The contrast of your second sentence to your first is the dictionary definition of “cognitive dissonance,”
That’s not true and you know it.
Unless the guy with a gun is black.
Remember the black dude at the Tea Party rally who was carrying? Was covered by the news pretty extensively, although for some reason I can’t imagine they seemed to go out of their way to not show the actual guy, only his gun. Would’ve screwed up the narrative I guess. Also means they couldn’t find a white guy carrying that day. If they had found a white guy, not only would we have seen his face, but he’d also have been asked about Obama’s birth certificate.
Interestingly, the only incident I have seen of any non-police carrying guns at any presidential rally was a black Bernie supporter in a group protesting Trump.
When the video was posted on Reddit the Trump supporters responded by saying that the guy had wacky political views, but good for him for protecting himself by exercising his right to open carry.
But he doesn’t have anywhere near enough fans to win. You don’t need to turn his fans against him at all.
This. We keep forgetting, Trump’s talent for appealing to people, while vast, is far overshadowed by his talent for alienating people.
That’ll earn you a warning under the ‘liar’ rule, Hank. That construction is specifically mentioned in the sticky.
You’re wrong too. The incident adaher cited was exactly what I thought of.
Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal - CNN.com is a story about the incident. Who do you think was more upset by his rifle? His fellow OCers or the anti-gun liberals at the town hall?
See here for the answer (I’d give a hint, but I don’t think you really need one).
Oh, and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI is the video where MSNBC went to great pains to hide the race of the man with the rifle (and blustered on about race like idiots).
To be fair, he probably meant Luton - the UK’s Taliban Central - and the airport is marketed as ‘London Luton’. 
And he’d still be wrong.
But seriously, it amazes me that the Republicans can have chosen Trump. As for Clinton, I suppose it’s ‘her turn’.
Um, dude, that is was Brain Glutton said too me and when I responded that he was making it up *I *am the one who got the warning.
In fact, he has said that to me over and over, and when I report it nothing happens.
It is clear that your warning are reserved, Stormfront style, for those arguing against the sacred positions of the board.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=19275775#post19275775
Wow, so you found one incident of a black guy with a gun that wasn’t shot dead on sight by the cops. Racism is over! Party at Ditka’s house!
Cops weren’t the subject of Brainglutton’s asinine claim.
His claim is that white people who OC would scream for the cops if they saw a black person OCing. Because racism.
After discussion, this is earning a warning as well for hate speech.
Yes, truly so. Trump is in the processing of stealing the base of the Democratic party–low income white Americans–away from them, while Hillary is p!ssing off that same base and recruiting only minorities, or so it seems, while alienating the young and not so young Left that Bernie has a lock on. Quite frankly, if current trends persist, I think that the election is Trump’s to lose. The intense dislike of Hillary among large segments of voters is, while not so strong as those who fear and despise Trump, surprisingly large, and it ain’t shrinking.
True, but as in the famous example of the two people being chased by a bear Clinton only has to run faster than the other guy. And Trump’s “strongly unfavorable” ratings, which are over 50%, aren’t exactly shrinking either.
Yes I’m worried. Clinton may be a competent administrator but she’s just not inspiring and she represents the status quo at a time when it seems very evident that the electorate does not want the status quo. So far nothing seems to stick to Trump, attacks on him just seem to make him more popular because he can portray it as “the establishment” trying to tear him down. Clinton can’t play that card so when more scandals on her spring up as they surely will before November it hurts her and she has no real good options to fight back with.
Her best option would be to completely ignore Trump, pretend he doesn’t exist and just run a positive campaign trying to sell the US on her vision. The problem is, does she have any?
There are plenty of moderate Republicans who can be considered socially liberal but prefer small gov’t in terms of spending and influence.
The definition of party lines blur over time, ideally the Republican party would just adapt, but that hasn’t been the case of late.
. . . while pissing off everybody else. Low-income whites might have been numerous enough to form a “Silent Majority” in Nixon’s day, but they are a minority now. He can’t win with them alone. And even among low-income whites he’ll piss off a lot of the women.
Those mythical moderate socially liberal Republicans never seem to show up when Republican states are trying to outlaw abortion and peek in everyone’s underwear. And by “small government”, they mean gutting the the 1st amendment so that they can impose their religious preferences on the rest of us. Oh, and cutting school lunches. Small government republicans hate feeding children.
I guess on balance, I’m glad there’s so few of them around any more.