That's a ship of fools. The GOP isn't going back to something reasonable so soon. This will get worse in 22 and 24.

He's on the shortlist for nomination. I talked about doing something to spite the other side for laughs? This would qualify if they nominated him knowing they had the votes to make it happen.

I think RBG passing away now and pro life pro choice now becoming a key issue in the election benefits Trump and other state races. Even though conservatives hate Trump or say McSally they will now turn out and vote R instead of third party or stay home.

Yeah, this will give Trump a boost that makes things uncomfortably close.

Anything that keeps the focus away from the awful COVID response and bad economy is good for him

SI

I'll wait for polling, but I'm not sure it will work that way.

Are their a large number of conservative SCOTUS voters not already motivated to vote for Trump?

Will this motivate people on the left that might have been less motivated for Biden?

Will suburban GOP defectors, which skew heavily female, go back to the GOP in order to kill Roe?

Will the pending death of the ACA become a bigger campaign issue?

There also has to be a portion of voters who see the blatant hypocrisy.

This

No GOP Trumpist is swayed by this but the middle who thinks of this as pure unbridled hypocrisy will vote in huge numbers for any anti McC and anti Trump candidate.

Yeah, I just don't see many people who are concerned about the SCOTUS not already being motivated to vote. This is going to help drive liberal turnout as well - as the SCOTUS is going to be 6-3 conservative and the swing vote is no long Roberts, but Kavanaugh.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

They knew the stakes in 2016 and either didn't vote or voted for Jill Stein. I just don't think people on the left care as much about the Supreme Court. Maybe Ginsburg's death awakens them but I doubt it.

I think the whole Kavanaugh experience and the fact that this is RBG's seat is going to wake a lot of liberal folks up. I have seen a lot of fired up liberals on social media, even those who haven't been super excited about Biden in the past.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

One other factor here: if they ram a nominee through before the election, it makes it a HECK of a lot easier for pro-life folks who also despise Trump (like me) to vote for Biden and would push me much more toward a punish-the-Republicans all Dem vote. You're telling me I can vote full-out against Trumpism AND have a SCOTUS likely to strike down Roe v Wade??? Uh, yeah, sign me up.

(No, I don't believe for one second Dems will have the guts to add to the Court.)

DOLA...

On the "hypocrisy" front, I don't know that that moves the needle much. Isn't it a given that in the next 72 hours we're going to see multiple videos of Democrats from 2016 talking about how the sitting President's nominee MUST be seated??? I mean, I'm certain that OANN, Fox News, the Daily Caller, etc. etc. etc. have their grunt workers looking through the archives right now as I type this.

I wish someone on either side would have the chutzpah to just say "Bah, I don't give a crap about principles. That big steaming pile I said in 2016 was just to make it look good. All I really care about it getting MY person in!"

In a less dysfunctional system, this could actually inspire the parties to work together (pause for laughter) To jointly implement one of the several proposals out there to make the supreme court nomination process less high stakes. There are lots of proposals that set term limits for the justices so that each president can appoint the same number.

IBut am under no illusions such a proposal could actually pass.

Heh. I'm providing a link, but you don't really need to read this article. This little section sums it up:Mitch McConnell’s Calculation - The Bulwark

The difference on hypocrisy is about who has the power to enact it. In both '16 and now, Republicans have control of the Senate so they are responsible. It's similar to how Schumer and Graham (and others) both flipped to the reverse of their positions on witnesses during the Clinton impeachment when it was Trump's impeachment that was on the docket. Both were shameless about it, but in that case each had one turn being on the team in charge. As the GOP discovered on health care etc., it's a lot easier to be a minority in snipe that it is to be in charge and actually do something. The next time Democrats are in charge in the Senate, I'm interested to see how they use that power.

These people you speak of don't exist.

This +1000. This was really the worst-case scenario - guaranteed to get their judge PLUS tighten the presidential race. Putting aside the SC, this makes it that much more likely we will have a protracted fight over who wins between Biden and Trump, IMO. The fact that GOP can talk about anything other than Covid is a huge win.

A group of Trumpers showed up at a Fairfax, VA early voting site and blocked people from entering for a bit. Hopefully this isn't the start of something bigger.

That should be a felony

Oops! Kentuckians get voter misinformation from US Postal Service | whas11.com

OOPS!

It is not voting by mail they oppose. It is voting.

They aren’t hiding it. Anyone who votes against the Democrats this year knows what they are signing up for. The fig leaves of, “I just care about small business” or “I just want things to be fair” are gone.

That might not be entirely accurate:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/u...-virginia.html




SI

I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message. pic.twitter.com/TuRZXPE5xK

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 20, 2020

L
O
L

:lol::jester::jester::jester:

Many people are saying that someone on the Biden campaign staff deserves a big raise tonight. The biggest. Bigly!

Heh great ad

I keep seeing liberals respond to former Trump voters who are considering voting third party with “a third party vote is a vote for Trump!” Huh??? That only applies if you’re talking to someone who usually votes D. When a Trump voter switches to write-in, that’s a -1 for Trump, effectively a +1 for Biden. When a Trump voter switches to Biden, that’s +1 Biden, -1 Trump, effectively +2 Biden.

My question would be why aren’t they voting Trump? If he’s that bad don’t they want their vote to have the most bang for their buck to remove him? Otherwise they are just voting third party to feel better about themselves.

My question would be why aren’t they voting Trump? If he’s that bad don’t they want their vote to have the most bang for their buck to remove him? Otherwise they are just voting third party to feel better about themselves.

While standing in front of a teleprompter, Trump tells the crowd that at least they have a President that doesn't use a teleprompter, and the crowd goes wild.

You can believe Trump is that bad and believe Biden isn't a viable option either. Those are not mutually exclusive concepts. Feeling better about yourself could be said practically speaking of virtually any vote, since the chance that one vote decides anything is vanishingly small.

Until enough voters decide that way to reach critical mass and decide things (see Gore, 2000). I'm still regretting my Nader vote 20 years later.

It's a dilemma for many who believe Joe Biden is probably a decent guy and Trump is a despicable human being. Policy wise, they align with Trump. Biden's political philosophy is not acceptable to them. So the question is, do they vote for the guy who is a better human being, vote for the guy who is more representative of their political beliefs, or vote for a third party candidate?

I dunno man.

If you look and see what Trump has done to this country in 4 years IMO if you are aligning with Trump policy wise you are also OK with the destruction he brings. In 2016 I could see that argument, but we are WAY past the "Trump is a despicable human" at this point. He is flat out destroying our country and you are either OK with it or you aren't.

Too many people already think a single vote doesn't matter which is why we are in this position in the first place.

Most other elections I would agree with the third party concept, but this isn't most other elections IMO.

If you don't vote Biden you are contributing to Trump winning and 4 more years of God only knows what. It really is that simple this time around.

I'm sick of hearing about "policy" as a reason people may stick with Trump. Trump is not a policy, he's a POS. The GOP owns him; he IS the GOP. Anybody can lead a party on policy. The GOP could have taken every single Trump policy position and pushed it forward under a different person. So me not voting GOP is their fault, not mine. And I'm fine with voting against my own interests because I believe the GOP has allowed the Trump administration to erode our democracy way too far to simply look the other way because my 401K is doing well.

White nationalist is gonna white nationalist.

"You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota." -- Trump pic.twitter.com/OiF63qZaKx

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 19, 2020

I have sympathy for the policy argument.

If you are a moderate conservative or a moderate liberal, then Biden is the easy choice both policy-wise and not-a-White-Nationalist-wise. That's why it's so easy for most of us here.

But if you are far to the right or far to the left, then you have to work through some issues to get there. Trump has a far-right agenda, so if you are far-right, then you agree with him on policy even as you find him distasteful. And why not just vote for the guy you agree with? And if you are far-left, then you have to decide whether to "send a message" to the Dems that you disagree with their moderate choice by withholding your vote.

I think that Trump is such a danger to democracy for reasons outside of policy that everyone should agree to vote against him this year and then reconvene in 2 years to start yelling at each other over Congressional elections.

But I can see why people struggle with that choice.

And of COURSE it's this guy taking the lead in that direction. :rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

And this is the right response. Stop trying to justify it on any other basis. We didn’t want Obama’s pick and Republicans had the power to prevent it, so we wanted that power to be used. There’s no shame in that. Stop being scared of playing the cards you’re holding.

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) September 20, 2020

Let’s take out the white nationalist far right and who are we talking about? The religious right? 2A? All they need to do is open their eyes. Biden isn’t coming for the guns and Trump is so far from religious.

I agree with this. People do ultimately vote for policies (and against policies) that they value the most - social (e.g. way of life), political, economic issues. Some they agree with, some they don't and they'll have to weigh the pros/cons and consequences. It's not black-and-white and some of the 38-42% will have to internally reconcile to make a decision in addition to the approx 5% of undecideds.

Don't forget to add plain old nationalists to the list. There is an overlap of many others who are concerned about the "american way of life" which is not based on ADL-racist dogma.

I'm definitely willing to give on more controls on 2A (it's way too easy) but let's not just say Biden isn't coming for the guns. It's pretty obvious that Dems lean towards much more gun control than many 2A advocates would want.

Even with Evangelical Christians, I do think many put pro-life over much of anything else. It's pretty clear one of Trump's (and McConnell's) legacy is SCOTUS and other judgeships, and evangelicals will certainly rally around that vs all of Trump's other shortcomings.

The "American Way of Life" is completely subjective in its definition.

Let's not forget that not that long ago, the controls that Dems were leaning toward now were fully supported by most 2A supporters AND if not for the hard core lobbying and the "nothing is ever good enough, unless we get everything on our wishlist" NRA for corrupting that concept for those same supporters. How many times has one side come to the table with things that the other side has recently supported, only to be told, no those things are extremist, and we will only accept this new thing?

Regarding Evangelicals, their own hypocrisy is laid bare for all to see. They are such "good" people, so much better than you are, and they must ensure that their version of what is best for you and me must be abided by and if their guy isn't as good as they are, and maybe, sometimes, he's willing to be an enemy to some other people, it's ok, because he's been chosen by god. I mean, god was mean to other people too, so it's clearly ok. Christians are literally taught to submit to authority, and that asking questions to that authority was the work of satan, so there you go.

I think the affluent people who want to keep my taxes and capital gains low and think Trump is bad but I want GOP policies group is pretty big. I don't think the majority of them see that as a nationalist policy, just voting for policies that benefit me.

Not sure "completely" but it is definitely subjective.

I do think there is more of a middle ground for sure. But there are significant differences.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...8/10/3_new.png




I agree many are hypocrites (and not just small ones). "God wanted us to have Trump so we should support him. God wanted Obama elected to test us" etc.

When Obama and Clinton were president, your guns were not taken away. You could still buy all the guns and ammo you desired. The NRA told you they were to make money, but realistically all the dems want to push is what 80-90% of people support! It's the single dumbest argument in America and the epitome of what foreigners see as American stupidity.

Sure gun rights were not take away but did Obama/Clinton or Democratic party try?

Just to reiterate my position again, I'm all for additional controls. But it's not without cause that many 2A advocates think many are trying to chip away their rights.

400 Bad Request.

Well thank god that the republicans once again saved us from tyranny.

I am assuming you were waiting for a public figure because the conservatives that I know have been saying this from the time the news of RBG's passing.

I can't. Because the only people who see Trump, at worst, as simply "distasteful" are the same people who thought Obama was (did!) destroy America. And that's not living in reality. He was a Democrat President. He did Democrat things and the media underplayed some of the bad stuff. But he didn't take down our country.

So if you're in that mindset - and unfortunately, way too many people are - then yes, it's a tough choice. But it's also living in fantasyland.

From what I remember, it was Reps and also the lack of Dem will that "saved" the day.

Earlier this year, Senate was not in play. Now it is and I would love to see a sweep in Nov. It'll be an interesting to see what the Dems would be able to push through in the first 2 years - immigration, gun control, gerrymandering, healthcare, increasing SCOTUS etc.

They're the Dems, so they'll trip over themselves, pass a half dozen half measures and not get a lot done so they get rolled in 2022.

SI

They won't get anything done without abolishing the filibuster and it's always safe to assume they won't change process for fear of being called radicals. Biden's term will end up looking a lot like Obama's second term.

It is. No one arrested of course. Virginia GOP approved of the crime afterwards.

There's no point in arguing with people still committed to voting for Trump.
In 2020 if you vote for Trump it doesn't necessarily mean you're a white nationalist, but it does mean that you look at the white nationalism, the bottomless corruption, the incompetence with the virus, the threats to democracy, etc. and think, yeah, I can live with that.

When the inevitable happens if he's re-elected, it isn't the fault of Democrats. Your eyes are open now, and you're choosing Trump knowing what that means.

Yeah, at this point I think it's pretty dishonest to break down Trump & Biden in terms of personality & policy while entirely ignoring all the long-term damage being done to crucial government agencies & international standing.

....someone can certainly still say they value Trump's policies over his personality AND the last vestiges of a working government, but they should have to be honest about it.

I think this is true for a significant number of Trump voters, and it evades most folks, including the ones on this forum who see anyone who votes for Trump as a KKK surrogate.

I, at least, have been pretty clear that not all Trump voters are white nationalists, but by now its clear that voting for Trump means voting for a white nationalist.

Not everyone who votes Trump is a KKK surrogate, but everyone who is a KKK surrogate supports Trump.

Qualify it however you like, but at this point if you vote for Trump you are actively supporting a racist & racist policies. Can anyone deny that?

Yes and no. The sane people I know who support Trump are not actively racist and I wouldn't call them racist. But they are oblivious - willfully so, in a lot of cases - about things that in essence align with the fringe/extreme elements in the party. On BLM, one guy completely downplays the issue of policy brutality against minorities, saying that we're only talking about 100 incidents over a couple of decades, that routine profiling/differing treatment doesn't happen (was woefully unaware of several recent incidents I rattled off), and that nearly every incident could be avoided if they just stop resisting arrest. I questioned him on why he thought they had a tendency to resist arrest, and it devolved into the typical "criminals gonna criminal" explanation and if you've haven't done anything wrong, you've got nothing to be afraid of if you just comply - and then proceeded to tell me that both Breanna Taylor and George Floyd had criminal histories.

So yeah...

Trump's being clear on how he'll steal the election.

Instead of absolutist hyperbole, could you please list specific policies Trump has implemented that are explicitly racist? Not tweets, snippets from speeches, praise from racists, but concrete, specific policies that he has implemented as President?

Specific policies, like criminal justice reform, empowerment zones in economically distressed communities, the $360 million grant to HBCUs.

Don't feed the troll by answering disingenuous questions.

Implementation certainly shouldn't be the standard for harmful policies. Why should you get any credit for intentions that other people prevented?

Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States | The White House

Trump Administration’s Proposed Rule Would Perpetuate Racist and Discriminatory Housing Practices | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/u...-haitians.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/09/p...ies/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1HX2X4

DHS Ends Temporary Protected Status For Hondurans : NPR

Draft DHS Report Called for Long-Term Surveillance of Sunni Muslim Immigrants – Foreign Policy

HUD Suspends Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule Indefinitely - NH&RA

Race in college admissions: Read the Trump administration’s statement on reversing policies | PBS NewsHour

Trump administration stays EE0-1 Pay Data Rule | Economic Policy Institute

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ef_story.html

The only hope is that he saying the quiet part so loudly that people will actually try to vote early as opposed to by mail.

Welcome to the club of being called names from the more radical left wing & loud elements on this forum. When the attacks get personal, feel free to dish it out to them in kind (just give Ben a warning) but I suggest just ignoring them because they'll call on their gang members to pile on.

On any discussion of racism, I also suggest you get clarity on definition of racism - the ADL-version or the much broader definition (which is more like bigotry & discrimination).

Good luck.

It actually makes you wonder why Barr and McConnell and whoever else is orchestrating the plot to steal the election is giving Trump the details. He’s making their job a lot harder.

The only person that I called a racist is Donald Trump. I think it's ridiculous to suggest a racist practically entirely focused on immigration policy ISN'T passing explicitly racist policy, but OK let's go with that: If you vote for Donald Trump you are actively supporting a racist focused on immigration policy.

God Democrats are so stupid...

Sanders knocks McConnell: He's going against Ginsburg's 'dying wishes' | TheHill

Did anyone bother to ask Scalia what his dying wish was?

I wish we knew what trump or mcconnell's dying wish was.

And you know they are disingenous how? Where's the line between that and someone who disagrees with you/us/whomever so profoundly that they don't share core assumptions?


Fully agree here, which is part of why I do think Trump is probably racist. However, some of the items list don't make that case at all. I.e., Islam is not a race. You can have differing opinions on what makes for better housing and admissions rules without being racist. Etc.


It's having a different persepective on the impacts is all it is. Some people think what Obama did is a lot worse, and what Trump did isn't nearly as bad, as what this board in general thinks of those things. It's not a case of fantasyland, it's a case of different priorities and what issues you consider important.

My comment was not directed at you at all. It was the post above addressed to VV.

EDIT: there is no doubt Trump & Miller are racists (and you can toss in numerous other derogatory categories for Trump).

FWIW it is unfair to label all his immigration policies as racist (or at least the ADL definition). You have to look at the policy, the context, comparable policies of other nations etc. The high-level policy of reducing illegal immigration is not racist (it's sound policy IMO), however the rhetoric and some lower level actions are. The high-level policy of going more to merit based immigration and reducing family based immigration is not racist, however his rhetoric can definitely be viewed that way.

I don't think many can deny Trump is racist. It's well documented, goes back decades, and his actions and words throughout his presidency have been filled with racial division. I don't think you can eliminate bigotry from racism either. They're different things, but both are about hatred and creating division from people that look and act like me.

It's also easy to overlook racist intent of certain policy decisions that aren't racist on the surface. Trump and his administration have attacked low income housing programs created specifically for minorities, has attacked regulations and policy regarding college entrance for minorities, and eliminated US support for the UN's committee on racial discrimination. Those are some of the more obvious policy decisions, but there are many more than blur the lines of racism.

If we were to include bigotry with racism and just focus on policy born from hate we have dozens and dozens of examples that target people with disabilities, legal and illegal immigrants, Puerto Ricans, victims of sexual assault, and the LGBTQ community.

The man is filled with hate and I do think it's disingenuous to ask for racist policy examples to divert away from a lifetime of actions and words. Trump is racist. He has a white nationalist as his primary policy advisor and has openly courted white supremacists throughout his presidency. If you're rationalizing a vote for Trump that way then you're lying to yourself or willfully ignorant. Either way, it doesn't change what Trump is.

Just my judgment based on his posting history and his press release type statement after the question. I don't believe he's interested in asking serious questions. I don't believe he doesn't know what policies of Trump would be considered racist.

I'm not in favor of overlooking it so much as I am in not assuming it, because that's a two-way street. It's the same approach that has led to some on the right calling liberals traitors - the whole 'if they were merely stupid they'd be in favor of the national interest once in a while' line of thought. That kind of assumption always ends up hoisting the person propounding it eventually.


Look at the way much of this board discusses evangelicals, Trump supporters, etc. Are you really arguing that racism isn't worse than that? There is a massive, fundamental difference between a religion (or any other set of beliefs) and a race - namely that people choose the first one, but they don't choose the second which is all the moral distinction in the world. Not to mention that there are intelligent, educated people that don't think Trump is racist. A lot of the examples used to demonstrate otherwhise - not all, but a lot - tend to be loaded, exaggerated, etc. as is par for the course with politicians. So no, it's not an inherently disingenous question. Some people just think that much differently.

......

I concur

I think we are largely in agreement here, so I don't want to push hard, but arguing about what individual policies technically qualify as explicitly racist in a bubble only distracts from the fact that we're talking about a racist who is focusing legislation on reducing immigration and ending affirmative action programs. People shouldn't actively support that & also ignore/deny it entirely.

I get what your'e saying, but I've watched first hand what this administration has done to my in-laws. My wife is white/Japanese and her step dad is white. He's gone from proud patriotic GOP supporter to borderline openly racist comments and when he's called out on it he uses my wife's mixed race as proof he couldn't be racist. It's frustrating to watch people you didn't agree with on policy but could talk to become impossible to have any discussion with because they've embraced racism and hate. Some may be ignorant of the racism and hate, but there are many more that see it as a welcome side effect to Trumpism.

As for religion, I don't think it's entirely choice. If you're a white person raised in America you're far less likely to be Muslim or Hindu and if you grow up the middle east in a strict Muslim home you're unlikely to become Christian. Fate, circumstance, and luck play as much a role in someone's choice of religion (or lack thereof) as they do in many other parts of our lives that we're often not willing to admit. We're still choosing to hate people because they're different than us.

Your diplomatic tone is noted and it does you credit. At the same time, I do still think even the examples you list here are not as clear-cut as it appears to my understanding that you think they are. People are opposed to affirmative action for more reasons than racism; some just think it's bad policy. Reducing immigration is the same way. I've had discussions with people who want immigration increased for profoundly racist reasons - i.e. because they want migrant workers to do for cheap work they wouldn't be caught dead doing, and so on.

I salute and embrace the common ground we've found to whatever extent it exists, but I do maintain the umbrella of racist policies is cast way too wide generally, and I think that does apply here.

Racist thinks he is racist. White nationalist love him for a reason.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

In 2020, people are arguing if Trump is a racist?! And others are saying well Trump may be a racist but his policies aren't - what do they think his motivations are for those policies?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

We've had this discussion before. One of these mental giants that loves to hear themselves talk argues that you can't ascribe any particular intent to Trump's policy because he doesn't explicitly say the intent.

It's quite laughable the mental gymnastics people go through to attempt to be impartial about this racist motherfucker who's running our country into the ground while some faux- intellectuals want to argue his "intent".

My understanding is Google is available for everyone. Maybe there's a discussion to be had interms of looking past it for a greater payoff, but just denying that Trump is personally racist or that the Trump WH has enacted racist policies is not worth spending any time on.

MOAR CHEEZEBURGERS

I'm not finished with Season 2 at all but...

Trump = Homelander

What I think is laughable is that you still think this while I've repeatedly said that:

** I think Trump is a racist
** Since he first emerged as a candidate in '16, that I wouldn't support him for dogcatcher
** That I didn't vote him, won't, wouldn't, and think that would be a reprehensible choice.

My argument is that people support the mentioned policies for a variety of reasons. Racism certainly is among those for some. Polling indicates it's a small amount of it and that a lot of it is for other reasons. And as long as we keep blaming it all on racism and don't face the other causes in a straightforward manner, a host of important issues in our society will remain unaddressed. Those are related both to the specific policies mentioned, but also the overall level of support Trump and others of his ilk get.

To put it another way, my objection isn't so much Trump per se, it's assumption of unknowable motives while not accepting the consequences of that tactic being turned on causes we favor, and calling things racist which aren't necessarily such.

I would want to try some meth myself.

Its overrated

Barr declared NYC an anarchist jurisdiction yesterday as a first step towards withholding all federal funds. Is there any doubt this is just a strongarm tactic to get NY to drop investigations and lawsuits against Trump?

They have been busy little beavers.

Proving the anti-vaxxers right might be the GOP's greatest* accomplishment.











*When I say "great," I mean immense; I use it in the pejorative sense.

"unknowable" LOL

If a group makes policy against a specific group or groups consistently, you should believe what they're telling you with the policy in the absence of explicit statements.

Two, four, six, eight: Their grasp of science is not very great.

SI

The real question is who in the Trump admin knew about this and encouraged it.

Ah, I see the article at DB now. Seems like a quality fellow, eh?



Hrmph.

If you are voting for Trump in 2020 you are ok with White Nationalism. Full Stop. Maybe the way you (collective you, not "you" Vegas Vic) are ok with White Nationalism is to delude yourself that this somehow isn't true, but Trump and the people he caters to are so openly white nationalist, that voting for trump for your own financial interests absolutely means that you are accepting that you're okay with anything that happens to brown people (and women - looking at you supreme court - and trans and LGBT people) in order for you to make an extra few percent on the market.

Maybe I'm saying exactly what you're accusing those on this board of. I'm not suggesting every trump voter belongs in the KKK, but I don't think there's even a shred of doubt in anyone's mind exactly what Trump wants to do regarding race in America and anyone voting for their own wallet is so ungodly selfish that ... man, I just don't know. I don't care what label we put on someone still voting trump in 2020, but "decent human being" is one that we have to remove.

Also, if the GOP wanted someone to implement GOP policies but who wasn't an open White Nationalist, they could have nominated that person in 2016 or 2020. Twice now, the party has said "This is our Guy."

I am sure that there are some who identify as "I am Republican, but I dislike Trump." But there aren't that many of them.

(And I imagine this board is likely to attract a disproportionate number of them.)

While ignoring the post with 11 links provided as an answer to his original question. :( :(


The reason that this gets frustrating from the left's point of view is that the same 2 or 3 things are all brought up by every disingenuous "TRUMP 2020" commenter** on every forum as a response to every post about any sort of topic regarding decency in america. It's disingenuous 99.9% of the time and responding to the direct question just results in a goalpost moving "oh yeha well fuck you, trump 2020" that doesn't actually address any facts.

Vegas Vic almost certainly isn't doing that, but he did latch on to a couple of the "talking points" - on this forum with no background regarding past debates, its unfair to make that attack. But that is where the kneejerk reaction may come from, fair or not.


** Part of my self education regarding race has been to strongly diversify my followings on TikTok (which I do use b/c my mental age is 12 ;) ) and on Twitter to include a number of activists and advocates for LGBT rights and for Black Scholars, historians, and folks who are just more educated than me on the way systemic issues have affected black people in the last 30 years or so. So I see threads on a daily basis like this. But again, FOFC isn't twitter.

There are people on the forum who I consider 100% disingenuous and I choose to not respond to their comments, ever. It's pointless. I've obviously waffled back and forth on the prolific poster that is Edward64, but am replying today :D Llikely because we are just talking about the way discussion takes place sometimes, and not the content/policy of the actual discussion itself.

Anyway, just catching up and found the way the discourse has gone here to be worth a comment.