-Trump people to do: you follow a purely emotional line of argumentation. There is no such thing as “butt raping reality”. While I personally criticize that Clinton hasn't properly handled the email affair, I think she would have avoided a lot of criticism if she had apologized, based on the merits, the affair is much less sinister than people make it appear. I posted a link to an Arstechnica article which also explains the background. According to the article, Clinton initially tried to work within the system so that she could continue using a Blackberry (e. g. a hardened one like the one that President Obama uses), but was rebuffed. The State Department's IT continued to lag (which was also the reason why Colin Powell used his personal AOL email account for state business), so she set up her own email system. She should not have done this, but I think the characterization that she did it so she could hide her “nefarious business” is not apt, nor was she “butt raping reality” in the process. As far as political scandals go, I think this ranks extremely low. Off the top of my head, I can list a whole ton of issues that are infinitely more serious, starting with the NSA's desire to collect and analyze each and every bit of information exchanged on the internet and deliberately making crucial pieces of IT infrastructure less safe. None of the Presidential candidates want to dismantle that — I'd criticize Clinton for that, not because she wanted to continue to use a Blackberry for email and calendaring. The lack of cooperation between the two parties essentially brings Congress to its knees. There is lead piping which not only has been shown to cause birth defects but also higher crime rates. The US infrastructure is crumbling. (Feel free to add to the list.)

Benghazi, the “email server scandal“, Obama's “missing” birth certificate, all of those are distractions from much more serious problems — and most people seem to swallow it whole.