And even worse, his name sounds like “Kucinich” – of whom it has been written that “his name sounds more like ‘Dukakis’ than ‘Dukakis’ does.”
Time to start buying stock in whatever companies make riot gear . . .
Who ain’t?
This is the part where we realize it’s TrumpCo.
Or, if it ain’t, they’ll have diversified into that line by the time the convention starts. 
Well, no one should be amazed of how the media falls for them. I still do remember how they fell for Trump’s bullshit that he won the Hispanic vote in Nevada. That 45% percent of Hispanic support for the republican was really just about less than 3000 Hispanic supporters out of about 194,000 registered voters from Nevada who are Hispanic.
Hank Beecher, I must admit I find your cognitive patterns interesting.
You seem to have different views of Trump and Duke. Duke was a candidate for a major office, winning 55% of the white-skinned vote in his bid for Governor of Louisiana. Trump has yet to run in a general election.
Duke has bad-mouthed Mexico (“I don’t want to see this country resemble or look like or become like Mexico. Mexico is great to visit, I’ve been there a few times. I respect all peoples of the world.”) but so has Trump.
If there’s a fundamental difference between the two, would you expound on it, please? (One possible difference: Trump has condoned violence by his supporters. Has Duke?)
Yes, a losing candidate.* Twenty five years ago.* In a state with only four million people in it.
He is currently running for the most powerful position on earth, and is the leading candidate for the party that has held the office for the majority of the time since the party formed a century and a half ago.
So what? Duke has bad mouthed Israel but so has Dennis Kucinich.
Duke is a a fiercely anti-Semitic racial supremacist, who advocates racial segregation and eugenics, denies the Holocaust, glorifies Nazis, vilifies Jews and blacks as racially inferior, and pushes an extreme racialist nationalism. He is vehemently opposed to the existence of Israel, mixed marriages, and all immigrants. He instructs his followers to estrange themselves from family members who “betray their race” by dating non-white people or converting to “non-white religions”. He is un-influential outside of a very small, incestuous, circle, with no mainstream figures who currently endorse him or even tolerate him. He is a pariah. His hardcore supporters number in the hundreds, those sympathetic to him the thousands.
Trump is a multi-racial nativist who’s ideology is explicitly and strongly inclusive of all citizens, and inclusive of legal immigrants to a smaller but significant degree. The very persuasive “we are all Americans” is one of the slogans you will hear from his supporters the most. There is no racialist component to his message whatsoever. He has support from many prominent people, many of whom are black, including the only prominent black candidate in the current race. He repeatedly claims to be a friend of Israel. His daughter, who campaigns for him, has converted to Judaism. He strongly advocates acting to curb illegal immigration. He vilifies illegal immigrants as criminals, and has supported temporarily denying Muslims entry into the United States. He is currently the leading GOP candidate for president. Millions of Americans have voted for him in the last few months.
Example? In all of the cases I have seen he was condoning a violent reaction to violence.
So you have abandoned any defense of the NBRA endorsement?
Trump supporters excuse old man sucker punching protester. They say that he may have had a flashback to the civil war, gotten angry at the protesters for startling him and making him pee his Depends, or may have simply had a senior moment.
You do not seem to have replied to my last statement of that exchange, so if anyone is slinking away…
Anyway, why would the endorsement need my defense?
He condoned the old guy punching the non-violent protester, and said he’d consider paying his legal fees.
Because you were the one who touted it to begin with.
My point was that the decision of CNN to loop the Duke endorsement stories, giving it thousands of times as much coverage, is not based on the story’s inherent newsworthiness, but on the media’s dual goal of sensationally driving ratings and vilifying Trump.
Even the NBRA turned out to be an un-influential body, they are not GOP pariahs, as far as anyone has shown. The story might not have deserved any more press that it got, but that still doesn’t mean that the Duke endorsement deserved 1000x more.
Trump campaign volunteer spotted with white supremacist tattoos.
It is based on Trump’s newsworthiness. Everything that he does or happens to him gets 10 times as much coverage as WRT any other candidate. “If it bleeds, it leads.” Trump is an open wound of endless hemophiliac bounty. Any instance where that does not happen must be a non-story by even the most generous standards – like, that NBRA endorsement. If the NAACP endorsed Trump, that would be headline news. Also a sign of the End Times.
What, the Celtic Cross is . . . it’s an Irish symbol! She got it just for St. Patrick’s Day! And “88” just means she plays piano!
Sure, that is reasonably interpreted as condoning violence, I suppose. When he said he was looking into it he said he wanted to know what the kid said and did before hand. So, he seems to be implying that there is a point at which, if someone goes out of their way to seek out a group of people and antagonize them, that violence towards that person is excusable, or at least understandable.
That’s a pretty confrontational stance for a traditional candidate for president to take towards protesters. But Trump is not a traditional candidate. He is selling himself as the voice of the people. And his attitude towards those who seek out groups of people, and instigate confrontations with them by insulting and antagonizing them, is very common among Americans.
Nothing you wrote addresses the fact that the Duke endorsement got far more coverage than other Trump stories. If CNN were as desperate to prove Trump was not a racist, as they are to prove that he single-handily invented the KKK, then instead you would see other marginal (and not so marginal) figures and stories mentioned in constant repetition in association with the Trump brand.
Don’t know that for a fact, but, if so . . . If it leads, it bleeds. If Trump is a wound, Duke is an ever-spurting severed artery. The synergy is irresistible. The level of coverage would be astonishing if it were any less.
And, on top of that, this does have immense legitimate news value, for many obvious reasons, however much and however long you strive to deny it.