Ten oz

I find the implication here to be disingenuous. You are posting as you don't understand why a politician would pander to one group at the expense of another yet that is how most politicians do it. Politicians who champion tax increases do so are the expense of discouraging those who oppose tax increases. Politicians who advocate for anything do it at the expense of those against and vice versa.The most casual of political observers understand this. I also find it hard to believe that 2yrs into Trumps presidency and a decade into Trump being a regular in promoting right wing conspiracies you are posting as if the notion that Trump is a known bigot is worth debate.

19 elections goes back to 1942 during WW2. Segregation still existed. I think that is too great a slice of time. The Republican and Democratic parties do not exist today as they did back then. For example JFK (Dem) campaigned on tax cuts and Nixon (GOP) extended Medicare and created Medicaid. Democrats won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 national elections. that is nearly 30 consistent years. Those years span the voting age of the majority of voters lives and the entirety of the lives of those not old enough to vote yet. For example Republicans have only won the popular vote once in a presidential election season in your whole lifetime. As for mid term elections turn out is far lower fluctuating 37 and 42% since WW2. In 2014 turnout was 37%. It was literally the lowest turnout since WW2. Republicans won the vote in 2014. Similar situation for 2010 where turnout was 41% and Republicans also won the vote. Actions speak louder than words. Republicans actively push voter ID Laws, limit early voting, restrict absentee voting, and etc in an attempt to depress turnout. Access to voting is a well understood partisan issue.

Q - why would Wallace want to discourage African Americans from voting for him. A - to win the vote of people who dislike African Americans. Hispanics make about 8% of the total voting population in the U.S. and the overwhelming majority of them vote Democrat. So Trump is truly only putting at risk around 2% of voter who probably left long ago anyway in a play which will motivate his base.

Openly racist or not is besides the point. Why would Wallace want to discourage African Americans from voting for him?

Look up George Wallace and apply the same question replacing Hispanic with African Americans; why would George Wallace want to discourage African Americans from voting for him? Figure that out, it will be obvious, and you'll have your answer.

@J.C.MacSwell other outlets are covering the same issue with a similar tone. USA Today "outrage erupts", Washington Post "shows how low Republicans have sunk", Independent "sickening", NBC "racially divisive", and etc. You seem focused on CNN for some reason. Far as I can tell News Media is broadly criticizing the ad. More over CNN and Politicians are not ying and yang of each other. CNN and Politicians have different responsibilities and positions in society. It is unfortunate that your response to a race baiting political ad is to express more disappointment at news media than the politicians who are responsible for the ad. This question to me is honestly absurd to the point of being disrespectful. It is stuff like that which make it difficult to have the sort of civil moderate discussions you proclaim to be interested in having.

Trump's party runs every branch of govt and as CharonY outlined they all fall in line, regardless of their facades, when called upon. One cannot just remove Trump from the equation and pretend there is ground to be covered. His lies create problems problems and devalue the integrity of our (U.S.) system of elected representation. It is the govt, our representatives, who should be laboring over how to modify their beliefs to best reflect the will of the people and not vice versa. They work for us. Trump is supposed to work us.

Seems to me that a lot of people are separating Trump from the Republican party at large as a means of dimissing him while still lending his enablers creditability. It allows one the cover to support everything Trump does while still claiming to be intellectually opposed to Trump. It is dishonest.

It is a perversion of capitalism where making money automatically makes one good.

I think people often feel obligated to defend things which hit close to home.

All creation theories are fantastical conjecture . I think on some level as more and more people stop taking religion serious they are turning toward other narratives which can explain why we are here. Science doesn't attempt to answer why things are (natural laws do not have motivations) but rather focuses how thing are. Humans are curious by nature and many of us from a very young age conflate why and how. So people turn to a purposeful type of panspermia involving aliens to explain why we are here. I view the popularity growth in the things promoted on Ancient Aliens as the dawn of what might become the next majority religion. It is a bit more grounded in the possible but still make believe. I believe life could be abundant. I also believe that our (Human) understanding of physics has limits. In real time all knowledge is at it height. We don't know what we don't know and I believe there is more to learn.

Guilt with regards to what? Clinton checking emails via a smart phone and use of a personal account were an internal violation of protocol and she admitted to it. The issues was about using secure equipment and accounts. The manner in which emails were sent and received was the impetus for the official investigation and not the content of the emails. Republicans demanded seeing Clinton's emails but ultimately it was the device and account used which was the issue. Republicans just found complaining about the emails an effective rouse. The point that it was always an empty complaint was driven home when members of Trump's White House proceed to basically do that same thing and no one cares. The DNC emails contained correspondence with Clinton's team. Baggage can be any number of things

I disagree. I think your take is too mature and rational. Bratty children don't care if they are smarter than their teachers or parents. They just want what they want. During moments of annoyance a bratty child may claim to be smarter than whomever but normally it is just a form of antagonizing the person (s) they are talking to. To care about being smart one must place value in it. Why would Trump so value in being smart. Consider how many people smarter than Trump have called him boss throughout his whole life. How smart can anyone really be if they all do what an idiot tells them to do. That has always been the case for him. Growing up as a rich kid Trump had plenty of smart people serving him. Meanwhile thing that Trump appears to have genuine feelings towards is Ivanka. When he complements her it is nearly always centered around her looks. He clearly finds her attractive and there appears to be a direct correlation between that and why he cares for her. Donald doesn't care how smart Ivanka is or isn't. He care how her breasts and butt looks in outfits.

I disagree. Trump doesn't care if he is smart or not anymore than he cared if Stormy Daniels was smart or not. Trump doesn't value being educated. Trump value things he likes and things he wants. Not getting enough of what he wants and/or not liking the people around him is why I think he fires people. Let's not forget that Trump often critiques the way people look is contemplating their suitability for different roles.

It depends. Are you intending to use the definition for verb or a noun? Verb - alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. Noun - a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.

When someone lies so brazenly and regularly as Trump there is no way to understand what they think. Even if they were to tell you it would most likely be a lie. Such behavior tempts speculation. It is a very difficult thing. Accurately pointing out the lies has done nothing to slow them from coming, disarm those you repeat them, or kept the liars out of power. I do not think Trump is a master mind but he does appear to have a firmer grasp of Sun Tzu's following quote than do those who oppose him: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle". Trump knows what he wants and who his opposition is. The GOP broadly knows those 2 things. I think the Progressive who what they want but are often clueless about who their opposition is. Progressives too often assume a correlation between being true and being embraced. Airbrush appears to be implying Trump is a pervert in the OP in addition to being a fan of Hitler. I think pervert (relative to common public standards) is true. The Hitler part to me seems far fetched but only because it involves reading.

Trump is not widely viewed as a thoughtfully or purposeful person. He has existed in pop culture for decades and a caricature of himself. Like most reality TV stars Trump is understood to be an attention seeker. This vacuous public persona makes it difficult to take Trump's past seriously. Everything about Trump from his hair to his relationships seem like a facades. I strongly dislike Trump and even I have a hard time believing stories like this one about him. For starters I honestly do not believe Trump ever reads for leisure or to learn. So it is hard for me to believe he would have been studying Hitler. It is easier for me to imagine Trump having such material as a means to provoking those around him. It is hard to tell. It is yet another example of why he shouldn't be President. The line between poor taste and dangerous ideology is one I think leaders should be roosted on.

We (USA) just had 3 domestic terrorism events in basically one week. 13 people were killed. Hundreds potentially could have been killed. All 3 attacks were aimed at minorities and Democrats to include Minorities (Booker, Waters, Holder, Obama, Oprah) and spanned numerous states. The situation is incredibly serious. Had we suffered 3 terrorist attacks throughout the country by ISIL or Al Qaeda the Govt would be putting National Guard members in Airports and on bridges. There would be action. Instead the govt is doing nothing. The President is blaming media and telling houses of worship to hire security. It is appalling!! I think we (U.S.) have become too apathetic towards both mass shootings and hate speech. I think it is clear that the actions of the domestic terrorist were both enabled and encouraged by various conservative factions in the U.S.. Yet with an election around the corner Conservatives broadly appear unwilling to identify the problem or reach across the aisle to show remorse and/or unity. The result is a nation unable to confront either the issue of guns or the issue of hate speech. Huh?

A man attempted to access a Black Church in KY but was unsuccessful so he instead went to a local Grocery store and murdered 2 people. In response to the PA shooting some, including POTUS, have argued that armed security at houses of worship are the answer. By that logic I suppose Grocery Stores need armed security as well? Is the U.S. destine to be a fully armed nation where teachers, religious leaders, Grocery Store clerks, and etc are armed at all times? The shoot has a violent criminal record yet still legally owned guns.

Many in here may not remember but back in 2009 a DHS intelligence assessment was leaked which included White Nationalist and right-wing extremists as a growing terrorist threat. Republicans feigned outrage. They labelled the then Sec. of DHS Janet Napolitano "Big sis" and publicly ridiculed her and the assessment. It lead to years on Napolitano being the focus of verbal attack by the right. Fast forward 10yrs and any number of the things from the assessment (linked above) have come to pass. The rise in White Nationalist groups and stock piling of weapons has lead to numerous homegrown terrorist attacks that have left far too many people dead. Conservative groups refusing to acknowledge this issue didn't start with the election of Donald Trump. Republicans have been providing cover for over a decade.

More troubling to me than the size of the subset is the denial I see from the majority that the subset exists or that some of the things the majority supports encourages the subset. One must identify a problem before they can fix the problem and I feel conservatives at large are turn a blind eye to it because it helps them on election day.

That is fair. I posed the question poorly. Gab is a right wing social media service similar to Twitter with half a million users. So I guess the question should have been more specifically related to them.

Paypal is a private company though. Gab still exists. They (Gab) have not been censored.

In response to the PA mass shooters connect to Gab (alt-right twiiter) Paypal banned the site from its platform. Is this an appropriate measure by Paypal because Gab enables hate speech or is this political intolerance discriminating against Conservatives?

Any number of natural things can be bad, like natural disasters for example. It has always confused me that some people latch onto whether or not homosexuality is natural as a means of justifying how they feel about it. Smart phones don't naturally occur on its own is nature and we all love them. Meanwhile cancer does occur in nature and none of us would wish cancer on our worst enemies. Being natural is not directly equatable with being good for people. That said homosexuality is clearly natural as it does plainly naturally exist. That fact neither makes homosexuals good or bad. Just as being heterosexual doesn't make people good or bad.