The Totally Unoffical Phatmass US Presidential Election Poll

[Peace]

Just now, Anomaly said:

lol.  Yeah, I can't point to an imaginary friend who told me it's okay.  We only have different opinions.  Principles aren't tThe issue. 

God exists. You are just too stupid or too stubborn to admit it. Good day.

[Ice_nine]

4 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I tried to make a point earlier in the thread and everyone pretty much just completely ignored it and carried on.

But I do very much believe that if abortion was unveiled and happened out in the open how we've all carried ourselves in this thread would be drastically different. The same would true if the victims were toddlers, a minority or religious group, or pretty much any group that we can communicate and interact with being murdered in mass out and in the open.

You will forgive me but I do not believe you would have trouble understanding why there is "seething hatred", as you call it, for Hillary Clinton if she instead advocated the mass murder of a group and you had to see it happen, hear it happen, and smell the after effects of what happened. I believe the only reason you have trouble understanding the passion some have against Clinton is because abortion is veiled and hidden away.

You know, you do have a point when you say it is hidden, but there's also a thing about emotional resonance. A toddler being killed is more emotionally jarring (to some) than a 20 week-old fetus being torn apart is more ugly than embryo destruction and a blastocyst falling out of the uterus.

Sentiment doesn't always relay the gravity of the crime. If I were to tell you, and if science were able to see, that someone you love had a spontaneous abortion (i.e. miscarriage) of a blastocyst that couldn't think, feel, and didn't look all that cute, would you really be that emotionally torn up?

I guess that helps me understand that pro-choice advocates are the way they are. Most of our cultural beliefs are motivated by sentiment more than logic or principle. The story of a pregnant woman struggling with poverty and trauma is more emotionally compelling than an embryo with no face or no name being silently destroyed. It just is. Of course, the emotional impact of something is not a way to determine if something is gravely unjust, but that's how others make their determinations.

So I think there are people who have good hearts but are just using their emotions to determine what is right and wrong. Embryos and early pregnancies can be ended with very little gore. The terms "mass-murder" and "genocide" and "slaughter" are terms meant to invoke images of blood and feelings of horror/disgust/sadness/fear. So you DO have a point. Hidden things are less emotionally compelling than stepping over dead bodies in the street, but that's not the whole story.

Maybe what I'm trying to nail down is that just because I don't find abortion as emotionally compelling as you do (and therefore understand how pro-choicers can be the way they are and not see abortion as THE issue), that I'm not just as much against it. I think you can display competency in other arenas of government (and I guess for Hilary I'm thinking in terms of general decorum, diplomacy etc she seems "presidential") and still have flawed logic or flawed morality. She is not a moral person. I never said that. Presidents and kings should ideally be moral, but even if they are not, they can still be effective and efficient rulers, if you will. Hitler enacted a lot of evil policies but he gave some great speeches and pulled Germany's economy out of the gutter.

That's why I don't understand the "seething hatred." I don't understand the emotional response, and yes that's partly because abortion is hidden. It's hard to for me to understand hatred of someone with flawed moral logic (no matter how unjust the outcome) than for someone who say, enjoys inflicting pain on people, or seems to.

sorry that was so long-winded. I'm really tired.

[Socrates]

On 9/14/2016 at 8:23 AM, Peace said:

That's fine. You put more faith in Mr. Trump than I do.

I will concede you, for the sake of argument, that there is a 2% better chance that Supreme Court justices appointed under Trump will be better than Clinton. None of you folks can say with any confidence that Trump will put good justices on the Supreme Court, or do anything positive to limit abortion.

Your own assertion that it is absolutely certain (or least 98% certain) that Trump will nominate justices who are every bit as leftist and pro-abortion as those Hillary would nominate is itself a statement that must be taken on faith, rather than a solid fact.  (That is, unless you really do possess amazing psychic powers of reading minds and foreseeing the future denied to the rest of us mere mortals.)  And your entire argument in favor of Hillary seems to hang on that assertion.

I have a healthy skepticism of  Mr. Trump's pro-life "conversion," but I think this is a concession he may be willing to make for purely political purposes, if nothing else.  (See the reasons Anomaly gave earlier.)  Given all the promises he's repeatedly made publicly, he'll have a lot of 'splainin' to do if he blatantly breaks them and appoints a left-wing activist judge, and he would find himself in considerable political hot-water.  I don't think he's a leftist activist or beholden to the pro-abortion lobbies in the same way Hillary is, and don't think he probably personally cares much what kind of justices are appointed, as long as he's Commander-in-chief.  I could be wrong, but I also know the chances of Hillary nominating anyone decent are zero.  Of course, 

I think we need to seriously hold Trump's feet to the fire on the fire on this, but the fact remains that with Hillary there is no hope left on this whatever.

I don't think abortion is the only reason Hillary is worse, either.  I'm not buying all the "racism" charges, and you and others seem to be completely ignoring the many instances of Hillary' lies, crookedness, and lawlessness.

[Socrates]

On 9/16/2016 at 1:09 PM, Peace said:

I wonder why the Dems don't consider more pro-life candidates, or make their platform neutral on the issue? I actually think we could see this within my lifetime, with the changing political landscape.

It's because the Democratic Party, at least at the national level, is thoroughly in the pockets of the pro-abortion lobby (NOW, PP, and the rest of them), and is beholden to it.  The "social left" (pro-abortion, pro-"gay marriage," etc.) also comprises a large part of the modern party's base.

Sadly, despite their fanatically pro-abortion stance, they don't seem to have much trouble winning much of the "religious" vote, including the "Catholic vote."   I don't realistically foresee them dropping the pro-abortion position anytime soon.  The Dems seem to be rapidly drifting ever leftward.

 

Quote

Essentially that is what Trump is running as: a pro-life Democrat. You essentially have two Democrats running against each other, one pro-choice and the other pro-life (for those who believe Trump).

To a large extent, I think you're right here.  Trump is more of an old-fashioned Democrat than a conservative, and is going after the blue-collar vote that was once the Dem's base.  He's also appealing to them on things like supporting the military and police (whether you believe him sincere or not), in contrast to the current Party.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Socrates said:

Your own assertion that it is absolutely certain (or least 98% certain) that Trump will nominate justices who are every bit as leftist and pro-abortion as those Hillary would nominate is itself a statement that must be taken on faith, rather than a solid fact.  (That is, unless you really do possess amazing psychic powers of reading minds and foreseeing the future denied to the rest of us mere mortals.)  And your entire argument in favor of Hillary seems to hang on that assertion.

I have a healthy skepticism of  Mr. Trump's pro-life "conversion," but I think this is a concession he may be willing to make for purely political purposes, if nothing else.  (See the reasons Anomaly gave earlier.)  Given all the promises he's repeatedly made publicly, he'll have a lot of 'splainin' to do if he blatantly breaks them and appoints a left-wing activist judge, and he would find himself in considerable political hot-water.  I don't think he's a leftist activist or beholden to the pro-abortion lobbies in the same way Hillary is, and don't think he probably personally cares much what kind of justices are appointed, as long as he's Commander-in-chief.  I could be wrong, but I also know the chances of Hillary nominating anyone decent are zero.  Of course, 

I think we need to seriously hold Trump's feet to the fire on the fire on this, but the fact remains that with Hillary there is no hope left on this whatever.

I don't think abortion is the only reason Hillary is worse, either.  I'm not buying all the "racism" charges, and you and others seem to be completely ignoring the many instances of Hillary' lies, crookedness, and lawlessness.

That's cool. I am not planning to vote for Hillary. The only point I really desired to make that it is a bad choice between two bad candidates, and I don't think anyone need be villified because he happens to dissagree with one's opinion as to who is worse.

And yeah. Trump is racist. That whole birther movement was racist. So was him suggesting that the judge couldn't do a good job because he is Mexican. So is this whole take back America and restore law and order stuff. You know how dog whistle politics work. 

But the fact that you think Trump is better than Hillary doesn't mean that you don't care about racism.

[Anomaly]

The President is not the only election to cast your vote in the next few months.  

Who else is running for office on the State and Federal level in your districts?    Who are the best candidates that made it through the primaries?  Can you learn more about them and and talk intelligently about them to friends and family?   Can you look beyond typical media hype and social media snark to get a better idea of who they are?   Ever consider attending a rally or speech?

Pro-life issues for healthcare, welfare, etc. are great.   But fudamentally, being able to live should be the first issue.  As a note, the US's Declaration of Independence prioritized it as Life, Liberty, and then Pursuit of Happiness. Not Liberty and Happiness for those who aren't too much inconvenience or worthy enough. 

Politics have always tended to be about demonizing the opponent and making yourself seem better then you probably are.  Its effective for emotional and superficial choices.  

It's up to us to rationally discern what's our more important principles, and intelligently direct our votes and our political support.   

[dominicansoul]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

That's cool. I am not planning to vote for Hillary. The only point I really desired to make that it is a bad choice between two bad candidates, and I don't think anyone need be villified because he happens to dissagree with one's opinion as to who is worse.

And yeah. Trump is racist. That whole birther movement was racist. So was him suggesting that the judge couldn't do a good job because he is Mexican. So is this whole take back America and restore law and order stuff. You know how dog whistle politics work. 

But the fact that you think Trump is better than Hillary doesn't mean that you don't care about racism.

the birther movement was started by Hilary's campaign when she went up against Barrack Hussein for the presidential nomination waaaay back in 2008...so...if anybody is a racist...

I think Trump mentioned that judge's ethnicity because he didn't think the judge would be fair in a court case against Trump.  Everybody knows Trump's views on illegal immigration.  Judge Curiel doesn't hide his activism...it's no secret he's an activist judge (things judges SHOULDN'T be) and, in all things, he's most actively in support of illegal immigration.  I'm hispanic, and even I've gotten burned by mexicans with strong "La Raza"  views.  Where I work, a mexican called me out on the fact I don't know Spanish.  From day one, she has made it clear that I'm not her favorite person here.  I'm not brown enough for some of these "La Raza" types.  So even I've been called racist as well.  Lol.  

Can Trump be racist?  I don't know.  He employs all colors.  If you look at his rallies, there's whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, women, men, who knows maybe even gays and transgenders.  In other words..."America" shows up at his rallies.  He doesn't seem to be keeping out colored people at the door with SS bodyguard types.  I've even seen him embrace a few people of color on stage.  Is it all an act for votes?  Maybe, but don't the democrats play that same game?  While everybody is looking at the white old man, why aren't they looking at the white old woman?  Hilary and Bill said a couple of questionable things regarding Barrack during her campaign against him.  I believe Bill even mentioned that "Barrack should be serving them coffee rather than be president of the USA"...so where is the outrage on that???? 

Keep eating up that liberal/Democrat propaganda.  They are experts at brainwashing...

 

[Peace]

47 minutes ago, dominicansoul said:

the birther movement was started by Hilary's campaign when she went up against Barrack Hussein for the presidential nomination waaaay back in 2008...so...if anybody is a racist...

So was it also Hillary who directed Donald to pursue the bogus claims openly for the next five years?

Quote

I think Trump mentioned that judge's ethnicity because he didn't think the judge would be fair in a court case against Trump.

No, he suggested that the judge would not be fair because he is of Mexican ancestry.

Quote

I'm hispanic, and even I've gotten burned by mexicans with strong "La Raza"  views.  Where I work, a mexican called me out on the fact I don't know Spanish.  From day one, she has made it clear that I'm not her favorite person here.  I'm not brown enough for some of these "La Raza" types.  So even I've been called racist as well.  Lol.  

That's too bad. You should not be called out because you do not speak Spanish. You should not be called racist because of that.

Quote

Can Trump be racist?  I don't know.  

Can any Republican be racist in your view, and what would that take? An appearance on stage in full Klan attire, or something less than that?

Quote

He employs all colors.  If you look at his rallies, there's whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, women, men, who knows maybe even gays and transgenders.  

No. There were very few non-white people at his events, from what I saw. He started to put a few on stage behind him only recently, after the criticisms against him grew. But it is too late for all that. His entire campaign is built around evoking racial fears, whether it is latino immigration, Muslim terrorism, black crime, or Chinese trade.

Quote

In other words..."America" shows up at his rallies.  He doesn't seem to be keeping out colored people at the door with SS bodyguard types.

Is having Nazi footsoldiers at one's rallies the standard that one must meet to be considered racist?

Quote

 I've even seen him embrace a few people of color on stage.  Is it all an act for votes?

Yes.

Quote

 Maybe, but don't the democrats play that same game?  While everybody is looking at the white old man, why aren't they looking at the white old woman?  

Hillary is no saint. But she has not made appeals to racial fears a central part of her campaign like Trump has.

Quote

Hilary and Bill said a couple of questionable things regarding Barrack during her campaign against him.  I believe Bill even mentioned that "Barrack should be serving them coffee rather than be president of the USA"...so where is the outrage on that???? 

I don't remember the coffee comment. From what I remember Bill made a comment comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, implying that Obama only won a certain state because of his ethnicity. And plenty of black people were angry and called Bill out on it.

Quote

Keep eating up that liberal/Democrat propaganda.  They are experts at brainwashing...

 

OK, but only if you keep worshipping Trump, he is an expert at brainwashing. Deal?

Your statement does not appear to have much weight to it, because it is not only liberals and Democrats who have made the accusation against Trump, or repudiated his comments. Plenty of conservative Republicans in his own party have made the exact same criticisms.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Peace

[dominicansoul]

8 minutes ago, Peace said:

So was it also Hillary who directed Donald to pursue the bogus claims openly for the next five years?

No, he suggested that the judge would not be fair because he is of Mexican ancestry.

That's too bad. You should not be called out because you do not speak Spanish. You should not be called racist because of that.

Can any Republican be racist in your view, and what would that take? An appearance on stage in full Klan attire, or something less than that?

No. There were very few non-white people at his events, from what I saw. He started to put a few on stage behind him only recently, after the criticisms against him grew. But it is too late for all that. His entire campaign is built around evoking racial fears, whether it is latino immigration, Muslim terrorism, black crime, or Chinese trade.

Is having Nazi footsoldiers at one's rallies the standard that one must meet to be considered racist?

Yes.

Hillary is no saint. But she has not made appeals to racial fears a central part of her campaign like Trump has.

I don't remember the coffee comment. From what I remember Bill made a comment comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson, implying that Obama only won a certain state because of his ethnicity. And plenty of black people were angry and called Bill out on it.

OK, but only if you keep worshipping Trump, he is an expert at brainwashing. Deal?

Your statement does not appear to have much weight to it, because it is not only liberals and Democrats who have made the accusation against Trump, or repudiated his comments. Plenty of conservative Republicans in his own party have made the exact same criticisms.

I'm not worshipping Trump.  I think hes a scumbag and a blowhard, but even then he's way better than lying, corrupt, abortion loving Hilary.  But someone mentioned the "seething hatred" towards Hilary (when in fact, most people have a seething hatred toward abortion, lies and corruption) and yet no no one mentions the seething hatred towards Trump.  I don't hate the guy, and I think it's funny how easily people jump on that bandwagon calling him out to be a racist bastard.  And I've seen plenty of people of all colors and backgrounds at his rallies.  Even some notable people of all races and backgrounds have come out in support of him.  

I think it's funny how most of your statements in response to mine are completely your own opinion and not based on any real facts.  How can you be so certain Trump is a racist, and Hilary is not?  You come to her defense so quickly.  

And of course establishment Republicans are going to speak out against Trump, they are cowards.  They know people out there swallow up liberal/Democrat propaganda.  It's pretty powerful stuff.  When you go against the liberal ideology, your whole character is crucified.  (Look at what the liberals did to Mother Teresa during her canonization weekend.  It wasn't conservative websites calling her a fake, phony, a crook...some even went so far as calling her evil and the b word.  Why all this seething hatred toward her?  Because she was outspoken against one issue that is the "blessed sacrament" for liberals:  abortion).  So, yes, of course cowardly Republicans go along with the propaganda...they want to keep their cushy jobs.  

[Not A Real Name]

[Peace]

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

I'm not worshipping Trump.  

OK. Well how about this. I will not accuse you of worshiping Trump, and you will not accuse me of being brainwashed by liberal/Democrat propaganda. Deal?

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

I think hes a scumbag and a blowhard, but even then he's way better than lying, corrupt, abortion loving Hilary.  

You think Trump is the lesser of the two evils. That is perfectly fine by me.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

But someone mentioned the "seething hatred" towards Hilary (when in fact, most people have a seething hatred toward abortion, lies and corruption) and yet no no one mentions the seething hatred towards Trump.  

There is seething hatred towards Trump.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

I don't hate the guy, and I think it's funny how easily people jump on that bandwagon calling him out to be a racist bastard.  And I've seen plenty of people of all colors and backgrounds at his rallies.  Even some notable people of all races and backgrounds have come out in support of him.

I do not hate him either. I have no idea whether he is a bastard. But he does seem racist to me.

It is not like proving Trump to be a racist has any particular benefit for me. It is not going to put any food on my table. It is not going to win me any social approval among my peers. There have been plenty of Republican candidates (Rubio, Bush, Palin, Cruz, Kasich, Fiorino, etc.) that I have never accused of being racist. Why? Because I have not heard them say racist things and engage in dog-whistle politics. Trump does, from what I have seen of him. My reasons are as simple as that.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

 I think it's funny how most of your statements in response to mine are completely your own opinion and not based on any real facts.  How can you be so certain Trump is a racist, and Hilary is not?  You come to her defense so quickly.  

I am not certain of anything. I just try to make the best judgments that I can based on what I see and hear. Just like you do.

As for real facts that support an assertion that Trump is racist, I do not have time to go through the numerous things over the past few years, but one can easily find things on the web that support such an assertion. Here are two brief examples:

1) 

In the video Trump asserted that a Federal Judge could not do his job (weighing on the merits of the case impartially) because of his race. Even though the judge is born and raised in America, he suggests that the judge cannot do his job well because he is of Mexican heritage.

If that is not racism, then what is racism, in your view? If my employer gave me a bad review and I said "He is incapable of giving me a fair review because he is white and I am black" that would be racism, would it not? I would be judging a person based on his race.

But that is exactly what Trump did in the video above.

I mean, must one literally don a KKK hood or a swastika tattoo to be considered racist?

2) 

The above interview was conducted shortly after David Duke (former head of the KKK) endorsed Trump for president. Duke said words to the effect that if a white person does not vote for Donald Trump he is a traitor to the white race.

Now, let me ask you this, if you were running for president and a member of the KKK endorsed you, would you not say "I denounce the KKK and do not want the endorsement of anyone from the KKK"? Wouldn't that seem like a reasonable thing for a person to do?

If someone hems and haws like Trump did in this video, knowing full-well who David Duke is like everyone else in America, and cannot even say "I condemn the KKK and do not want their support" after it has been made clear that Duke made a public endorsement of him, it is reasonable to conclude that Trump is trying to leave the people support racist groups like the KKK with the impression that he is sympathetic to them and wants their support. If he did not want their support, he would have simply come out and said "I do not want their support" when given an clear and easy opportunity to do so.

This is dog-whistle politics.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

And of course establishment Republicans are going to speak out against Trump, they are cowards.  

Cowardice is not speaking out on something that is wrong, such as the various racist statements and dog-whistle politics that Trump has engaged in.

1 hour ago, dominicansoul said:

They know people out there swallow up liberal/Democrat propaganda.  It's pretty powerful stuff.  When you go against the liberal ideology, your whole character is crucified. So, yes, of course cowardly Republicans go along with the propaganda...they want to keep their cushy jobs.  

Well. Either that or they are simply calling a spade a spade.

[Anomaly]

It's called political soft shoeing and a bit of his hyberbolic reaction.

Trump wants a border fence for security.  The Dems have painted that as racist, not security.  Polls show most Mexicans and Latinos feel it's racist.   Part of Trumps shtick is paint as being treated unfairly by opponents.  The judge reviewing the Trump University case has Latino heritage, putting him in the same group of people being unreasonable about Trump.

Trump has repeatedly disavowed David Duke.  Trump is practically a Democrat and it wasn't an issue before.   Trump doesn't want to be painted as too liberal either. 

I think both actions by Tump were ill advised political hem-hawing.   I wish he wasn't the Republican nominee.   But he is.   At this point either Hillary or Trump will be the next president.  

I wish people were putting more effort into looking into who they're voting for Congress.  Who is either one going to have to deal with for the next four years?  Is Hillary going to have a Dem dominated Congress who will demand confirm more pro-abortion Supreme Court Judges?    Will Trump have to deal with over-conciliatory Republicans who want to seem nicer to women and further reinforce abortion as strictly a woman's issue?

[Nihil Obstat]

The forum will forgive me for musing a little.

I think Trump's success so far has been based on the insecurities of modern conservatism. Conservatives today are typically going to be labelled as racist, misogynist, xenophobic, 'fat cats', uncompassionate, etc.. It is the stereotype that has developed. It is a trope now, a stock character. Whether or not it is accurate, whatever truth or lack of truth there is in the stereotype, it has taken hold in the modern American consciousness. And I think to a large extent it has been internalized even by conservatives themselves.

So Trump comes along, basically seeming to embody all these stereotypes. And totally shamelessly. Again, whether or not he actually does, and whether or not the stereotypes are true, this is the perception of his persona. For the conservatives who to whatever extent have internalized the conservative trope, there is going to be a certain cognitive dissonance there whereby they see themselves as generally good (because generally people do see themselves as good), yet there is also a certain acceptance of a negative characterization of their position. When they see Trump personify those stereotypes boldly and loudly, it provides a psychological outlet for that trope to be acceptable.

Notice Trump's general script he runs off of. First he says something outrageous, then gets blasted for it by basically everyone. He then doubles down on the outrageous thing he said, refuses to apologize, mocks the people going after him over it. Then eventually he either just drops it or moderates his message, and refuses to acknowledge ever having changed.

This is catharsis for a lot of conservatives. He is arrogant and rude and outrageous, and this seems to be frustrating the liberal establishment. He refuses to play by (what are perceived as) 'liberal rules'. 

Overall, I think Trump is sort of a parody of the modern conservative trope. But by being that parody, he is tapping into conservative frustration with the way they have been characterized and mocked by 'the establishment'. Trump never defends himself, never apologizes, never justifies. Never even acknowledges that he does not do so. While liberals mock the conservative trope, Trump mocks them right back according to his own rulebook.

I think that this is why Trump managed to gain such significant support, even being manifestly inappropriate according to conservative principles.

[Anomaly]

I must be dazed because I so agree with Nihil on his point.  So many people feel alienated and ignored after voting in Republicans a few years ago and still getting the same ol', same ol'.

Preople are disappointed with politicians being insincere and are inured to the snarky hyperbole that passes as modern political debate now.   

Trump is a public personality that has learned to take advantage of this to become popular.   We've devolved into selecting personalities, not politicians.   That's how mayors and congressman get reelected after being arrested for drugs or prostitutes.  

[<3 PopeFrancis]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

OK. Well how about this. I will not accuse you of worshiping Trump, and you will not accuse me of being brainwashed by liberal/Democrat propaganda. Deal?

You think Trump is the lesser of the two evils. That is perfectly fine by me.

There is seething hatred towards Trump.

I do not hate him either. I have no idea whether he is a bastard. But he does seem racist to me.

It is not like proving Trump to be a racist has any particular benefit for me. It is not going to put any food on my table. It is not going to win me any social approval among my peers. There have been plenty of Republican candidates (Rubio, Bush, Palin, Cruz, Kasich, Fiorino, etc.) that I have never accused of being racist. Why? Because I have not heard them say racist things and engage in dog-whistle politics. Trump does, from what I have seen of him. My reasons are as simple as that.

I am not certain of anything. I just try to make the best judgments that I can based on what I see and hear. Just like you do.

As for real facts that support an assertion that Trump is racist, I do not have time to go through the numerous things over the past few years, but one can easily find things on the web that support such an assertion. Here are two brief examples:

1) 

In the video Trump asserted that a Federal Judge could not do his job (weighing on the merits of the case impartially) because of his race. Even though the judge is born and raised in America, he suggests that the judge cannot do his job well because he is of Mexican heritage.

If that is not racism, then what is racism, in your view? If my employer gave me a bad review and I said "He is incapable of giving me a fair review because he is white and I am black" that would be racism, would it not? I would be judging a person based on his race.

But that is exactly what Trump did in the video above.

I mean, must one literally don a KKK hood or a swastika tattoo to be considered racist?

2) 

The above interview was conducted shortly after David Duke (former head of the KKK) endorsed Trump for president. Duke said words to the effect that if a white person does not vote for Donald Trump he is a traitor to the white race.

Now, let me ask you this, if you were running for president and a member of the KKK endorsed you, would you not say "I denounce the KKK and do not want the endorsement of anyone from the KKK"? Wouldn't that seem like a reasonable thing for a person to do?

If someone hems and haws like Trump did in this video, knowing full-well who David Duke is like everyone else in America, and cannot even say "I condemn the KKK and do not want their support" after it has been made clear that Duke made a public endorsement of him, it is reasonable to conclude that Trump is trying to leave the people support racist groups like the KKK with the impression that he is sympathetic to them and wants their support. If he did not want their support, he would have simply come out and said "I do not want their support" when given an clear and easy opportunity to do so.

This is dog-whistle politics.

Cowardice is not speaking out on something that is wrong, such as the various racist statements and dog-whistle politics that Trump has engaged in.

Well. Either that or they are simply calling a spade a spade.

Racism (if that is what it is) is less evil than murder.

23 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

. When they see Trump personify those stereotypes boldly and loudly, it provides a psychological outlet for that trope to be acceptable.

Notice Trump's general script he runs off of. First he says something outrageous, then gets blasted for it by basically everyone. He then doubles down on the outrageous thing he said, refuses to apologize, mocks the people going after him over it. Then eventually he either just drops it or moderates his message, and refuses to acknowledge ever having changed.

 

I agree it is anti-establishment and also anti-American and cowardly or selfish at best.  It is diabolical to let that happen to one's own nation.

It seems men have an inherent mistrust of Hillary that I find compelling.