Nice white flag, junior. I have been taking it just fine. You, not so much. Smart move on your part, though. Try to regroup.
Except I didn't respond to you about Trump I responded to you about your post about Trump supporters, and your criticism of their allegiance which isn't any different to any other supporter of any other candidate. Bernie and Hillary supporters are just as fanatical and defend their bullshit talking points just the same. The content of the talking points is irrelevant when you are simply criticizing the behavior and devotion.
Funny how you go gay so quickly. First you say I can't take it, meaning your line of attack here. I dispute that, and for some strange reason that makes sense to you you go gay. We know too much about you already. No need to add to that pile.
I dont believe for a second that if Bernie or Hillary said half the derogatory shit that Trump has, their supporters would still rally behind them. Telling lies, and inciting hate and violence are 2 different animals. While I do believe some supporters would still support them no matter what they say, I think Trump has a wayyyy higher percentage of supporters that dont care what he says or does.
This is nonsense. Moral relativism run amok. Trump supporters do not defend talking points that have any consistency or a basis of consistent logic. They support any and every thing he says no matter how ridiculous. He says he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and his supporters would not leave him. There is no equivalent on the right or left to such nonsense. Marco Rubio for all his faults gets it. Sorry that you don't.
If having policies in place while running would solve the issues then how come those issues never get solved once a candidate is elected. Call my cynical but I think all candidates run on whatever bullshit they can connect emotionally to with voters. "I'm great so you should vote for me" doesn't have any less credibility than "of course you'll be able to keep your existing health care and your costs won't go up." Oops.
You don't believe they would doesn't change that they do support the dumb shit they do say; just because you believe there is a limit they would take doesn't mean they would. Voters personalize the candidates as part of their own identity and to abandon a candidate requires losing a part of your own identity.
We wont ever know, because no other candidate is running their campaign on hatred. There is a difference in "of course you'll be able to keep your healthcare and your costs wont go up" and "We should ban Muslims from coming to this country" or "We will build a huge wall to keep everyone out". If Hillary said we should ban Muslims, you dont think she would lose support??? The reason Trump isn't losing support is because he is reaching the dirty disgusting side of this country. Thats why I said his supporters are a different breed. Because they are.
This has nothing to do with moral relativism. It's all an emotional game. Liberals pander to the frustrations of minorities, many of which is steeped in racism, and it's called being progressive. Trump panders to the frustrations of whites and it's called racist and divisive. You have to do some cirque de sole logical contortionism to defend one and criticize the other.
Yawn. You are just repeating all your Huffington Post like crap over and over again. You're not Shaun King from the NY Daily News, are you?
Building a wall isn't hatred. That's like arguing the lock on your house is hatred. No, it's s device to keep people who don't have a right to enter from entering. It only becomes hatred when you dismiss the pragmaticism of it simply for your emotional purpose. Yes, it will impact primarily Hispanics. But should immigration strategy be subject to disparate impact laws? Of course not. And as for the Muslim issue, what gets forgotten is that he qualified it -- stop them from coming in until we can get our hands around the situation. There is two problems with this -- one, only an emotional hysteric would argue the most extreme possibility of what this could mean, or someone with an agenda. Two, he couldn't actually do this so if it isn't something he could get passed and enforced, there must be another purpose to it. And what could that purpose be? I don't know, maybe what he's also said was its purpose -- simply to be able to have a discussion on the topic. It's easy to put Trump in your nice little emotionally driven box where everything is black and white. There's what you believe and it's right and there's everything else and it's wrong. But we are living in a political climate in which the mere mention of topics gets people branded racist. You've done it yourself in this very thread so you are part of the problem. So people simply refrain from this topics so liberal bullies don't destroy them publicly. Trump can't get destroyed by such bullies so he raises the conversation. And it's s conversation some people want to have, not because they are racist but because the conversation needs to be had to find the reasonable solution. Sometimes an extreme suggestion is needed to start the conversation that results in the reasonable solution. Sure, a lot of Trump supporters are angry and lash out, but you want to ignore why they are angry and paint them into nice little corners you have for them that fit your black and white ideology. Worse, you want to dismiss entirely that their frustration at not even being able to raise uncomfortable issues without being branded racist which is creating this frustration.
Dont even read Huffington Post, but Im happy you think Im on the level of a reporter lol. If you dont agree with what Im saying, please throw some of your original thinking my way. BTW, I got a fuckin ticket on the Belt last week and thought of you.
If it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and shits like a duck, its probably a duck. Whats my black and white ideology? That I want a fuckin reasonable explanation for one of his plans?
You are letting your cynicism overcome good sense. At least having stated policy goals gives you an idea of how someone will address situations that arise in the future. For example Cruz supporters can tell themselves their candidate if elected is unlikely in office to propose a big tax hike on the wealthy. Trump supporters have very little basis to make those kinds of judgments.
I don't think all Trump supporters are the same. Some are just on for the ride because they are simpletons who go for the whole authoritarian man on horseback thing. "He's built a lot of buildings, and talks like I do in the bar after I've had ten beers and don't give a shit, so he'd make a great president!" Then there's the ones who are on board because they feel betrayed by the GOP. I totally get that part, because they have been. The problem is what are they going to replace their previous loyalty with? Blindly following Trump? Probably some portion of that second group are further distinct because they were never really Republicans and don't feel so much betrayed as they might as well go along with blowing up the GOP for the fun of it. Hard to say how much this is a factor. It's part of the same "anti-Establishment" mind set as motivates a lot of Sanders supporters. Others find him entertaining, I guess.
Trump is a thing because the Democrats cut back to the left and the GOP kept driving hard right and they left a gap between them that could have empowered just about anybody but which empowered Trump because he's got the right combination to drive right through: cash, fame, chutzpah (calling a friend who recommended Hitler's book a Jew and having the friend say "no, I'm not!" is the funniest thing that has happened in recent political history OR satire), and then balls the size of cannon balls on top of that. The Democratic cutback was apparently to fix the demographics of the party in the event the GOP folded it's tent. The Dems were too big and varied and would have fallen apart almost immediately if they covered all the turf the anti-Establishment Liberals, the Establishment and the Blue Dogs covered between them. What we got out of the cutback was Sanders running as a Democrat and Hillary representing the Far Right of the party. Apparently this was better than Nader running as an Independent while Al Gore represented the center of the party in many people's minds. The GOP drive to the right is what's weird. They let the Tea Party split them because they were afraid that Obama would split them. That has to be the overthink of the century so far.
