There is no moral equivalence. Many of us found things we didn’t love about Hillary. There would be legitimate reasons to vote for Jeb Bush, (or god help us, Ted Cruz) but there simply is no justification or defense of a vote for Trump. Doing so exposes either profound ignorance or worse. It’s true, no decent person could possibly vote for Trump. I’m sorry, but it really is that simple.
I think you run that risk every time that you eat out, sign or no sign. I also think the odds of it happening are small, you must generally do something that offends the staff enough to risk being caught and prosecuted.
I think you quoted the wrong post. I’m sure the person you meant to address is waiting with bated breath for this… argument.
More ridiculous hyperbole.
I suppose you didn’t read what you … posted.
So a vote for Trump was a vote for peace, love and understanding?
Yes, that must be it.
Clinton didn’t vote to invade Iraq, she voted to put the decision in Bush’s hands. Bush decided to invade Iraq. He didn’t have to. It was an authorization to use military force, not an obligation to do so.
I’m sorry, but that’s simply more of the moral myopia and arrogance that so many people not of the left find so terribly nauseating. You don’t know these people’s minds. There are plenty of reasons why a moral person might decide to take a punt on an outsider like Trump. Not least among them is the fact that, if her voting record is anything to go by, Hillary Clinton has an insatiable appetite for war. Hell, she voted for the disaster in Iraq, even though she knew the case for war was bullshit. What kind of human being does something like that?
If they made that decision knowing he was going to torture prisoners and murder their families, they are not moral people. If they had decided on Trump earlier then kept to that decision after he announced he would torture prisoners and murder their families, they are not moral people.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Have you looked at Trump recently (i.e., in the last 30 years)? He’s a disgraceful person, with limited intelligence, no social skills, bigoted views, and–as everyone acknowledges–a con man. Being “not Hillary” is simply not enough to overcome all that shit (and more).
And by the way, Hillary Clinton may or may not have made a mistake on the Iraq vote, but it hardly displays “an insatiable appetite for war.”
Oh, please. Talk about a distinction without a difference!
If Trump had no “social skills”, he would never have been as successful in the financial and real estate industry as he was over his decades-long career; he did expand the company into a profitable real estate business worth billions. The first rule of being a successful businessman in a cutthroat industry like that is to have perfect social skills. So there goes that charge. You also need to be very intelligent and have financial street-smarts–so there goes your “limited intelligence” charge as well.
Hillary made an atrocious error in judgement by voting for Iraq, not just a mistake as you euphemistically put it. Over 2000 dead American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, the bankrupting of America with the money spent over there, etc. Trump came out forcefully in opposition to the war in 2004, long before HRC ever did, in fact she was still defending her vote in her 2008 campaign against Obama in the Democratic primaries. Hell, even in January 2003, two months before the war began, Trump expressed doubts about the wisdom of such a war.
And it shows ignorance to believe that people voted for Trump because he is simply “not Hillary”. There are tens of millions of conservative Americans in this country who disagreed with Clinton on abortion funding, gun rights and the strength of the Second Amendment, Supreme Court appointments, whether to raise even more taxes on this economy, trade, illegal immigration and more, and voted for Trump because he shared their positions, not because he wasn’t Clinton.
That doesn’t make them Nazis.
There’s a big difference. But that’s a subject for another time, and that time has come and gone. Back to signs in restaurants.
He’s not-so-subtly implying that a Mexican restaurant is catching stray cats and serving them up, and you’re confused about whether that’s racist? Seriously?
Actually, he said he hoped his local Mexican restaurant would keep serving him because the “other place across town” was suspiciously bereft of cats. The other place could be a Burger King for all you know.
This thread is so full of impotent rage it probably deserves honorable mention in the schadenfreude thread, but I do really appreciate QuickSilver’s posts here. He seems to have been working overtime lately to have some reasonable dialogue or at least basic decency with his political opponents, and I applaud that. Kudos to you QuickSilver!
Yeah. I don’t see how commenting or even joking on the catching and eating the local game is racist. i’ve seen Roadkill Grill cafe t-shirts. I don’t consider those racist. I know people who eat squirrel and stuff.
I second that
Thanks.
Modesty insists that I explain - I’ve run out of all other options. 
The racist urban legend about serving cats or other stray animals shows up most often about Chinese restaurants, but it also shows up with less frequency about Mexican restaurants. For some reason, and I absolutely can’t imagine what that reason could be, it never shows up about Italian restaurants.
The more you know!