The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

[Smutly]

Are you actually pro-Trump, or do you just enjoy annoying people?

Yes.

Is there something you like about him other than he's not Hillary?

I like that he is Teflon to the typical Democrat tactic of calling everyone racist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, bigot, bible clutching, gun loving, science deniers.

Interesting that there's no denial that Trump is, in fact, a racist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, bigot, bible-clutching, gun loving, science denier.

The fact that he's all of the above and yet still in the race means he's "stigginit to the libs" and therefore all those traits are just a-ok.

I don't bother trying to convince this group otherwise, because the response would be predictable and lead no where -- but I promise you that there are those who vehemently disagree with that party line.

[Holman]

So... what should a party do when the opponent has made his supporter base feel good about expressing their racism loudly and aggressively? Or abandoned dog-whistle politics for overt appeals to hatred? Or legitimized fringe figures of the racist right by endorsing their views and even bringing them into the campaign?

[Smutly]

So... what should a party do when the opponent has made his supporter base feel good about expressing their racism loudly and aggressively? Or abandoned dog-whistle politics for overt appeals to hatred? Or legitimized fringe figures of the racist right by endorsing their views and even bringing them into the campaign?

Which party are you talking about?

[Enough]

So... what should a party do when the opponent has made his supporter base feel good about expressing their racism loudly and aggressively? Or abandoned dog-whistle politics for overt appeals to hatred? Or legitimized fringe figures of the racist right by endorsing their views and even bringing them into the campaign?

Which party are you talking about?

He might not bother trying to convince you otherwise, because the response would be predictable and lead no where -- but I promise you that there are those who vehemently disagree with that party line.

[tgb]

Nobody is saying that all Trump supporters are racists, homophobes, etc. But if you are a Deplorable, and you're throwing your support behind a major party candidate, who's it gonna be?

[Smutly]

So... what should a party do when the opponent has made his supporter base feel good about expressing their racism loudly and aggressively? Or abandoned dog-whistle politics for overt appeals to hatred? Or legitimized fringe figures of the racist right by endorsing their views and even bringing them into the campaign?

Which party are you talking about?

He might not bother trying to convince you otherwise, because the response would be predictable and lead no where -- but I promise you that there are those who vehemently disagree with that party line.

Disagree that there are racists on both sides, but likely not as large as the most vociferous on each side would have you believe?

[Smutly]

Nobody is saying that all Trump supporters are racists, homophobes, etc. But if you are a Deplorable, and you're throwing your support behind a major party candidate, who's it gonna be?

There are people in the Democratic party who make their livelihood stoking the flames of racism. There are extremists on both sides. To paint either party as racist is non-productive.

Those who are so quick to call Trump a racist or Islamaphobe do so at the peril of further angering those who are not racist but also do not agree with that statement. That's probably a significant group of would-be Trump voters...especially if the Democratic Party continues down that path. So, what should you do? Lay off calling Trump racist and beat him in policy debate. It doesn't make you look good. It makes you look smug and dickish. I'm saying that you're toying with a lever that is unnecessary to toy with however flush with excitement it may make you feel.

[Alefroth]

That lever is reserved for Republicans, amirite?

[Enough]

So... what should a party do when the opponent has made his supporter base feel good about expressing their racism loudly and aggressively? Or abandoned dog-whistle politics for overt appeals to hatred? Or legitimized fringe figures of the racist right by endorsing their views and even bringing them into the campaign?

Which party are you talking about?

He might not bother trying to convince you otherwise, because the response would be predictable and lead no where -- but I promise you that there are those who vehemently disagree with that party line.

Disagree that there are racists on both sides, but likely not as large as the most vociferous on each side would have you believe?

I was just sort of making light of how after you went off earlier about how being too smug, dickish and elitist is costing Hillary (I don't necessarily disagree) then moments later you let out this elitist tome that basically says I would explain it it to you but I'm all out of puppets and crayons. I do agree there are plenty of racists on both sides and I also agree with tgb that we can all make a pretty good guess on who most of them will be pulling the lever for in the election.

[hepcat]

The majority of Trump's supporters are most likely not racist, but the majority of racists are almost overwhelmingly Trump supporters.

[Smutly]

That lever is reserved for Republicans, amirite?

I'm saying use it at your own peril. It's not exactly a 'good feel' or 'bring us together' kind of rhetoric.

[Smutly]

So... what should a party do when the opponent has made his supporter base feel good about expressing their racism loudly and aggressively? Or abandoned dog-whistle politics for overt appeals to hatred? Or legitimized fringe figures of the racist right by endorsing their views and even bringing them into the campaign?

Which party are you talking about?

He might not bother trying to convince you otherwise, because the response would be predictable and lead no where -- but I promise you that there are those who vehemently disagree with that party line.

Disagree that there are racists on both sides, but likely not as large as the most vociferous on each side would have you believe?

I was just sort of making light of how after you went off earlier about how being too smug, dickish and elitist is costing Hillary (I don't necessarily disagree) then moments later you let out this elitist tome that basically says I would explain it it to you but I'm all out of puppets and crayons. I do agree there are plenty of racists on both sides and I also agree with tgb that we can all make a pretty good guess on who most of them will be pulling the lever for in the election.

The "don't bother" comment was not meant as elitist. It's just that I don't want to even try to have that discussion here. It's too hot of a subject (as in every other post mocks Trump as racist).

[Kraken]

That lever is reserved for Republicans, amirite?

I'm saying use it at your own peril. It's not exactly a 'good feel' or 'bring us together' kind of rhetoric.

That ship done sailed.

[Alefroth]

That lever is reserved for Republicans, amirite?

I'm saying use it at your own peril. It's not exactly a 'good feel' or 'bring us together' kind of rhetoric.

And I'm saying that no one ever warns Republicans to use the (demeaning, over broad generalization) lever at their own peril. It's their stock-in-trade, but no one ever says if you call all liberals anti-gun communists, you'll alienate them. Why is it Democrats need to tiptoe around Republican feelings?

[Holman]

Nobody is saying that all Trump supporters are racists, homophobes, etc. But if you are a Deplorable, and you're throwing your support behind a major party candidate, who's it gonna be?

There are people in the Democratic party who make their livelihood stoking the flames of racism. There are extremists on both sides. To paint either party as racist is non-productive.

Those who are so quick to call Trump a racist or Islamaphobe do so at the peril of further angering those who are not racist but also do not agree with that statement. That's probably a significant group of would-be Trump voters...especially if the Democratic Party continues down that path. So, what should you do? Lay off calling Trump racist and beat him in policy debate. It doesn't make you look good. It makes you look smug and dickish. I'm saying that you're toying with a lever that is unnecessary to toy with however flush with excitement it may make you feel.

I think you're using false equivalence to score very small points when the big picture couldn't be clearer.

I'm not someone who sees racism behind every GOP social policy. If I suggested that George W. Bush or Mitt Romney stoked racism or xenophobia on the right, you would have a case for complaining that I was overplaying the card.

But this is Donald Trump, whose campaign is directly responsible for making openly racist aggression acceptable under the GOP tent. His rallies routinely end with a parade of racial slurs directed at protesters in the parking lot. He has attacked people purely on the basis of their race or their religion. His campaign is the only reason most people even know the neo-white-supremacist "alt right" is a thing, and now they're not only out of the shadows but have press credentials and a representative literally organizing Trump's campaign.

Do you really believe Clinton's campaign is stoking racism or xenophobia? How so? While there are surely Democrats who are racists, the Clinton campaign isn't catering to them in any way. (In fact we've probably lost most of their votes to Trump already.) I'm sure you see that calling actual racism racism isn't a slur, so you must believe the charge isn't justified.

I get that you don't like Clinton, but you're arguing that there is no significant racism, xenophobia, sexism, or similar bigoted ugliness in Trump's campaign, or none that isn't matched by Clinton's. That's really quite a stand to take.

[Smutly]

That lever is reserved for Republicans, amirite?

I'm saying use it at your own peril. It's not exactly a 'good feel' or 'bring us together' kind of rhetoric.

And I'm saying that no one ever warns Republicans to use the (demeaning, over broad generalization) lever at their own peril. It's their stock-in-trade, but no one ever says if you call all liberals anti-gun communists, you'll alienate them. Why is it Democrats need to tiptoe around Republican feelings?

I'm only referring to the racism lever. Have at the others.

[Smutly]

Nobody is saying that all Trump supporters are racists, homophobes, etc. But if you are a Deplorable, and you're throwing your support behind a major party candidate, who's it gonna be?

There are people in the Democratic party who make their livelihood stoking the flames of racism. There are extremists on both sides. To paint either party as racist is non-productive.

Those who are so quick to call Trump a racist or Islamaphobe do so at the peril of further angering those who are not racist but also do not agree with that statement. That's probably a significant group of would-be Trump voters...especially if the Democratic Party continues down that path. So, what should you do? Lay off calling Trump racist and beat him in policy debate. It doesn't make you look good. It makes you look smug and dickish. I'm saying that you're toying with a lever that is unnecessary to toy with however flush with excitement it may make you feel.

I think you're using false equivalence to score very small points when the big picture couldn't be clearer.

I'm not someone who sees racism behind every GOP social policy. If I suggested that George W. Bush or Mitt Romney stoked racism or xenophobia on the right, you would have a case for complaining that I was overplaying the card.

But this is Donald Trump, whose campaign is directly responsible for making openly racist aggression acceptable under the GOP tent. His rallies routinely end with a parade of racial slurs directed at protesters in the parking lot. He has attacked people purely on the basis of their race or their religion. His campaign is the only reason most people even know the neo-white-supremacist "alt right" is a thing, and now they're not only out of the shadows but have press credentials and a representative literally organizing Trump's campaign.

Do you really believe Clinton's campaign is stoking racism or xenophobia? How so? While there are surely Democrats who are racists, the Clinton campaign isn't catering to them in any way. (In fact we've probably lost most of their votes to Trump already.) I'm sure you see that calling actual racism racism isn't a slur, so you must believe the charge isn't justified.

I get that you don't like Clinton, but you're arguing that there is no significant racism, xenophobia, sexism, or similar bigoted ugliness in Trump's campaign, or none that isn't matched by Clinton's. That's really quite a stand to take.

I disagree with many of your 'facts' including routine racism chants at the ends of his rallies. That's just stupid. If you want to point one out at a Republican rally I'm sure I can find another one at a Democratic rally. Just because alt right (and, really, people are just learning about alt right groups because of Donald Trump?) people agree with his position because they are racists doesn't mean that his basis is racist. They are not the same. Anyone who has a problem with illegal immigrants or who wants to take a closer look at foreigners (non-Americans) who want to immigrate is considered a racist by Democrats when there are many who consider it to be an American legal issue in the former (saying nothing about illegal immigrants' role in the US economy -- which is a separate issue) and a prudent one in the latter to protect Americans (and not unprecedented -- even by past Democratic presidents). So, calling him racist on this basis doesn't hold water for a lot of people. There are principled people -- with high morals and ethics -- who are being called racists by Democrats and, if they are on the fringe -- will get pushed to Trump.

[Holman]

You're still basically arguing that racism and xenophobia aren't a significant factor in Trump's campaign. What we've seen all along, though, is that he has built a huge amount of his appeal on the promise of hurting people a racist/xenophobic audience wants hurt, either economically or otherwise.

I'm sure there are plenty of high-minded, ethical people in Trump's camp, but they're not reflected in his pitch, and his pitch is all we've had to go on. Calling him racist and xenophobic on the basis of his racism and xenophobia is justified. Calling it out feels weird because this is the first time we've seen it done so overtly by a major candidate. But that's exactly why we should call it out.

Consider homophobia as a parallel. Trump himself isn't particularly homophobic, but other sectors of the GOP have been on a legislative crusade against gay rights and in favor of homophobic bigotry in the name of "religious freedom." Is it wrong to call that what it is even if it might offend those who aren't as rabid as the Family Research Council?

Of course the joke here is Trump being up in arms about the possible insult being delivered to his supporters by calling some of them racist. Meanwhile, Trump has made insult the rhetorical backbone of his campaign.

[Captain Caveman]

I mean, his political rise began with the birther movement, and he launched his campaign calling illegal immigrants rapists and criminals. He has almost no policy positions, but two of his most prominent are building a wall and banning Muslims. His campaign is now run by the head of Brietbart news, which is home to alt right viewpoints and even has a "Black Crime" tab. He's retweeted white supremacists and anti-Semitic memes. I mean, really... if he's not appealing to racism, than racism isn't a thing.

[Smutly]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Trump as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Help me, Gary Johnson, you're my only hope.

[Blackhawk]

I don't hate Trump. I fear Trump.

HRC is four (or eight) more years of the same mess we've had for decadtes. Trump is a nightmare, and a humiliatingly self-inflicted one at that.

[Alefroth]

What will be funny is once Drumpf gets decimated elected, how fast Republicans will disavow proselytize themselves. Before the polls even close.

Mortoned.

Are you actually pro-Trump, or do you just enjoy annoying people?

I think he's hoping to see the country crash around him. Level the playing field and all.

[Grifman]

Interesting that there's no denial that Trump is, in fact, a racist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, bigot, bible-clutching, gun loving, science denier.

I don't think Trump has clutched a Bible in his entire life. If he has, he certainly never opened it

[YellowKing]

Take Trump out of the equation - I live in a state where the Republican party has twice tried to legislate discrimination and gotten slapped on the hand for it. Once with HB2, which was passed in direct response to a Charlotte ordinance literally banning discrimination, and once with their redistricting effort against African-American voters.

I used to rail against the Democrats who stoked the fires of racism, and there are some who will play the race card even if one isn't there. But that doesn't change the fact that there are very real laws the GOP is trying like mad in my state to pass to discriminate against both race and sexual orientation.

I would not leave a party I've belonged to for 22 years over Democratic pot-stirrers or "liberal media." This is real stuff that has impacted real-life friends of mine. And it's openly supported by the state's GOP.

Now you can argue that those hillbilly GOP politicians down in NC don't represent the wider Republican party, but all it takes is one look at the party platform and you know that's not true. All it takes is to look at some of the comments made by their NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT and you know that's not true.

We can't allow that kind of thinking to become the new norm for the Republican party, and all the Republicans out there that are not racist and not biased should be doing everything in their power to make sure Trump is NOT elected. Because that way lies madness, and the death of the party. Because as history has shown, bias never wins in the long run. In this country, we always progress towards equality, even if the road is long and bumpy. That path is doomed to fail.

George W. Bush recently said that he feared he'd be the last Republican president, and I think that could be very true if the party continues down this road. Sometimes you have to lose the battle to win the war, but instead the GOP seems determined to die on this hill.

[geezer]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Trump as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Help me, Gary Johnson, you're my only hope.

The fact that you don't hate Trump as much as you hate Hillary is weird. He's everything people throw at Hillary, and then some. He lies more, withholds more personal information (tax and medical records), has foreign business ties that indicate massive conflicts of interest, and his foundation appears to be far more slimy than the Clintons (albeit massively less successful). Top it all off with the fact that he's embraced the alt-right and... It's really sort of absurd, especially for a Johnson voter.

[gilraen]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things

Do we also have to provide you with a definition of why we think the sky is blue? Or can we just hand you a dictionary?

[malchior]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Drumpf as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Except this whole line is complete junk food for thought. Saying that his supporters don't recognize their own racism? Who cares? The people who can't see the obvious racism are not the people who are going to be won over. She wasn't speaking to them. And that is a good thing because it is a waste of time.

[Smutly]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Trump as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Help me, Gary Johnson, you're my only hope.

The fact that you don't hate Trump as much as you hate Hillary is weird. He's everything people throw at Hillary, and then some. He lies more, withholds more personal information (tax and medical records), has foreign business ties that indicate massive conflicts of interest, and his foundation appears to be far more slimy than the Clintons (albeit massively less successful). Top it all off with the fact that he's embraced the alt-right and... It's really sort of absurd, especially for a Johnson voter.

Betrayal of the public trust. This, above all things, makes me despise the Clintons. I'm one of the 'weird' people here who wants to hold those who hold public office accountable for their sins. I believe I have a responsibility to try to keep these people out of office. I can't ignore it or say "it's just politics". It's evil and a betrayal.

Trump is a businessman. I know what to expect from him. He did it in the private sector. BUT, he wasn't representing the public trust when he did it.

I've said this before...

[Smutly]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Drumpf as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Except this whole line is complete junk food for thought. Saying that his supporters don't recognize their own racism? Who cares? The people who can't see the obvious racism are not the people who are going to be won over. She wasn't speaking to them. And that is a good thing because it is a waste of time.

It's a political strategy statement. Who cares? They care. Even if you're right (which I don't think you are), Hillary will pay a price in losing the fringe voters who are in the category I described. It's not that difficult of a concept.

[Smutly]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things

Do we also have to provide you with a definition of why we think the sky is blue? Or can we just hand you a dictionary?

I've found this board much more tolerable by adding people who make these kinds of comments to my ignore list. It's also a little satisfying seeing those people respond immediately to my posts knowing that I won't be reading their snarky comments.

[Skinypupy]

I'm challenging your basis of his racism and xenophobia. I'm pointing out that others don't buy into your definition of those things (of course, pretty much everyone on this forum would agree with you). I'm saying that assuming everyone has the same definition as you would be a terrible mistake by the Democratic campaign. If you don't want to lose potential votes for HRC, then you might consider a different strategy.

I get it. You guys hate Trump as much as I hate Hillary. I'm just trying to point out something that I don't think you guys see. I'm not asking you to change how you think or feel because I don't think that is possible. Just food for thought.

Help me, Gary Johnson, you're my only hope.

The fact that you don't hate Trump as much as you hate Hillary is weird. He's everything people throw at Hillary, and then some. He lies more, withholds more personal information (tax and medical records), has foreign business ties that indicate massive conflicts of interest, and his foundation appears to be far more slimy than the Clintons (albeit massively less successful). Top it all off with the fact that he's embraced the alt-right and... It's really sort of absurd, especially for a Johnson voter.

Betrayal of the public trust. This, above all things, makes me despise the Clintons. I'm one of the 'weird' people here who wants to hold those who hold public office accountable for their sins. I believe I have a responsibility to try to keep these people out of office. I can't ignore it or say "it's just politics". It's evil and a betrayal.

Trump is a businessman. I know what to expect from him. He did it in the private sector. BUT, he wasn't representing the public trust when he did it.

I've said this before...

And I'm sure that sentiment applies equally for you across the political spectrum, and you're not just demanding that Hillary Clinton - specifically and only - be held responsible for her sins, right? (Whether those "sins" are real or GOP fever dreams is discussion for another time, I suppose.)

On that basis, I guess I can see why you would consider Trump the better option. Since Trump has never held public office, he's never had the opportunity to commit these "sins" of public trust betrayal...even though most of his private sector dealings are equal or worse in scope.

[Skinypupy]

Interesting that there's no denial that Trump is, in fact, a racist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, bigot, bible-clutching, gun loving, science denier.

I don't think Trump has clutched a Bible in his entire life. If he has, he certainly never opened it

In my defense, I was mostly just quoting Rip for effect.

[malchior]

It's a political strategy statement. Who cares? They care. Even if you're right (which I don't think you are), Hillary will pay a price in losing the fringe voters who are in the category I described. It's not that difficult of a concept.

It is not that it is difficult concept. It is that there is absolutely no evidence that there is some material fringe that thinks what he is saying is not racist and also would be offended that she said that it is. However there is plenty of actual evidence that people just simply don't like her and these type of comments are generally negative and turn people off even when said by liked people.

[ImLawBoy]

Betrayal of the public trust. This, above all things, makes me despise the Clintons. I'm one of the 'weird' people here who wants to hold those who hold public office accountable for their sins. I believe I have a responsibility to try to keep these people out of office. I can't ignore it or say "it's just politics". It's evil and a betrayal.

Trump is a businessman. I know what to expect from him. He did it in the private sector. BUT, he wasn't representing the public trust when he did it.

I've said this before...

What do you think about Trump's charity shenanigans? While he's not a public office holder, he's clearly using his public stature to build up his charity. If even half of what folks are saying about his charity is true, would you agree that that's a betrayal of public trust, even if it's a slightly different flavor of public trust?

[Zarathud]

Trump isn't going to change his stripes -- he has already betrayed the public trust.

* The Trump Foundation admitted that it lied on its tax returns about its 2013 gift to the Florida Attorney General, and paid a penalty on an amended tax return. The payment violated a fundamental rule that charities can't make campaign contributions.
* Trump even celebrated his history of using campaign contributions as bribes -- because "when you write the check, you get what you want and they kiss your ass."
* Trump tried to lie and cheat veterans with his Republican primary debate stunt about raising money for veterans. No checks were written until the media caught him in the act. The checks came from a few political donors days before checks started to go out.
* Trump lies with every speech, then doubles down on those lies when it causes controversy. It doesn't matter that his lies are easily proven. He's going to release his tax returns and medical records, but now he isn't.
* Trump cheats those who he does business with. He even cheats those who have helped him in his campaign.
* Trump survives by stoking suspicious of public institutions -- the media, the government, an even the voting system. Every time he's in trouble, Trump shifts the blame to someone else with some new stunt.

You can ignore the evidence (and everyone on this forum) as long as you want, but it's there right in front of your face.

[Holman]

Betrayal of the public trust. This, above all things, makes me despise the Clintons. I'm one of the 'weird' people here who wants to hold those who hold public office accountable for their sins. I believe I have a responsibility to try to keep these people out of office. I can't ignore it or say "it's just politics". It's evil and a betrayal.

"Evil" and "betrayal" are literally the strongest words we can use for any politician anywhere.

But years of history's best-funded investigations by the country's most powerful and most extremely motivated investigators have turned up nothing. When I go looking on right-wing sites for the worst things Clinton has done, the accusations become very vague.

An outside observer would assume hyperbole, perhaps even some sort of derangement syndrome.

[tgb]

Seriously, Gabe?

[Smoove_B]

What do you think about Trump's charity shenanigans? While he's not a public office holder, he's clearly using his public stature to build up his charity. If even half of what folks are saying about his charity is true, would you agree that that's a betrayal of public trust, even if it's a slightly different flavor of public trust?

Yeah, I'm having a hard time sorting through this. I can totally and completely understand the assessment of Hillary Clinton. I don't agree with it, but I understand how the dots were connected. Saying that Trump is somehow a "better" choice because he hasn't been elected or held public office yet is blowing my mind. If there was a CEO or CFO of a major corporation that was found to have embezzled money or taken kickbacks on contracts they're better suited to elected office because they did so as part of a business/private practice and not as an elected official?

Again, I totally understand that public figures should be held to a standard and 100% agree that abuse of the public trust needs to be punished. But there's no planet where I would want an individual that is comfortable with corporate /private sector shenanigans elected to a position of political power. The fact that there is already significant intermixing of politicians/lobbyists/private sector figures (where they leave one sector and jump into another) should tell you all that you need to know about anyone involved.

[YellowKing]

Not to mention how cozy he seemingly is with Russia. Jesus. It boggles my mind the number of double standards that are being applied.

Then look at statements like this:

Having successfully obtained President Obama's birth certificate when others could not, Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States," said Jason Miller, Trump's senior communications adviser.

What??? I swear the PR coming out of his campaign sounds like something coming out of North Korea. Who actually believes this stuff? "When others could not?" What the hell does that mean?

[Unagi]

Jason is an ax murderer. I know what to expect from him. He did it in the private sector. BUT, he wasn't representing the public trust when he did it.