All this proves is that Trump has outdated values, if it even proves that. Cool. Trump is a polarizing figure, Obama is a polarizing figure, Bush is a polarizing figure. The last thing we need in our presidency is a man or woman who commands such distant views from people. It keeps us from getting things done. But hey, let's watch the face-off between Hilldog and tRump. No matter who wins, the American people lose.
Not a Trump fan at all. I wanted Jeb But I worry about what I see about hacktivists like Antonymous attacking Trump int he general election. It's wrong, whether you support the candidate or hate him. I feel the same way about Bernie and Hillary. I fear that many young people on the left, not all of them Americans, believe they're serving the greater good and therefore it's acceptable to hack their systems. James Clapper has alerted all campaigns that they are in danger of hackers, esp. foreign governments like China. I worry what it means for the future of our elections.
just to make sure you won't move goal posts once given proof, do you agree with these definitions from Merriam-Webster? racist: a person or group of persons who believe or has expressed that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race (thus the inferiority of other races) bigot: a person who is or have expressed that he/she is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
You could say racist or bigoted depending on whether you want to say that blanket, untrue negative stereotypes against Mexicans or racism. However, you don't agree with the dictionary's definitions, so there isn't any point in discussing this with you.
The point is most Americans want a wall, both Clintons have called for illegal immigration to be shut down, Trump makes it a cornerstone of his campaign and is called a racist. These tactics will fail as hard as "Dangerous Donald" or "Love Trumps Hate" has failed. Those were so bad they look pro-Trump.
Anonymous are a bunch of crooks. Even when they're hacking ISIS or North Korea, they're crooks. I think the basis of their existence is wrong. So, yeah, I'd extend that to attacks on Trump too.
Here's another excellent, foreboding editorial about Trump, this time by a senior fellow at Brookings: Because it needs to be hammered home every time Trump's name is mentioned until November: the man stands for nothing. His supporters believe in nothing other than themselves in the basest sense. As the modern Republican Party begins to so cravenly capitulate to Trump and his mob, they risk everything. They've transparently been against the best interests of the country now for years. Their opposition to anything other than power is now clear.
You could replace Trump with Sanders and Republican with Democrat. That's kind of the point behind calling each of these two candidates "populists". Why should Trump feel as though he owes the Republicans anything? He alone had the balls to stand on stage at the Republican debates and call out the party and W out on the Iraq War. He then verbally assault Jeb out of the nomination. This guy saved us from a Jeb vs Hillary pukefest - that's at least worthy of some respect.
Except that Sanders isn't going to be the nominee of a major political party. Trump is. Trump doesn't owe the Republican party anything. That doesn't make their bending-over-backward trying to "unify" behind him any less gross. Tell me: how is matchup between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton, two well-educated politicians (dirty word, I know) a "pukefest," but Donald Trump stumbling his way through every question, threatening to violate the Constitution on multiple policy fronts, mocking reporters with physical disabilities, talking about Megyn Kelly's periods, et. ****ing al not a "pukefest?"
Perhaps, but threatening to violate the Constitution, by imposing religious tests and carrying out extrajudicial killings of noncombatants, racially demonizing tens of millions of people, displaying not the slightest hint of familiarity with Constitutional law, tax policy, foreign relations or domestic legislation and ignorant demagoguery certainly should be disqualifying factors. By defending his carnival barking Napoleon, you reveal yourself to be part of the threat to this country.
So Donald Trump, whose was supposedly immune to the influence of the establishment big money donors as a result of being "self-funded," has hired a top establishment guy to lead his fundraising with the Republican establishment large donor community. Let's not forget that his being too rich to need any of these people's money and the influence that goes with that was a cornerstone of his stump speech that he made throughout the primary season to capacity crowds across the country, usually with these same speeches televised live on CNN and elsewhere. He boasted about that loudly and constantly, and his worshippers here and elsewhere never stopped reminding us of that. But not anymore. Now it is time for Donald the Deal-maker to start making deals - with the inside the beltway big money establishment donor community. And yes, they are going to want a lot in exchange for their donations.
