[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

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.

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.

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.

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.

My first paragraph wasn't phrased well.

The reason I consider everybody racist by that standard is I think the examples are bullshit.

I don't believe the anecdotes. Someone as blatantly racist as those anecdotes portray is going to rack up more than two of them across 70 years.

If you pick apart his two public statements, they're far more ignorant than they are racist. A rich white guy is out of touch with what it's like to be black? That's racism? Like those anecdotes racism? Just as with the executive hiring practices, calling this racism is overloading the term.

When it comes to the Central Park jogger, everybody was freaked out about that. That Trump gave in was racist? That Trump didn't back down makes him racist? Donald Trump... this is Donald Trump we're talking about. I can give you a hundred times the examples of him not backing down when he's wrong. You want to ascribe that trait to him, I wouldn't argue.

IOW, everybody is racist by the standard of what I listed in the first paragraph of my last post, because what's listed there doesn't qualify as racist.


In terms of Trump's statement about the lawsuit, Trump argued he has a problem with the government forcing him to rent apartments to tenants who can't afford them. The edited statement makes it appear he has a problem with being forced to rent apartments to low income tenants period.

As the President of the company, I agree 100% percent he is responsible. Responsibility ≠ racist. Yes, Trump is responsible for not putting the screws to his own dad who gave him the company. The argument here is Trump's a racist because he didn't throw his dad under the bus.

There are so many things we can actually nail this guy on, so many things for which a more compelling argument can be made.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

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.

I think a third party vote is a viable option if you aren't in a swing state.

The more votes a third-party candidate gets, the more cash they can get the next time around.

Ironically, I'd say a non-swing state vote for a third-party candidate has more value than voting for either of the two-party contenders.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How do the leaked emails showing that Bernie never had a chance factor into the brokenness of the system?

No matter your stance on his policy, you have to respect someone who:
1. Is not in the pockets of (or is) large corporations
2. Has been on the right side of history for his entire life (doing what's right even if it's not politically popular)

It would be great if we could get candidates like that on both sides of the aisle, representing various policy differences without being at the beck and call of Wall Street, big pharma, et al. In our system where the corporations own the media and the media is wont to parrot the official party lines as fed to them by the political leaders, there is no room for someone that represents the people.

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.

The RNC choices were either a bunch of milquetoast clones (I'm just a fella who loves my family and Jesus and America and the soldiers!) and the juggernaut Trump. He was the only one actually differentiating himself - he echoed Bernie's "nobody owns me" sentiment that appealed to conservative/libertarians and all of his other stances that appealed to conservative/racists.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

No matter your stance on his policy, you have to respect someone who:
1. Is not in the pockets of (or is) large corporations
2. Has been on the right side of history for his entire life (doing what's right even if it's not politically popular)

Can I point out this right here?

People wonder why I get on Hillary's case. It's because of this.

It's because of the marked contrast.

If you didn't show me something several orders of magnitude better than Hillary, I'd have less to complain about.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you pick apart his two public statements, they're far more ignorant than they are racist.

While the term 'racist' gets bandied about far too often, when you make statements or take decisions that are rooted in your demonstrably incorrect or bigoted views on race- that's racist. As racism is rooted in ignorance, in my mind it's a distinction without a difference.

So what is a racist? How many racist statements do you need to make before you earn the label? How much baiting and dog-whistling do you need to do?

If Trump is a 'racist' in his heart of hearts it's irrelevant. He has made race-based issues a cornerstone of his campaign and he seemingly welcomes the support of the bigoted fringes of society.

Hillary is a liar. So is Trump. Hillary has a sickening sense of entitlement. So does Trump. Hillary is an elitist. So is Trump.

But Trump is also so ignorant and uninterested in actual governance that he seems to be willing to take the US out of NATO, deliberately default on the National Debt, double down on torture, and start a trade war with the world.

There may be a few areas of character where there is some equivalence between Clinton and Trump, but for the most part, he's as bad as she is or worse. But when it comes to policy or leading the nation? There is ZERO comparison. He is a complete train-wreck. Anyone that can't see this is too blinded by partisanship or their (justified) hatred of Hillary to think rationally.

She is the only thing standing between him and the presidency. Anyone that gives a damn about the US or global stability should be holding their nose, rolling up their sleeves, and doing everything they can to help her win.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

While the term 'racist' gets bandied about far too often, when you make statements or take decisions that are rooted in your demonstrably incorrect or bigoted views on race- that's racist. As racism is rooted in ignorance, in my mind it's a distinction without a difference.

So what is a racist? How many racist statements do you need to make before you earn the label? How much baiting and dog-whistling do you need to do?

If Trump is a 'racist' in his heart of hearts it's irrelevant. He has made race-based issues a cornerstone of his campaign and he seemingly welcomes the support of the bigoted fringes of society.

I'm going to try and not drag us too far down this rabbit hole, but the issue needs to be raised neither "Muslim" or "illegal" are races.

This doesn't make his statements any less vile, but what's being proposed is not he's vile. What's being proposed is he's racist.

In terms of him taking advantage of racism for campaign purposes? No question. I even think it's fair to say doing so is a racist act, and that makes you racist.

Well then that's the evidence. Not dubious anecdotes. Not ignorant statements.

When it comes to ignorance equaling racism, I think some weighting needs to be given to consistency. If we were dealing with racist, we'd have lots of quotes we could point to.

[Paco500]

I believe we are largely in agreement and I also agree we don't need to beat it to death. I will make a few final points and leave it.

1. While 'illegal' is not a race, and neither is Mexican, he has made blanket, bigoted statements about latinos, which is a race.
2. I agree that 'Muslum' is not a race, so we can add or substitute bigoted and/or xenophobic if that make you more comfortable. Still no less vile and not traits I would be happy to have in my president.
3. Finally, while acknowledging her myriad and detestable faults, still worse than Hillary by a number of degrees.

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm going to try and not drag us too far down this rabbit hole, but the issue needs to be raised neither "Muslim" or "illegal" are races.

This doesn't make his statements any less vile, but what's being proposed is not he's vile. What's being proposed is he's racist.

In terms of him taking advantage of racism for campaign purposes? No question. I even think it's fair to say doing so is a racist act, and that makes you racist.

Well then that's the evidence. Not dubious anecdotes. Not ignorant statements.

When it comes to ignorance equaling racism, I think some weighting needs to be given to consistency. If we were dealing with racist, we'd have lots of quotes we could point to.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

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?

Yep, the political landscape is pretty grim. I think that's excessive, but it sends a clear statement.

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.

I've already covered this with the perceptions regarding the "lesser of two evils" comment.

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

O'Rly? Aren't we all blessed?

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.

Oh, you don't know how our system works at all (yet you still vomit out vile comments as if you do...). Let me fill you in on some realities, you claim to like those. Unless he lives in a swing state (he doesn't, being in very Red Arizona), or he's in a fractional state (he isn't) it objectively doesn't ****ing matter anyway. Hillary can't win it, not now, or likely ever. The only people making "hard decisions" live in one of the 12 swing states; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado, and North Carolina.

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.

Depends on what you value; if you don't mind the worst of her lies, which directly impacted her performance as SoS, and led to deaths and the compromising of State security, then I guess you're right. Benghazi alone is enough for some people to never trust her in the position of CiC. If you're like my dad and personally know the mother of one of the soldiers left to die there, when he could have been extracted with only minimal injury to Hillary's pride, then you wouldn't touch her with a 12' barge pole. He'd rather go with the unknown than vote in unrepentant evil. On my scale she and Trump are both unelectable, and also being in a non-swing state, I'm going to choose someone I know can't win, as a protest for being offered such shitty choices from both parties.

[Chongo]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is a WELL FORMED conscience.

There a several voters guides to help Catholic voters have a properly formed conscience.

http://www.catholic.com/sites/defaul..._catholics.pdf
https://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Table of Contents
I'll make Poco happy and instead of writing in Kodos, I'll write in Sarah Palin.

[Laminar]

Conscious is an adjective?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Conscious is an adjective?

Opps, conscience.
I blame autocorrect, no wait, it's W's fault.

[Chongo]

@Poco and the other UK members,

Are you pleased with the PM that was chosen for you? Unless you live in her constituency, you did not vote for her.

[Paco500]

Ok you double-hulled, four-funneled, fourteen story, twin-screw, red-painted, purple striped, steam-driven, ocean-going, weapons grade, copper-bottomed moron, let's go through this.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yep, the political landscape is pretty grim. I think that's excessive, but it sends a clear statement.

The issue remains that he very transparently supports Trump. Pretending otherwise is not 'voting with his conscience'.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I've already covered this with the perceptions regarding the "lesser of two evils" comment.

Only an extreme partisan or a barely sentient imbecile would think Trump was the 'lesser of two evils.' Ahh, but you've already covered this as well by self-identifying as such.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

O'Rly? Aren't we all blessed?

I can see how this might come across as arrogance to a witless buffoon, but what I quite obviously meant to say is that it was a discussion I would be willing to enter into and could see myself being convinced to take an alternate position. This will be unfamiliar to you. I'm not so comically arrogant that I think I know everything.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Oh, you don't know how our system works at all (yet you still vomit out vile comments as if you do...). Let me fill you in on some realities, you claim to like those. Unless he lives in a swing state (he doesn't, being in very Red Arizona), or he's in a fractional state (he isn't) it objectively doesn't ****ing matter anyway. Hillary can't win it, not now, or likely ever. The only people making "hard decisions" live in one of the 12 swing states; Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado, and North Carolina.

Now I don't have a fancy make-belive doctorate like you, but I understand perfectly well how the system works. You made a blanket statement:

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

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

This is a general assertion that I was arguing against. My stated position was not meant to apply only to Chongo only in this election. As you have demonstrated time and time again, you have the reading comprehension skills of a small child afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, so I'm not surprised you missed this.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Depends on what you value; if you don't mind the worst of her lies, which directly impacted her performance as SoS, and led to deaths and the compromising of State security, then I guess you're right. Benghazi alone is enough for some people to never trust her in the position of CiC. If you're like my dad and personally know the mother of one of the soldiers left to die there, when he could have been extracted with only minimal injury to Hillary's pride, then you wouldn't touch her with a 12' barge pole. He'd rather go with the unknown than vote in unrepentant evil. On my scale she and Trump are both unelectable, and also being in a non-swing state, I'm going to choose someone I know can't win, as a protest for being offered such shitty choices from both parties.

Originally Posted by Paco500

Only an extreme partisan or a barely sentient imbecile would think Trump was the 'lesser of two evils.'

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

If you're like my dad and personally know the mother of one of the soldiers left to die there...

We both know this is another one of you ridiculous lies- grow up.

And for the love of God, how about you pretend to put me on ignore again, you infantile, dim-witted, shameless liar.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I'll make Poco happy and instead of writing in Kodos, I'll write in Sarah Palin.

A: It's Paco
B: I don't give a monkies how you vote. I just wish you had the integrity to admit you are rooting for Trump.
C: There is a pretty small list of people who are less suited to the presidency than her, but Trump is on it.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ok you double-hulled, four-funneled, fourteen story, twin-screw, red-painted, purple striped, steam-driven, ocean-going, weapons grade, copper-bottomed moron

Stopped there. Yeah, I know you wrote more, but I simply don't care. Yes, I'm reporting you. this is only the 2nd time I've reported someone on behalf of myself since I joined this forum, but you deserve it. Congrats.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ok you double-hulled, four-funneled, fourteen story, twin-screw, red-painted, purple striped, steam-driven, ocean-going, weapons grade, copper-bottomed moron, let's go through this.

The issue remains that he very transparently supports Trump. Pretending otherwise is not 'voting with his conscience'.
Only an extreme partisan or a barely sentient imbecile would think Trump was the 'lesser of two evils.' Ahh, but you've already covered this as well by self-identifying as such.
I can see how this might come across as arrogance to a witless buffoon, but what I quite obviously meant to say is that it was a discussion I would be willing to enter into and could see myself being convinced to take an alternate position. This will be unfamiliar to you. I'm not so comically arrogant that I think I know everything.
Now I don't have a fancy make-belive doctorate like you, but I understand perfectly well how the system works. You made a blanket statement:
This is a general assertion that I was arguing against. My stated position was not meant to apply only to Chongo only in this election. As you have demonstrated time and time again, you have the reading comprehension skills of a small child afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, so I'm not surprised you missed this.


We both know this is another one of you ridiculous lies- grow up.

And for the love of God, how about you pretend to put me on ignore again, you infantile, dim-witted, shameless liar.

 

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Ok you double-hulled, four-funneled, fourteen story, twin-screw, red-painted, purple striped, steam-driven, ocean-going, weapons grade, copper-bottomed moron, let's go through this.

The issue remains that he very transparently supports Trump. Pretending otherwise is not 'voting with his conscience'.
Only an extreme partisan or a barely sentient imbecile would think Trump was the 'lesser of two evils.' Ahh, but you've already covered this as well by self-identifying as such.
I can see how this might come across as arrogance to a witless buffoon, but what I quite obviously meant to say is that it was a discussion I would be willing to enter into and could see myself being convinced to take an alternate position. This will be unfamiliar to you. I'm not so comically arrogant that I think I know everything.
Now I don't have a fancy make-belive doctorate like you, but I understand perfectly well how the system works. You made a blanket statement:
This is a general assertion that I was arguing against. My stated position was not meant to apply only to Chongo only in this election. As you have demonstrated time and time again, you have the reading comprehension skills of a small child afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, so I'm not surprised you missed this.


We both know this is another one of you ridiculous lies- grow up.

And for the love of God, how about you pretend to put me on ignore again, you infantile, dim-witted, shameless liar.

In case you try to go back and edit, you odous, sad excuse for a human being.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

@Poco and the other UK members,

Are you pleased with the PM that was chosen for you? Unless you live in her constituency, you did not vote for her.

As has been well covered, I'm an American living in the UK. She's not my Prime Minister. I will be voting in the US election, and I'm sorry to say, my US residence is a swing state (VA) and I will not be voting for your guy.

[Paco500]

There, I edited it for you.

Ok you double-hulled, four-funneled, fourteen story, twin-screw, red-painted, purple striped, steam-driven, ocean-going, weapons grade, copper-bottomed moron, let's go through this.

The issue remains that he very transparently supports Trump. Pretending otherwise is not 'voting with his conscience'.
Only an extreme partisan or a barely sentient imbecile would think Trump was the 'lesser of two evils.' Ahh, but you've already covered this as well by self-identifying as such.
I can see how this might come across as arrogance to a witless buffoon, but what I quite obviously meant to say is that it was a discussion I would be willing to enter into and could see myself being convinced to take an alternate position. This will be unfamiliar to you. I'm not so comically arrogant that I think I know everything.
Now I don't have a fancy make-belive doctorate like you, but I understand perfectly well how the system works. You made a blanket statement:
This is a general assertion that I was arguing against. My stated position was not meant to apply only to Chongo only in this election. As you have demonstrated time and time again, you have the reading comprehension skills of a small child afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, so I'm not surprised you missed this.


We both know this is another one of your ridiculous lies- grow up.

And for the love of God, how about you pretend to put me on ignore again, you infantile, dim-witted, shameless liar.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

There, I edited it for you.

Ok you double-hulled, four-funneled, fourteen story, twin-screw, red-painted, purple striped, steam-driven, ocean-going, weapons grade, copper-bottomed moron, let's go through this.

The issue remains that he very transparently supports Trump. Pretending otherwise is not 'voting with his conscience'.
Only an extreme partisan or a barely sentient imbecile would think Trump was the 'lesser of two evils.' Ahh, but you've already covered this as well by self-identifying as such.
I can see how this might come across as arrogance to a witless buffoon, but what I quite obviously meant to say is that it was a discussion I would be willing to enter into and could see myself being convinced to take an alternate position. This will be unfamiliar to you. I'm not so comically arrogant that I think I know everything.
Now I don't have a fancy make-belive doctorate like you, but I understand perfectly well how the system works. You made a blanket statement:
This is a general assertion that I was arguing against. My stated position was not meant to apply only to Chongo only in this election. As you have demonstrated time and time again, you have the reading comprehension skills of a small child afflicted with fetal alcohol syndrome, so I'm not surprised you missed this.


We both know this is another one of your ridiculous lies- grow up.

And for the love of God, how about you pretend to put me on ignore again, you infantile, dim-witted, shameless liar.

Good double down, makes it easier.

[Paco500]

Awww... it must be difficult when people give back the abuse you are so happy to hand out- does it make you... dare I say... butt-hurt?

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ Oh, you take the cake in the abuse/name-calling category, hands down. There's no one around here who competes with you there. MacNN isn't for you, I'm afraid. Maybe stick to tumblr where they appreciate, and even endorse, your vile behavior?

[Paco500]

My God you are deluded. I genuinely can't stop laughing.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by 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.

I was 30. My first election was 1980 and I vote for John Anderson. I was definitely "a young skull full of mush." I had no idea what his platform was. I voted for him because I bought the networks line that Reagan was a "rouge cowboy" that was going to start WW III. There was no CNN, FNC, MSNBC, but there was C-SPAN. I was a bit of a C-SPAN junkie back then.

I'm wonder, how many of you were even alive in 1988 when the Clintons hit the national scene?

[subego]

I was 17 in '88, but I didn't really start getting into politics until a couple years later.

In '92, I voted for Jerry Brown in the primary, and Clinton in the General.

I was happy with my votes at the time.