As I pointed just a few posts early: Since we are in that kind of message board I pick then the side that does not use weapon’s grade ignorance sources of information and then report that they will use that trash information to make policy.
And of course, Trump has obtained the support of the evangelicals that want to get rid of the wall between church and state. Yep, Clothy is so blinded by ideology that he will support the growth of religion’s intervention in government. He will toss his non believer convictions under the bus just to get his other misguided wishes.
I did not say that. Clinton did not say that. She literally said that half of them are racists of various stripes, and the rest are pretty angry about how government has let them down.
You’re literally saying that you identify with the racists. I have no fucking clue why this seems like a good idea to you.
Context must not exist also in his world, as noted Ravenman and others are talking about half of Trump supporters. But more exactly Ravenman is talking about associating with those specific reprehensible people, indeed that means that not all of them are, just that most are too tolerant of racists, but not only that. They are making efforts now to normalize that bigotry to get their votes.
I identify with “Anybody But Clinton”. If racists also agree with that, big deal. They probably also agree on other basic things as well, like eating on a regular basis. Should we stop doing that because racists do it?
Damn, you people are stupider than a box of rocks. Let’s try a little experiment. Please explain how Trump has managed to be in the public eye for…what, 25, 30 years or so? And yet no one has ever called him a racist until he started running for President. Why is that, and why do you just blindly march along with the parade?
Are you unaware of the courts ruling that he discriminated against blacks who tried to rent his properties? Of his complaining about black people handling his money, and that he’d prefer Jews to do it instead?
Those were in the 80s and 90s, if I remember correctly. I’m not accusing you of ignoring or downplaying that. If you’re unaware, we’ll be glad to provide cites.
Many people called him a racist throughout his career. In addition to the evidence-free lie that is birtherism, he was sued (and settled) for housing discrimination in the 70s for not renting to black people. In the 80s he publicly called for the execution of the Central Park 5 (the kids accused of rape), who years later had their convictions overturned.
None of this is new for Trump, to anyone who has paid attention to him.
No, that isn’t what is happening. In 1980, questions about Reagan’s candidacy arose because members of the Klan were very supportive of his nomination. He did the proper thing, and made several clear statements to the effect of, “Just because someone supports me doesn’t mean that I support them – I want nothing to do with racists and white nationalists.” Reagan very clearly communicated that he wished to distance himself from the Klan and their ilk, because he wanted nothing to do with them.
You are quite literally doing the exact opposite of what Reagan did: while Reagan said “those racists don’t speak for me,” you are saying that you wish to be considered as standing alongside racists and Nazis in opposition to Hillary Clinton. You are proudly saying that you’re a “deplorable,” even though it is perfectly clear that the term “deplorables” refers exclusively and only to racists, Nazis, white nationalists, bigots, and intolerant dead-enders.
Why you think this is a good idea – as opposed to Ronald Reagan’s sensible position of not wanting to be associated with these thugs, neo-Confederates, and other lowlifes – is a total and complete mystery.
There is no question that the issue of Trump’s racial views has arisen many, many times in the past. Cite.
But as a general rule, of course the views and statements of a nominee for political office are going to get more attention than when they were a relatively normal, if famous, private citizen. For example, another poster mentioned how you used the term “wetback” in some other post. That isn’t something that the media would cover, because you’re just a stupid schmuck on a message board. If you were the Republican nominee for a Senate seat in Texas, the same comment would be extensively covered by the media. And in that case, you don’t get to say, “Nobody made a big deal out of me using racist terms a few years ago!”
See, now I don’t understand the “anybody but Clinton” argument. Clinton is not my favorite person. I would have loved it if she’d lost in the primary. But I can also think of about a hundred people I’d hate more in a Presidential race. Starting with Donald Trump. Never Trump has always made more sense than Anybody But Clinton.
Clinton is even an improvement, IMO, on the current President. She’s an improvement over John Kerry as well, IMO. So by my own logic she’s the best Democratic nominee in 16 years. That deserves at least a Bronx cheer.
Isn’t very hard to go to Google News and search for ‘Trump Racist’ and then filter anything after Jan 1, 2015 for example. Most of it will focus on 2011 and the whole Birther thing, but there are plenty of other stories about him.
Note: I make that joke solely because of the pedophile reference. In no way, shape, or form do I mean to suggest that anyone on this board condones or participates in such activities.
That came after he started his campaign with his “States’ Rights” speech in the town where Goodman, Schwerner, and Chaney were murdered, but before his “welfare queen” rhetoric.
Whatever your opinions may be, if Clothy were in a similar situation in 1980 as he is today, he would be saying “Hey, as long as the Klan is opposed to the Peanut Farmer, I guess we’re on the same team! Yay!”
It is just a side note but Reagan’s “Welfare Queen” was a real person despite accusations that it was simple fictional character invented by Reagan. Her name was Linda Taylor and she was even more evil and over the top than he alluded to and she certainly lived up to every bit of her title (originally branded a Welfare Queen by the Chicago Tribune, not Reagan).
I am not a Trump supporter to say the least and comparing accurate quotes from Reagan with just about anything Trump says does not sit well with me.