Donald Trump

[Phi for All]

I'm not that old. My first vote was for Ford.

 

Yeah, Ike was POTUS when I was born. Would you have voted for Ike? My father really liked him, but hated Nixon, and so became a Democrat when Nixon ran. He got to say I-told-you-so when Watergate happened.

 

Ike seemed to make it all work, and we had less extreme ends in prosperity, more people doing well all around. Even with his taxes and regulations of extreme wealth, business flourished and people could afford to buy the things they worked to make. Ike held to the Republican plank of NOT growing the federal government, and only one president has come close to being as tight-fisted as he was with taxpayer dollars. Ike understood that programs like Social Security and Minimum Wage were not only important financially to the country as a whole, but invested Americans with strength in themselves and hope in the future for their families.

 

Would you have voted for Ike? He just seems like so much more of a respectable, representative Republican candidate than Trump could ever hope to be. And there's nobody in the Republican party who even mentions Ike anymore. I thought he truly made being a Republican something proud. Why do Republicans dislike Ike so much, and why are they willing to follow someone like the Donald?

[rangerx]

I prefer Bernie over Hillary because he is not a criminal.

 

Last time I checked, there are no criminal charges whether standing or alleged regarding Hillary.

 

Fox News parrot much?

Edited February 25, 2016 by rangerx

[iNow]

Naw, that's not it. The PC fans are like having your mother kibitz on your conversation. Don't say butt say bottom dear. Don't say crap, say bowel movement or BM dear. It gets tiresome.

I empathize with your point, however, it's also tiresome not being able to throat punch stupid people at work or kidney punch rude people at the grocery store, but it's for good reason that such actions are shunned and regulated against in a modern well functioning society.

 

Also it's not just conservatives, its also comedians who are almost all liberals. Many comedians are boycotting college campuses. Can't offend the poor little darlings with a joke.

You've got this backward, mate. It's the university students boycotting the comedians and the comedians saying, "screw this, I'm tired of your pansy ass wussyfied bullshit all of the time," not the other way around.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/thats-not-funny/399335/

[mp][/mp]

Why do Republicans dislike Ike so much, and why are they willing to follow someone like the Donald?

The 91% tax rate and huge government investment in infrastructure when he built out the interstate highway system are anathema to modern republican mythology purity demands myopathy ideology.

[overtone]

@ overtone, Trump gets tons of free media. He doesn't need to spend money on ads. He is the headline across the board on every major media outlet. No amount of campaign spending can match what Trump is getting for free.

Sure. And he's been on Republican TV - Fox, etc - at least an hour or so every week for years now. That's a big advantage in a situation like the one coming up on Tuesday, where the candidates simply don't have enough time.

 

Meanwhile, polls are not very reliable here but they do have Trump leading every Super Tuesday State except possibly - only possibly - Texas and Arkansas, with his smallest indicated winning margin - 6 points over Rubio - in Minnesota. And he's much closer to beating Cruz in Texas than Rubio is to beating him for second - that's the biggest single prize, it's proportional, and Rubio is getting buried so far.

 

The good news is that Trump is not very close to the winner-take-all cutoffs in any large State, and only some of those delegates are to be awarded proportionately by district, so Rubio probably won't get shut out the way he did in South Carolina.

 

Here Trump is in Virginia snaffling off some more Cruz and - significantly - Carson votes:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02/24/ready-you-inspire-us-all-pat-robertson-to-trump-at-regent-university/?utm_source=TheBlaze.com&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=story&utm_content=ready-you-inspire-us-all-pat-robertson-to-trump-at-regent-university

 

Here's a calculator you can use to see the depth of the hole Rubio is in: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/writeup/the_gop_race_for_delegates_an_interactive_tool.html

 

 

 

Too bad Ford didn't win. Iran would have a Shah, there would be piece in the Middle East - -

The fairy tale world of the American wingnut is elaborate beyond belief.

 

It has one central principle: corporate authoritarian rightwing government always knows what it's doing, and never fucks up. Everything else is adjusted to support that as a central fact.

Edited February 25, 2016 by overtone

[Ten oz]

Sure. And he's been on Republican TV - Fox, etc - at least an hour or so every week for years now. That's a big advantage in a situation like the one coming up on Tuesday, where the candidates simply don't have enough time.

 

Meanwhile, polls are not very reliable here but they do have Trump leading every Super Tuesday State except possibly - only possibly - Texas and Arkansas, with his smallest indicated winning margin - 6 points over Rubio - in Minnesota. And he's much closer to beating Cruz in Texas than Rubio is to beating him for second - that's the biggest single prize, it's proportional, and Rubio is getting buried so far.

 

The good news is that Trump is not very close to the winner-take-all cutoffs in any large State, and only some of those delegates are to be awarded proportionately by district, so Rubio probably won't get shut out the way he did in South Carolina.

 

Bill Clintion lost the first 4 primaries in 1992. Did worse in them than Rubio has thus far done. Then Bill Clinton lost 6 of 7 on Super Tuesday. So In the first 11 races in 1992 Bill Clinton only won a single state but still became the nominee. The media is overstating precedence here because headlines about how great Trump is doing are much better click bait than the boring formalities of how primaries work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_1992

 

Rubio has thus far out performed his poll numbers. He was polling third with 18-19% in Nevada but cam in second with 24%. In SC Rubio was also polling third with 18% and finished second with 22%. So more support is there than is being reflected in the media and polls.

 

Primary polls shift fast. In 2004 Howard Dean went from viable contender for the nomination to laughing stock overnight. In 2012 Newt Gingrich won the SC primary with 40% and then saw all his support dry up. The early states are a circus. Daily polling, daily on the ground media blists, campaign rallies, center of the political universe for a day. Ultimately partisans vote in primaries. Whom every wins the primary general earns the support of every primary participant. People who support Howard Dean didn't vote for W Bush over Kerry. Primary voters coalesce behind a candidate once they understand who party (normal the establishment) wants. In this case Republicans has some mixed messages. The media is caling Trump unstoppable meanwhile the party itself is is saying no. Trump has no political endorsements or big money conservative supports. Trump just has a spell over the media. Trump has gotten more free air time than every other candidate put together.

 

Super Tuesday moves into states where we really don't know what is happening. Where there hasn't been the same level of polling or spending and spotlighting by the media. Normally the party takes charge at some point. The party normally controls the voting rules in a state and controls where there will be stations set up and determine how easy it will or won't be for a specific candidate to get their people to the polls. Does Trump have that ground game? Does he have the support and networking to ensure local officials in a place like Oklahoma support districts favorable to him with well staffed and accessible polling stations? That is the invisible side to this that we simple won't know until after.

 

The same media that has exaggerated Trumps success with exaggerate his failure. If Trump loses key states like VA, GA, TX, AR on Super Tuesday the media will pounce and Trump will get stuck in a negative cycle where ever outlet will be calling it a collaspe or a rejection. That will change a lot of things. How Trump responds will be his Howard Dean moment. Ultimately it is all nonsense. If Bill Clinton could lose 10 of the first 11 in 92' and still win the nomination obviously there is still a lot of race left and it is far too soon to know anything for sure. But in 92' there wasn't twitter, facebook, blogs, youtubers, and etc charging that the race was over and done after every primary loss. So what happens next isn't covered by any precedent.

[waitforufo]

 

Yeah, Ike was POTUS when I was born. Would you have voted for Ike? My father really liked him, but hated Nixon, and so became a Democrat when Nixon ran. He got to say I-told-you-so when Watergate happened.

 

Ike seemed to make it all work, and we had less extreme ends in prosperity, more people doing well all around. Even with his taxes and regulations of extreme wealth, business flourished and people could afford to buy the things they worked to make. Ike held to the Republican plank of NOT growing the federal government, and only one president has come close to being as tight-fisted as he was with taxpayer dollars. Ike understood that programs like Social Security and Minimum Wage were not only important financially to the country as a whole, but invested Americans with strength in themselves and hope in the future for their families.

 

Would you have voted for Ike? He just seems like so much more of a respectable, representative Republican candidate than Trump could ever hope to be. And there's nobody in the Republican party who even mentions Ike anymore. I thought he truly made being a Republican something proud. Why do Republicans dislike Ike so much, and why are they willing to follow someone like the Donald?

Sure I would have voted for Ike. I don't think things were rosy back then because of high taxes and regulation of extreme wealth however. We were the only truly industrial economy in the world at the time. That is why we were prosperous.

 

 

Last time I checked, there are no criminal charges whether standing or alleged regarding Hillary.

 

Fox News parrot much?

There are lots of criminals out there without standing criminal charges against them. I worked in the defense industry for some time and had security clearances. I saw peoples carriers ruined for simple mistakes regarding classified documents. Trivial in comparison to Hillary's private email. You would think a Yale lawyer would understand the security documents she signed. In a country of liberty and justice for all, all Americans should demand equal justice for Hillary. Also, we will likely never find out how much Hillary's lack of regard for classified documents and information is costing the american people. How many costly programs had to be shut down? How many operatives had to be recalled? That too will be considered secret. How many sources of secret information were killed? That too will be considered secret.

 

I never watch fox news or visit their website. Why is this fox news narrative to important to you? Why is it so important to liberals?

 

I empathize with your point, however, it's also tiresome not being able to throat punch stupid people at work or kidney punch rude people at the grocery store, but it's for good reason that such actions are shunned and regulated against in a modern well functioning society.

 

You've got this backward, mate. It's the university students boycotting the comedians and the comedians saying, "screw this, I'm tired of your pansy ass wussyfied bullshit all of the time," not the other way around.

The PC approach is not bringing people together. It is a path that will never unite us as a nation or improve us as a society.

 

The fairy tale world of the American wingnut is elaborate beyond belief.

 

It has one central principle: corporate authoritarian rightwing government always knows what it's doing, and never fucks up. Everything else is adjusted to support that as a central fact.

The fall of the Shah, a direct result of Carter foreign policy, has lead to nothing but disaster, suffering and death. Iran has suffered the most, but so has the entire middle east. Liberals simply can't admit his fact. So not being able to admit your screw ups seems to be a universal trait of human being and their political parties.

[imatfaal]

The fall of the Shah, a direct result of Carter foreign policy, has lead to nothing but disaster, suffering and death. Iran has suffered the most, but so has the entire middle east. Liberals simply can't admit his fact. So not being able to admit your screw ups seems to be a universal trait of human being and their political parties.

 

Well Ike has to take a huge part of the blame for that for the policies of the USA and the UK 20 years before. Iran had a democratically elected almost secularist prime-minister before the UK Secret Intelligence Service and the US CIA decided to put a spanner in the works. It is hard to find a UK or US foreign policy towards that part of the world which wasn't born in ignorance and greed and prosecuted with violence and hamfistedness

[neutrinosalad]

 

Last time I checked, there are no criminal charges whether standing or alleged regarding Hillary.

 

Fox News parrot much?

 

rangerx, the FBI is in the process of indicting Hillary Rodham Clinton over having extremely sensitive government information on a non-government server that she used for personal purposes.

 

This is all over the news.

 

She is a criminal and I hope she gets charged for her crimes.

[Phi for All]

Sure I would have voted for Ike. I don't think things were rosy back then because of high taxes and regulation of extreme wealth however. We were the only truly industrial economy in the world at the time. That is why we were prosperous.

 

I think the smart taxes and regs, coupled with the surge of industry and infrastructure projects, plus the promise of education for soldiers, the idea of uniting the States with highways, middle class tourism, and a whole slew of other things made possible by Ike's brilliant balance of foreign and domestic policy, are what makes the 50s an iconic time for many Republicans. It was a time when their values matched their leadership. It was a time when people had an overall better level of prosperity.

 

So I don't understand why so many would like to build on a foundation like that, but insist that today's Republican leadership has any interest in anything Eisenhower did to make this country great. It's almost like they're taking the best parts of Ike's work, removing them and replacing them with bigger government, world-policing, responsibility to corporate citizenship, and a preference for unmatched wealth at the expense of the lower and middle classes.

 

I hate to see Ike's party being represented by a clown balloon filled with hot air and empty promises.

[iNow]

Trump has no political endorsements or big money conservative supports.

This in no way subtracts from or displaces your core point, but he's just received two congressional endorsements: http://www.vox.com/2016/2/24/11109900/donald-trump-polls-endorsements-win

 

[/pedantry]

[waitforufo]

 

Well Ike has to take a huge part of the blame for that for the policies of the USA and the UK 20 years before. Iran had a democratically elected almost secularist prime-minister before the UK Secret Intelligence Service and the US CIA decided to put a spanner in the works. It is hard to find a UK or US foreign policy towards that part of the world which wasn't born in ignorance and greed and prosecuted with violence and hamfistedness

None the less, Carter could have kept it together and deliberately chose not to for his higher purpose. Disaster ensued.

 

 

rangerx, the FBI is in the process of indicting Hillary Rodham Clinton over having extremely sensitive government information on a non-government server that she used for personal purposes.

 

This is all over the news.

 

She is a criminal and I hope she gets charged for her crimes.

Judge Emmett Sullivan, a Bill Clinton appointee, has also ordered discovery on Hillary's state department skirting records laws regarding her email.

 

 

I think the smart taxes and regs, coupled with the surge of industry and infrastructure projects, plus the promise of education for soldiers, the idea of uniting the States with highways, middle class tourism, and a whole slew of other things made possible by Ike's brilliant balance of foreign and domestic policy, are what makes the 50s an iconic time for many Republicans. It was a time when their values matched their leadership. It was a time when people had an overall better level of prosperity.

 

So I don't understand why so many would like to build on a foundation like that, but insist that today's Republican leadership has any interest in anything Eisenhower did to make this country great. It's almost like they're taking the best parts of Ike's work, removing them and replacing them with bigger government, world-policing, responsibility to corporate citizenship, and a preference for unmatched wealth at the expense of the lower and middle classes.

 

I hate to see Ike's party being represented by a clown balloon filled with hot air and empty promises.

I too would hate to see Trump get the nomination, in large part because I would then have to vote for him. I do have to give Trump credit however for how he has run his campaign. Today the US is driven by advertisers seeking to create demand in targeted demographic groups coupled with the media creating programming to attract those targeted demographic groups in order to sell time to advertisers for a high price. So when the media finds that Trump plays the clown buffoon, more of the targeted demographic group watches, and the more advertisers pay the media, thus allowing Trump to campaign for free. It really is a brilliant masterstroke in politics. We just have to hope the targeted demographic turns off the media for showing Trump's buffoonery. Not likely.

[dimreepr]

I too would hate to see Trump get the nomination, in large part because I would then have to vote for him.

 

 

Now we start to see “America’s biggest problem”.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Now we start to see “America’s biggest problem”.

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

[iNow]

The PC approach is not bringing people together. It is a path that will never unite us as a nation or improve us as a society.

We'll have to disagree here. Of course such an approach of being more respectful and restrained in our reptilian brain responses during social interactions won't work in all situations at all times for all people, but it has without a shadow of a doubt brought us all closer together and made us better off in some fairly significant ways.

 

Whether one cites the integration and civil rights of blacks and gays and the LGBT community, womens suffrage, moving beyond hatred of Irish and Italian and related immigrants, and hopefully beyond scapegoating of those from Mexico or the muslim faith, or of no faith at all... Of course it improves us to move away from ignorant character attacks and irrelevant us/them tribal separations and related grouping/overt disrespect of humans based on such arbitrary and immature distinctions.

 

IMO, arguing otherwise is to dissociate completely with reality, and I say this all while acknowledging that of course some people will be turned off by such an inclusive and respect-based approach in the immediate term.

 

As I make this point, I'm reminded of this and the related parallels:

 

[dimreepr]

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

 

 

Even if they're correct?

[waitforufo]

We'll have to disagree here. Of course such an approach of being more respectful and restrained in our reptilian brain responses during social interactions won't work in all situations at all times for all people, but it has without a shadow of a doubt brought us all closer together and made us better off in some fairly significant ways.

 

Whether one cites the integration and civil rights of blacks and gays and the LGBT community, womens suffrage, moving beyond hatred of Irish and Italian and related immigrants, and hopefully beyond scapegoating of those from Mexico or the muslim faith, or of no faith at all... Of course it improves us to move away from ignorant character attacks and irrelevant us/them tribal separations and related grouping/overt disrespect of humans based on such arbitrary and immature distinctions.

 

IMO, arguing otherwise is to dissociate completely with reality, and I say this all while acknowledging that of course some people will be turned off by such an inclusive and respect-based approach in the immediate term.

 

As I make this point, I'm reminded of this and the related parallels:

 

Your mistake is believing the political correctness is inclusive. Instead it is divisive and designed to be so.

 

 

 

Even if they're correct?

Those that hold political offices should be upstanding citizens. That excludes criminals. Socialist are wrong.

[dimreepr]

Isn't fraud considered a criminal act?

 

[John Cuthber]

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

One of the reasons put forward for banning Mr Trump from the UK was that his views on race etc might be considered criminal here.

[iNow]

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

Those that hold political offices should be upstanding citizens. That excludes criminals.

Following your logic, you will be unable to vote for Trump either then due to his obvious and well documented ties to the Cosa Nostra family (and Felix Sater), the Genovese crime family, his demonstrated bribery in Atlantic City, and reliance on Nicademo “Little Nicky” Scarfo, the head of one of the bloodiest crime mobs in history and located in Philly, to execute his plans... Or due to how he was found guilty of conspiring to avoid paying obligated pension contributions of his workers, or defrauding buyers of his condo units, or any of the countless other activities that erase our ability to call him an "upstanding citizen" with a straight face.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how-close-was-donald-trump-to-the-mob/

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/27/nyregion/judge-says-trump-tower-builders-cheated-union-on-pension-funds.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trumpsoho-lawsuit-idUSTRE67232X20100803

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/trump-mob-mafia/

 

Or, will your hard-lined "I can't vote for a criminal" stance perhaps soften a bit if said criminal is on the republican side of the aisle? Will you perhaps focus on how many of these crimes are "alleged" all the while missing the delicious irony that the same protection of the word "alleged" applies equally to Hillary Clinton? Gosh, I wonder...

[rangerx]

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

Clinton has not been charged with anything. Four years of witch hunting by Fox News and mewling republicans does not make it so.

[John Cuthber]

Well, I can't have a criminal or a socialist win.

Come to think of it, there's nothing much you can do about it.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion that all the candidates are "criminals" in the sense that they all broke the speed limit while driving, of drank alcohol while under age or whatever. Technically, even without an accusation- never mind a conviction- they all committed some sort of crime.

 

So exactly what might you do to stop them winning?

Not a lot.

So, when it comes down to it the reply to

"I can't have a criminal or a socialist win. " is

"Oh yes you can!";

if that's what the elections say then that's what you get.

 

Of course, you can choose not to vote for anyone who you don't wish to support- that's your democratic right.

And, if you like you can turn up and write "none of the above" on the ballot paper (or whatever the electronic equivalent might be).

 

If you want to avoid voting for criminals or Socialists then, as has been pointed out, don't vote.

(or get a grip on what "socialist" actually means ans stop pretending that Clinton is one.)

[waitforufo]

Following your logic, you will be unable to vote for Trump either then due to his obvious and well documented ties to the Cosa Nostra family (and Felix Sater), the Genovese crime family, his demonstrated bribery in Atlantic City, and reliance on Nicademo “Little Nicky” Scarfo, the head of one of the bloodiest crime mobs in history and located in Philly, to execute his plans... Or due to how he was found guilty of conspiring to avoid paying obligated pension contributions of his workers, or defrauding buyers of his condo units, or any of the countless other activities that erase our ability to call him an "upstanding citizen" with a straight face.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/28/how-close-was-donald-trump-to-the-mob/

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/27/nyregion/judge-says-trump-tower-builders-cheated-union-on-pension-funds.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trumpsoho-lawsuit-idUSTRE67232X20100803

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/trump-mob-mafia/

 

Or, will your hard-lined "I can't vote for a criminal" stance perhaps soften a bit if said criminal is on the republican side of the aisle? Will you perhaps focus on how many of these crimes are "alleged" all the while missing the delicious irony that the same protection of the word "alleged" applies equally to Hillary Clinton? Gosh, I wonder...

I don't have the time to read your links right now but if I find Trump to be a criminal I won't vote for him. I do find it ironic however that the party of FDR and JFK would have any problem with politicians having links to organized crime. Doing legitimate business with organized crime members is not a crime. If it were, anyone who has their trash collected in much of New York and New Jersey would be a criminal. Loosing a tort case does not imply a criminal act.

 

Come to think of it, there's nothing much you can do about it.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion that all the candidates are "criminals" in the sense that they all broke the speed limit while driving, of drank alcohol while under age or whatever. Technically, even without an accusation- never mind a conviction- they all committed some sort of crime.

 

So exactly what might you do to stop them winning?

Not a lot.

So, when it comes down to it the reply to

"I can't have a criminal or a socialist win. " is

"Oh yes you can!";

if that's what the elections say then that's what you get.

 

Of course, you can choose not to vote for anyone who you don't wish to support- that's your democratic right.

And, if you like you can turn up and write "none of the above" on the ballot paper (or whatever the electronic equivalent might be).

 

If you want to avoid voting for criminals or Socialists then, as has been pointed out, don't vote.

(or get a grip on what "socialist" actually means ans stop pretending that Clinton is one.)

Well I stand corrected. I should have said "I can't participate in electing a criminal or a socialist." If the people want a criminal or a socialist it is their right. Also, by criminal most people would understand that to mean people who commit felonies, which is what I meant. When referring to the socialist, I was referring to Bernie Sanders not Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

[neutrinosalad]

The problem with the PC rhetoric is that the right see it to dismiss zenophobic and racist concerns, all the while being sensitive flowers bitching about the mean, unfair media.

 

Somehow, the irony is lost on the low information voters. Jimmy Dore said it well, The Trump supporters think the things Trump says, believing everyone thinks like them, but are being blocked by society from speaking the truth. They don't realize that they are racists and xenophobes, just that it isn't polite to talk about how inferior other people are.

 

Let me start off by saying that I believe in the principles of inclusion, egalitarianism, equal rights etc. Just as a safety measure here, I will have you know that my closest friends are second generation immigrants from Mexico and due to living in a large city, I have friends and acquaintances that cross almost all ethnic and racial boundaries. So if you want to brand me a racist for disagreeing with you, fine, but my lifestyle says otherwise.

 

The problem with modern progressivism is that it has transformed from its basic principles to promoting racism and sexism.

 

Let me show you one example of this, Black Lives Matter. Black Lives Matter has been actively promoted in the mainstream media as a "Civil Rights Group" even though they actively segregate white people from their meetings:

 

 

Black Lives Matter Nashville issued the following statement:

After several months of meeting at the North Branch library, on Wednesday (2/19), the Nashville Chapter of Black Lives Matter was contacted through email and by phone that

library administrators received complaints regarding BLM’s policy of general meetings being open to black and non-black people of color only.

Although meeting rooms are available to local organizations for use of a “cultural” nature, we were informed that “due to the library policy of open meetings for meeting room use,” all future meetings held at the library would be cancelled.”

 

They also berate white people purely on the basis that they are white and exist.

 

 

Protesters reportedly shouted “F– you, you filthy white f–-” “f– you and your comfort” and “f– you, you racist s–.”

“Throngs of protesters converged around fellow students who had not joined in their long march,” The Review reported. “They confronted students who bore ‘symbols of oppression’ such as ‘gangster hats’ and Beats-brand headphones. The flood of demonstrators opened the doors of study spaces with students reviewing for exams. Those who tried to close their doors were harassed further. One student abandoned the study room and ran out of the library. The protesters followed her out of the library, shouting obscenities the whole way.”

Men and women were pushed and shoved by the group, the newspaper claimed.

One woman was reportedly pinned to a wall by protesters who shouted “filthy white b–-” in her face.

 

These were students studying in a library.

 

Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/16/black-lives-matter-protesters-berate-white-student/

 

They have been courted by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They have been lifted up and promoted by mainstream media.

 

Progressives have promoted a group that clearly advocates for anti-white racism.

[rangerx]

 

They have been courted by Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They have been lifted up and promoted by mainstream media.

 

Progressives have promoted a group that clearly advocates for anti-white racism.

 

BS.

 

Here's a prime example of doubling down on stupid. Making shit up so as to be accusing the other of what one party is actually doing for real. The guilty dog always barks first.

 

Nope... I read back but didn't see where you've repudiated David Duke for his racist comments earlier today. Total hypocrisy demonstrated. Thank you.

 

And on the other point, Hillary has not been indicted, charged or found guilty of anything.

 

All you've been parroting is a witch hunt. Nothing more.

 

That is why conservatives will not run the continent again for a very long time.

 

And I laugh.

[iNow]

That is why conservatives will not run the continent again for a very long time.

Conservatives may struggle to win a national presidential election, but they're doing quite well in congress, state governorships, and legislatures.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/14/republicans-have-gained-more-than-900-state-legislative-seats-since-2010/

In the past three elections, Republicans have gained 913 state legislative seats

(snip)

Democratic losses between 2010 and 2014 amount to 12 percent of all state legislative seats nationwide.

 

As NCSL notes, Republicans now control more than 4,100 seats -- their highest number since 1920. After taking over 11 legislative chambers from Democrats in 2014, Republicans now control 30 state legislatures completely -- and have full control of state government (state legislature and governorship) in 23 states. Democrats, by contrast, have full control of 11 state legislatures and total control of state government in just seven states.