(August 4, 2017 at 9:43 pm)Court Jester Wrote: Well, let's hope that he succeeds then.

Um, yeah.

(August 4, 2017 at 8:23 pm)Shell B Wrote: There is a difference between being racist and being a "general bigot," which I say in this case to mean nationalism of a sort. I haven't seen anything that says he hates this or that race. Maybe he hates Mexicans who are immigrants, but doesn't hate Mexican-Americans. You know what I mean? It's an important distinction if meaningless in terms of his personality.

You're right, I don't listen much. He wasn't my candidate. I ruled him out early in, so there wasn't much less to know. What I do know mostly comes from late night comedy.

Immigration dragnets rule out that possibility.  A guy who has even the slightest shred of respect and affords just a modicum of dignity for mexican americans doesn;t seek, by executive order, to make walking while brown a stop and friskable offense.

-and that;s one of the things his supporters just love. They've all swallowed the haterade.

Similarly, his trans ban is meant to elecit cheers from the bigoted set...and even in this thread, we haven't found a trumpster that hasn;t at least -tried- to find a way to support it. They go out of their way to be the douche, even if it seems like it's a stretch for them. Clearly, there's something about this sort of shit that appeals to them, and the most generous assessment possible is that they might be self unaware, but not that they're any less bigoted than dear leader. Any less racist, than dear leader. He sets the baseline and they buy in with their support. Granted, they may not all be David Duke, but again I'd call that splitting hairs- in that being less racist than some other racist doesn't make one less than racist.

I;ve been wondering, pretty much since he got elected, why we're so casual with other designations..like trump and trump supporters being sexists, idiots, counter interest voters, etc - but then we balk when that one designation, so apparent in his platform and support, get;s brought up? It's like we're allergic to the word, lol. IDK, maybe we don't want to think our peers and loved ones are filthy racists to such a vast extent? Wish in one hand, shit in the other, right?

I'd be just as casual with calling him a racist if I'd seen him be racist. I don't think anyone's been balking at that. Loads of people think he's racist. It's probably only a matter of time before I do too.

(August 4, 2017 at 11:29 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

Quote:..someone like Trump, with a history of racism that brought on legal issues for him.

What legal issues?
I've heard The Don say on TV to rapturous applause- "Whether we're black, white or brown, we all bleed the same red blood", that don't sound racist to me..
As for the transgender thing, I'm surprised Don thinks it's important. Surely the only important thing is whether a GLBT is a bloody good soldier, sailor or airman?

The problem isn't the people, it's their sense of entitlement. If government health care has to provide expensive hormone therapy in support of a soldier's "right" to self-select a gender identity, then that's a problem.

(August 4, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 6:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: For example, some people see Hilary as a killer, not just a corrupt/lying politician.

Which is a whole 'nother aspect of stupidity, given that they had scads of evidence for Trump's bigotry, but not one shred for Killary. I think that double-standard says something about what they prefer to overlook and what they prefer to focus on. In this case, they clearly chose to overlook Trump's bigotry in favor of focusing on oft-debunked bullshit.

That, too speaks to their acceptance of bigotry. They would believe Pizzagate but disregard "Mexicans are rapists", "ban all Muslims", and so on.

It wasn't just Bengazi. It was her support of abortion including late term. I know at least a few people who voted for Trump for that reason.

(August 6, 2017 at 9:09 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(August 4, 2017 at 7:53 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Which is a whole 'nother aspect of stupidity, given that they had scads of evidence for Trump's bigotry, but not one shred for Killary. I think that double-standard says something about what they prefer to overlook and what they prefer to focus on. In this case, they clearly chose to overlook Trump's bigotry in favor of focusing on oft-debunked bullshit.

That, too speaks to their acceptance of bigotry. They would believe Pizzagate but disregard "Mexicans are rapists", "ban all Muslims", and so on.

It wasn't just Bengazi. It was her support of abortion including late term. I know at least a few people who voted for Trump for that reason.

One -issue voting is ridiculous. Especially THAT one issue.

(August 6, 2017 at 9:01 am)bennyboy Wrote: The problem isn't the people, it's their sense of entitlement.  If government health care has to provide expensive hormone therapy in support of a soldier's "right" to self-select a gender identity, then that's a problem.

Well the military spends 10 times more on erectile dysfunction pills and a ton more on acne medication, so If your looking to cut the fat on healthcare spending there are other things that you could easily single out. Besides if healthcare spending was the sole issue, then why not just remove the hormone therapy from the coverage, why do trans-gendered people have to be banned all together.

I don't have a problem with hormone therapy. But the surgery does seem like a big liability. Not only financially, but because it makes the person unemployable for a pretty long time.

(August 6, 2017 at 9:37 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I don't have a problem with hormone therapy. But the surgery does seem like a big liability. Not only financially, but because it makes the person unemployable for a pretty long time.

It's really not, they say that fewer than 0.1% of trans-gendered military personnel actually pursue treatments that delay their deployment and that the cost of treating all trans-gendered personnel annually (including surgeries) only amounts to a total between 4 and 5 million, which is nothing considering the military budget for healthcare is 47 billion. There are much greater healthcare expenditures that could be addressed, which is why this ban has nothing to with healthcare costs and everything to do with attacking trans-gendered people.