|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 30 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:17 zlefin wrote:On August 30 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 m4ini wrote:On August 30 2017 05:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Christ... She's going to run again...
Are democrats that dumb? I doubt it. They very well might be. They managed to get Trump elected, after all. that would be the republicans who got him elected; not the democrats. You're both right. Democrats failed to field a candidate that would win. Republicans were probably just as surprised by this win.
Hillary could've won though, that's the point. The way they handled the entire campaign is what lost them. Keep in mind, the majority voted for HRC. It's not just the eMails, it's how they "handled" Sanders, how people had to resign because of fuckery, etc and so on.
What in the campaign leads you to that conclusion?
How often are you gonna quote and answer the same post?
Let me ask you this, lets see if you get a clear answer out: what conclusion would you come to now?
|
On August 30 2017 05:19 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:17 zlefin wrote:On August 30 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:On August 30 2017 05:09 m4ini wrote:Are democrats that dumb? I doubt it. They very well might be. They managed to get Trump elected, after all. that would be the republicans who got him elected; not the democrats. You're both right. Democrats failed to field a candidate that would win. Republicans were probably just as surprised by this win.
blaming democrats assumes there was a better option; which there may not have been. It also tends to assume som eother democrat would've done far better.
it's mostly an excuse to make a false equivalency and/or salve their guilt over what happened; rather than a genuine calling out of the considerable flaws in the campaign. Standard psychological justification techniques which people unfortunately use and aren' taware of/don't admit to.
|
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists.
|
Sanders was a better candidate. He would've aligned better with the shift that a Trump candidate induced and he's strayed enough from ingrained democratic principles that it would be fresh wind for them.
|
United States42024 Posts
On August 30 2017 05:23 Nevuk wrote:
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists.
And, of course, birtherism.
|
On August 30 2017 05:23 Uldridge wrote:
Sanders was a better candidate. He would've aligned better with the shift that a Trump candidate induced and he's strayed enough from ingrained democratic principles that it would be fresh wind for them.
possibly; there are certainly merits to a sanders campaign. and also demerits. Sanders probably would have slightly better electoral chances; but he'd also probably be worse as a president.
|
On August 30 2017 04:52 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:46 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:31 OuchyDathurts wrote:Everyone is a tiny bit racist in some regard. One of the main things conservatives don't seem to be able to understand is racism is on a spectrum. They seem to think it's binary. You're either a Grand Wizard in the KKK and thus racist, or you're not a Grand Wizard and as such aren't a racist. Apparently dog whistles don't count. IMO it makes it easier to separate being a racist from racist acts for the purposes of demonstration. Telling a racist joke, spreading racial stereotype, even using the word nigger are racist acts. Those actions don't NECESSARILY make you a racist...but. If you do that kind of stuff on the regular you might just be a racist. It might be time for some self reflection if you don't consider yourself a racist person but you're committing little "white" racist acts on a pretty regular basis. Surely there's a disconnect there somewhere and if you indeed aren't a racist you should work on bettering yourself. Getting to the root cause of why you're doing those acts and try to improve. That's literally the ONLY adult option. A racist person certainly could be a Grand Wizard, but there's many shades of racist. Your grandparent if we're being real is more than likely a racist. Dear sweet granny who is so kind to you and always made you a snack and slipped you a $5 bill. It's not always ugly and that's part of the problem. Racists don't always come with undisputed proof and a huge neon sign that says "RACIST SHITBAG" like Donald Trump. Also a black cop can be racist against blacks. I know this might be shocking stuff since Republicans love to point to useless human beings like Sheriff Clarke as some sort of proof that policing couldn't possibly be racist. Look, we got this complete hack black Sheriff dude, no racism here! But many police will tell you sometimes black officers are the most ruthless and racist against their own people. This right wing nonsense keeps going around though. Milo is gay so.....Clarke is black so.....I'm married to a woman so I can't be sexist so.......Complete and total bullshit and the sooner people get that through their heads the sooner they might start seeing fuckery afoot. Racism now days is a lot more subtle than it has been in the past. That doesn't mean its gone anywhere. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968, you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
-Lee Atwater Oh, and you aren't Mel Brooks or Louis CK or anyone who can masterfully craft a joke that can take a racial joke and make it stab the racist 1000 times harder so just keep that in mind. There's a reason they can do shit you can't, they are gods among men in a very specific art form. The word didn't start as some spectrum where everybody's a little racist. It started and to some extent remains as a vicious charge. To the vast majority of people. And calling, for example, vast majorities of people that didn't vote Obama as motivated by racism ... that straight up insulting and demeaning for people that know why the voted that way. If you think you really know better than them as to what motivated them, you're part of the reason for the trope "liberal elitists." And saying that you gotta be some professional skilled comic or you're a racist for telling that joke ... like, gimme a break. You're part of the reason we can't talk about racism in this country and you're making it worse. More things have been added to what constitutes racism because we understand the problem, and human nature, better than we have in the past. Most people are extremely awful judges of character and flaws within themselves so yes. People can see your racism even if you can't see it yourself, tough luck? I've got no problem insulting or demeaning racists just like I've got zero issue with punching nazis so you won't catch me shedding a single tear about that or about being called a "liberal elite". I fully understand you're the reason racism won't go away because you refuse to see it. If you're not Mel Brooks stop crying when I call you a racist for making a hack joke.
We understand it less and less. When the guy you like is in the white house, you'll have one answer, once you lose a presidential election, time to up the racist character of your political speeches because that's where you can sway elections! So until people recognize that politicians that are unconcerned with the plight of inner city African Americans come from both parties, and particularly Democrats will oppress while saying they're actually helping, nothing changes. And you policing jokes and talking about shades of racism harms the cause. Absolutely. I don't know why you had to point out blacks can be racist against blacks, I certainly didn't. Hillary was racist against whites according to the dumb definitions prevailing.
|
On August 30 2017 05:23 Uldridge wrote:
Sanders was a better candidate. He would've aligned better with the shift that a Trump candidate induced and he's strayed enough from ingrained democratic principles that it would be fresh wind for them.
Not to mention that it would've stopped disenfranchised democrat voters to (spitefully) vote for Trump.
|
PORT FOURCHON, La. — The most important piece of the North American continent right now may be a slice of land here, 13 miles long, 65 feet wide, much of it just six months old.
From the air, the Caminada Headland is a sparkling strip of beige and green rising up from the blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico. It’s also a barricade, protecting one of the most important nodes in North America's oil supply, a busy seaport serving more than 90 percent of deep-water oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2005, when Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Louisiana coast, this strip served as a critical barrier between the pounding waters of the Gulf and the machinery of the port just half a mile behind—and was all but washed away in the process, becoming little more than a narrow strip of sand with waves crashing over it. Restoring it before the next major hurricane became a top priority.
“It’s pretty freaking amazing. All of this stuff was the first line of defense that was just gone,” said Garret Graves, a U.S. congressman who served for six years as the head of Louisiana's coastal protection and restoration efforts in the wake of Katrina.
Today, Caminada Headland is a robust new island backed by thick, healthy marshes, thanks to a $216 million project launched by Graves and the state of Louisiana. But what looks like a success story from the window of a seaplane was, to Graves and nearly everyone else involved, an expensive and exhausting struggle—one that raises serious questions about America's ability to grapple with the increasing problems caused by rising coastal waters and more destructive storms as the climate changes.
As Hurricane Harvey plows furiously across the Gulf Coast, again endangering homes and critical industries, Graves and others worry that Washington’s systems for protecting communities against weather disasters haven’t gotten better since that 2005 disaster, and in many ways may be worse. The state of Louisiana wasn't supposed to shoulder the Caminada Headland project itself: Rebuilding the island was originally the job of the Army Corps of Engineers, the 215-year-old entity charged with building and maintaining our country’s ports, harbors, locks, dams, levees and ecosystem restoration projects. Today, the agency is the single most important agency in coastal America's battle against rising seas, at the center of every major water-resources project in the country, either as builder or permitter. But the state of Louisiana, exasperated by federal delays and increasingly worried that the next big storm could just wipe out the port, eventually fronted the money and pumped the sand on its own. Today, despite years and millions of federal dollars poured into studying the Caminada Headland project and neighboring islands slated for restoration, the Corps has yet to push a dime toward construction.
Graves compares his experience with the Corps to that of a “battered ex-spouse”: “I feel like I’ve been lied to, cheated, kicked in the teeth over and over and over again.”
The sclerotic Army Corps of Engineers is the most visible and frustrating symptom of what many officials have come to see as the country’s backward approach to disaster policy. From the way Congress appropriates money to the specific rebuilding efforts that federal agencies encourage, national policies almost uniformly look backward, to the last storm, rather than ahead to the next. And the scale of the potential damage has caused agencies to become more risk-averse in ways that can obstruct, rather than help, local communities’ attempts to protect themselves. The Army Corps, for example, requires Louisiana to rebuild a full suite of five islands before it can reclaim any of the money it spent on the one headland—and is currently insisting it will take another half-decade simply to review an innovative wetlands restoration project the state has been working on for more than a decade and views as the linchpin of its coastal efforts. Meanwhile, new design standards inspired by Katrina have made levee projects wildly unaffordable.
As the effects of climate change play out, the risks posed by storms like Katrina and Harvey stand to get only worse. A not-yet-final draft of National Climate Assessment, produced by scientists across 13 federal agencies, predicts that global sea levels will likely rise between half a foot and 1.2 feet by 2050, and between 1 and 4 feet by the end of the century. In areas like the Northeast and the Gulf of Mexico, relative sea-level rise will happen much faster, researchers say. Coastal Louisiana is currently losing a football field’s worth of wetlands every 90 minutes, making it a harbinger for the crises that coastal communities around the country are expected to face.
“People around the country really need to be paying attention to what happens here,” said Graves.
Preparing for the looming disasters will require nimbleness, innovation, a willingness to take calculated risks and, as Louisiana has learned, respect for natural processes—all qualities that have been bred out of the Army Corps, and don’t get much consideration in federal policy. The agency molded itself around the earmark system, catering to the pet projects of individual lawmakers and then drawing them out as long as possible to keep the money flowing. Congress, too, learned to treat the Corps as a pork barrel: though Washington officially did away with earmarks a decade ago, lawmakers remain focused first and foremost on their local projects, pushing legislative language that serves their narrow ends without an eye to the mountain of red tape they are adding to the system as a whole.
And although preventing damage is widely considered to be cheaper than mopping up after the fact, congressional accounting creates incentives to spend money exactly the opposite way: Disaster relief bills are generally considered emergency spending, and thus not counted toward the federal deficit, while proactive investment in planning and protection must be funded through the normal budget cycle, which makes it look like cuttable federal spending at budget time.
It’s a situation that enrages Graves, a fiscal conservative who has lived and breathed coastal issues since he came to Capitol Hill as an intern in 1995. While in Washington he managed former Louisiana Rep. Billy Tauzin’s coastal portfolio, and then Sen. David Vitter’s; his frustrations only grew during his six years as former Gov. Bobby Jindal’s coastal adviser, when he got his hands muddy trying to plan and build dozens of damage-prevention projects along the Louisiana coast, and found instead that virtually the only time money flowed was after a disaster, when it was too late and far more costly.
Now, Graves is in the position to do something about it. After winning a House seat in 2015, he has secured his dream job: Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee overseeing the Army Corps.
Source
|
On August 30 2017 04:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump is racist, but you don't have to be racist to vote for him.
On August 30 2017 04:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump is racist, but you don't have to be racist to vote for him. See, it is that simple.
On August 30 2017 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:45 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump is racist, but you don't have to be racist to vote for him. Sure, but at what point does someone become responsible for allowing a racist to enact racist actions? There is a reason we mentioned Trump voters being racists or 'racist enablers'.
You willing to take back that it's that simple? You see, others disagree.
|
On August 30 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:23 Nevuk wrote:
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists. And, of course, birtherism.
Central Park Five? There's literally not a single reason besides racism to believe they're still guilty.
|
On August 30 2017 05:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:22 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:51 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. “definition it really had joined fascist” Can you rephrase that please? I’m have a hard time parsing what you are trying to say. Fascist showed up in Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. He said it now existed as simply "something not desirable." When you posit the racist choice for president, or really which racist you wanted for president, I say the word similarly exists as something like "a person I disagree with personally or politically." I’ve said this before: but I am convinced a man could burn a cross on Obama’s lawn and you would still question if that man was racist. Your refusal to engage with the word makes further discussion of this topic pointless. Then stop these political gotcha questions like you voted for Hillary or that racist. I've heard enough of your style binaries, like there's what you believe about immigration policy, and then there's the racist policy. Ironic because it was directly addressed by the article that I linked.
This isn't a political gotcha questions. Over the past couple of years, I’ve come to the opinion that you simply refuse to engage with any discussion about racism unless you get to set the terms. And absent that, you simply refuse. That includes what I posted above. You are some uncomfortable with the topic, you just ignore it or claim that its unfair that its brought up.
|
On August 30 2017 05:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 05:23 Nevuk wrote:
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists. And, of course, birtherism. Central Park Five? There's literally not a single reason besides racism to believe they're still guilty.
Didn't he hold a press conference about them? Or a couple? Even after they were proven to be innocent?
|
On August 30 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed. Again, when people say you're being racist, they're not doing it as an insult. They're doing it because you're being racist. You can keep telling yourself that it's not connected to anything you're doing but that won't make it true. It's not an insult. It's a description. If you don't want the description then stop doing the thing. I feel like we're living in the equivalent of a bizarro world where a bunch of actual literal rapists who actually rape people are insisting that rapist is a rude insult and that they won't engage in any kind of debate until the other side agrees to stop calling them rapists. And then they go out and vote to legalize marital rape or some shit but insist they only did it to get back at the people who keep saying they're fine with rape.
Look, we don't need your fourth time saying half the country is racist, there's no problem calling half the country racist, and the solution is for racist people to stop being racist. I wrote my response that there's a great need to bring people that think like you do back to sanity from lunacy. I laid it out, and you backpedaled like calling tons of people racists makes everything better. It doesn't. You're equivalent in character to some of the worst Trump MAGA characters I know and I have the devil of the time persuading people that your opinion of half the country is a minority in the Democratic party ... aka not everybody sees themselves as the white knights against a racist country sent by some colonial power to save the indigenous racists.
|
United States42024 Posts
Danglars is the racism equivalent of an anti-vaxxer.
|
United States42024 Posts
On August 30 2017 05:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 04:56 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:51 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 03:17 Danglars wrote:
I find broad similarities between you and actual haters based on skin color. And we're straight back to "judging conservatives for racism is basically racism". And any criticism of liberal elites is folly. I call them like I see them, and your argument is basically the same fringe with the political epithets and sacred cows reversed. Again, when people say you're being racist, they're not doing it as an insult. They're doing it because you're being racist. You can keep telling yourself that it's not connected to anything you're doing but that won't make it true. It's not an insult. It's a description. If you don't want the description then stop doing the thing. I feel like we're living in the equivalent of a bizarro world where a bunch of actual literal rapists who actually rape people are insisting that rapist is a rude insult and that they won't engage in any kind of debate until the other side agrees to stop calling them rapists. And then they go out and vote to legalize marital rape or some shit but insist they only did it to get back at the people who keep saying they're fine with rape. Look, we don't need your fourth time saying half the country is racist, there's no problem calling half the country racist, and the solution is for racist people to stop being racist. I wrote my response that there's a great need to bring people that think like you do back to sanity from lunacy. I laid it out, and you backpedaled like calling tons of people racists makes everything better. It doesn't. You're equivalent in character to some of the worst Trump MAGA characters I know and I have the devil of the time persuading people that your opinion of half the country is a minority in the Democratic party ... aka not everybody sees themselves as the white knights against a racist country sent by some colonial power to save the indigenous racists.
In your opinion was the American population ever racist? If so, when was racism fixed?
|
On August 30 2017 05:01 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:00 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:52 Logo wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 02:44 Doodsmack wrote:On August 30 2017 01:53 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Still missing the point. They'd regret being forced into that choice, but still no closer to supporting the party that hated their guts and will slander them to make political points. Binary choices, remember. The result of the incompetence would be too great, meaning that in this case, voting for the opposing party would have been a better result for them. In other words, they made the wrong choice in the binary choice. But your obligatory claims of people missing the point are pretty funny when you are just wrong on that. No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. You know good and well there's like a dozen reasons people have brought up for Trump and racism that amounts to a lot more than he's a white male. You can dismiss it as circumstantial or not substantial enough, but it's silly to pretend that people don't have cause to see him that way. Presenting the election as a choice with an "incompetent and racist version of the same thing" is inviting scorn. It's a politically partisan attack and should be seen and treated as such. Your mythical "hmm let's go down the bullet points from immigration policy to Arpaio and reach a conclusion" isn't at issue. I don't see how that changes the intellectual dishonesty of pretending people are saying Trump is racist because he's a white male when it's obvious and clear it's because of a series of events that people think paint a picture of him as a racist.
Haha. I might have to circle around to bullshit question analysis period. You vote for the felon or the other guy?
|
On August 30 2017 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Danglars is the racism equivalent of an anti-vaxxer.
That's a cute way to call someone an idiot.
.. at least that's the first thing that sprung to my mind.
|
On August 30 2017 05:28 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 05:26 OuchyDathurts wrote:On August 30 2017 05:24 KwarK wrote:On August 30 2017 05:23 Nevuk wrote:
Trump was definitely a racist in the 80s what with the whole being sued for purposely keeping black people from being tenants.
His presidential campaign was literally launched by a speech where he called mexican immigrants rapists. And, of course, birtherism. Central Park Five? There's literally not a single reason besides racism to believe they're still guilty. Didn't he hold a press conference about them? Or a couple? Even after they were proven to be innocent?
He said on CNN in 2016 "They admitted they were guilty" like that means anything after DNA cleared them. Also tweets, because of course there are tweets!
|
On August 30 2017 05:04 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 04:55 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 04:23 kollin wrote:On August 30 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:51 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:49 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:41 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:On August 30 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On August 30 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
No, you whitewash Hillary in the aftermath of her loss. A liar that rewards her friends, lights fires in North Africa, and deletes emails she doesn't want the FBI to get their mitts on can be seen as a worse result. We deserve better management of corruption? She also thinks you're deplorable, and probably doesn't do much thinking of your situation if you aren't a woman or a minority. So basically Trump in almost every way? The guy you voted for and continue to whitewash. More competent in her corruption and administration, greater corruption and abuse of power. So you voted for an incompetent and racist version of the same thing? Incompetence instead of competence in destruction. And I voted for a white man for president; so basically he was a racist by the metric of some here. I'm hardly joking, it's a pejorative and understood as one, but by definition it really had joined fascist for actual meaning. “definition it really had joined fascist” Can you rephrase that please? I’m have a hard time parsing what you are trying to say. Fascist showed up in Orwell's essay on Politics and the English Language. He said it now existed as simply "something not desirable." When you posit the racist choice for president, or really which racist you wanted for president, I say the word similarly exists as something like "a person I disagree with personally or politically." He also said in that essay that politics is the defence of the indefensible. Do you think Trump is a racist or not? I just finished saying it was a meaningless term used to insult people. Then you want my opinion on it? Seriously, man, get a grip. Do you think Trump cares about the plight of non-white people at all, especially if it's not in order to help him get elected?
Yes, I do. He was elected by them to fight for their cause. Hillary was praying that Hispanics and Blacks would turn out in such numbers to rob Trump of a victory, and they didn't, I'm so sorry. Enough stayed home or voted Trump (and I personally was very close to staying home).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
